Imagine what the Left would be saying if President Obama was a Republican

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 7th, 2013

Politics 101

President Obama added more to the Federal Debt in 4 Years than Reagan and Bush did in 8 Years

The Left hated Republican Ronald Reagan.  Because his policies worked.  He cut federal income tax rates.  And those cuts in tax rates increased tax revenue coming into the federal treasury by 75.8% during his 8 years in office (see Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2017).  Even though the Left likes spending money and loves having more money flowing into the treasury they can’t stand that this growth in tax revenue came from a cut in tax rates.  So they focus on his deficits.

They say, yes, he generated great economic activity, but at what cost?  He added $1.69 trillion to the federal debt (see A History of Debt In The United States) in his 8 years ($2.51 trillion in 2012 dollars).  The Left say he was irresponsible, reckless and was mortgaging our children’s future.  While President Obama has added $5.39 trillion to the federal debt.  In only FOUR years.  That’s just over twice what Reagan added in only half the time.  On top of that tax revenue fell 2.19% from where they were in 2008.  Yet President Obama is not irresponsible, reckless or mortgaging our children’s future.  Instead the Left blames the Republicans because they won’t increase tax rates.

Republican George W. Bush added $3.15 trillion to the federal debt over his 8 years.  President Obama’s 4 years in office outdid that by 1.7 times.  And Bush beefed up homeland security after 9/11.  Fought the War in Afghanistan.  And the Iraq War.  Bush cut taxes, too.  Not as much as Reagan.  Probably explaining why he didn’t increase tax revenues as much as Reagan.  After his 8 years in office he increased tax revenues by 24.6%.  While President Obama decreased tax revenue by 2.19% after his first 4 years in office.  Yet George W. Bush was irresponsible, reckless and mortgaging our children’s future.  While President Obama is not.

President Obama vowed to Shut Down Gitmo and try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a U.S. Court

The Left really hated George W. Bush.  They didn’t just want to impeach him.  They wanted to arrest him for war crimes for his invasion of Iraq.  Among other things.  They called him every dirty name in the book.  Even accused him of trying to give himself dictatorial powers.  Which is what the Patriot Act did according to the Left.  There are few things that angered the Left more.  They hated the powers it gave the president in the War on Terror.  Even allowing warrantless wiretaps on Americans.

If an American citizen was talking to someone with known terrorist connections the Bush administration didn’t need to go to a judge.  They could just listen into private phone calls like in any other dictatorship.  The Patriot Act was everything that was wrong with George W. Bush.  And his assault on personal liberties.  But when President Obama renewed the Patriot Act the Left did not call President Obama every dirty name in the book.  Or accuse him of trying to amass dictatorial powers.  After he renewed the Patriot Act all criticism of the Patriot Act just went away.  Just as the daily body count in the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan went away from the network news broadcasts once President Obama moved into the White House.

As the War on Terror progressed the U.S. started taking terrorists into captivity.  People who wore no uniform.  Who fought for no state signatory to the Geneva Convention.  Who followed no rules.  And killed indiscriminately.  Men.  Women.  Even children.  The U.S. incarcerated these most dangerous outlaws on the island of Cuba.  At Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.  Gitmo.  Including the mastermind of 9/11.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  The Left called this a travesty of justice.  They wanted to shut down Gitmo.  Transfer these men to U.S. prisons in the United States.  And give them proper trials.  They even wanted to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City.  Not far from Ground Zero.  For these prisoners in Gitmo deserved the full protection of the American criminal justice system.  Not military tribunals.  President Obama vowed to shut down Gitmo if elected.  And give these outlaws the full protection of the U.S. legal system.

President Obama acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner when Targeting and Killing Americans Abroad

But that’s not the only thing the war criminal George W. Bush did.  He also tortured people.  He water boarded three terrorists.  And held people in foreign countries where they did who knows what to these terrorists.  To gather intelligence.  To help the U.S. interdict terrorist strikes against America.  And to ultimately lead us to Osama bin Laden.  But to the Left these things were just beyond the pale.  Crimes against humanity.  They wanted to do to Bush what Bush was doing to these terrorists.  They even applauded when foreign states issued arrest warrants for George W. Bush should he travel to their countries.  President Obama was going to reverse the damage Bush did to the reputation of the U.S.  And make America the law-abiding nation it once was.

It’s now 2013 and Gitmo is still open.  And those terrorists are still there.  Also, they’re being tried in military tribunals.  Not the American criminal justice system.  Yet the Left doesn’t call President Obama a war criminal.  Terrorist incarcerations are down, too.  Thanks to his policy of drone strikes.  And his kill list.  Instead of capturing terrorists he just kills them.  Without a trial.  Along with any innocent civilians who had the misfortune to be near these terrorists during these drone strikes.  Who are identified as terrorists after the fact.  So his drone strikes don’t kill any innocent civilians.  Not taking prisoners solves the problems of what to do with terrorists in American custody.  But dead terrorists can’t give us intelligence that can interdict future terror strikes.  While dead terrorists and dead innocent civilians incite anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.  That has led to al Qaeda recruitment.  And attacks on U.S. embassies.

But President Obama is doing something that George W. Bush never did.  While the Left attacked the Bush administration for their legal defense of enhanced interrogation techniques (what the Left calls torture) the Obama administration had a legal defense of their own.  But it wasn’t to justify water boarding three terrorists to gain useful intelligence.  It was for killing Americans in foreign countries who MAY present a threat to the U.S.   Which he has done.  Three times.  Without due process.  Where the president acted as judge, jury and executioner.  Like someone with dictatorial powers.  Yet the Left doesn’t call President Obama a war criminal.  Despite doing a lot of the same things George W. Bush did.  And worse.  Like targeting and killing Americans abroad.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hope, Fear and Lies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 13th, 2012

Politics 101

The Founding Fathers were Gentlemen of the Enlightenment with Sound Philosophical Beliefs

Politicians have to win elections.  They have to persuade and convince people to vote for them.  Once upon a time that meant vigorous debate where candidates explained why their way was the better way.  Going right back to the Founding.  Where Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson bitterly contested each other’s vision for the country.  And the debate often got dirty.  Such as when Hamilton’s political enemies exposed his extramarital affair with the con-woman Mrs. Reynolds who seduced Hamilton with the purpose of blackmailing him.  Who wanted to use this information to say he was involved in a bigger scheme with Mr. Reynolds in defrauding the federal government.

Treasury Secretary Hamilton met three gentlemen of the political opposition in private.  Admitting to his affair.  And proved beyond a shadow of doubt that all money paid to the blackmailers came from Hamilton’s private funds.  Not a penny came from the Treasury Department.  According to 18th century gentlemanly behavior the matter was closed.  The affair was a personal matter.  It would be imprudent to make it a public issue.  But upon Hamilton’s retirement a bitter political enemy leaked this information to a scandalmonger.  James Callender.  Who wrote a book exposing this private matter.  The History of the United States for the Year 1796.  Jefferson had helped to finance Callender.  And reveled in Hamilton’s scandal.  But when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.  And Jefferson did.  For Callender published articles confirming rumors that Jefferson had fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings.

Politics then were just as dirty as they are today.  And often crossed the line.  But underneath all the scandals and mudslinging there were philosophical principles.  They did these things for principle.  For they feared the opposition and what their policies would do the fledgling nation.  There was political patronage and political corruption.  But above that was a battle of competing political ideology.  Waged by men well read in history.  Familiar with John Locke.  And Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu.  Icons of the Enlightenment.  Whose philosophies can be found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  These Founding Fathers were rich propertied men.  Established in their careers.  Who had little left to prove.  These gentlemen of the Enlightenment did what they did not for money or political favor.  So they could live a more comfortable life.   They did these things out of principle.  Based on sound philosophical beliefs.

The Democrats try to Scare the Bejesus out of People to Get and Keep the Republicans out of Office

It’s not like that anymore.  Instead of rich successful people entering politics for selfless reasons people of no accomplishments enter politics to become rich and powerful.  Who have no principles.  Who will buy and sell anyone to remain in power.  Of course they don’t campaign by saying this.  Instead, their campaigns are based on hopes and fears.  And the telling a lot of lies.  With little principle.  Or sound philosophical beliefs.

In 2008 President Obama campaigned on hope and change.  To get away from the partisan politics of the past.  Democrats continue to peddle hope.  Health care for everyone.  College degrees for everyone.  High-paying green jobs and energy independence.  A return of manufacturing jobs.  Spending our way out of recession with Keynesian stimulus spending.  A bigger social safety net.  Talking to our enemies instead of going to war with them.  And making them like us by resolving all of our differences with diplomacy.  That we can have whatever we want.  If only we got the Republicans out of office.

While at the same time the Democrats try to scare the bejesus out of people if we don’t get and keep the Republicans out of office.  For the Republicans want to take away birth control and abortion from women.  And keep them from being independent and having careers.  The poor will remain poor.  The rich will get richer.  And the hungry will die.  Slavery will be reinstituted.  The Republicans will tax the middle class more so they can give tax breaks to rich corporations.  They will burden the nation with massive deficits with their tax cuts for the rich.  Global warming will continue unchecked.  Our drinking water will be polluted.  And our atmosphere will become poisonous to breathe.  All because Republicans put profit before people.

The Left tells a lot of Lies to Win Elections because all they have are Failed Keynesian Economic Policies

Republicans, on the other hand, peddle the hope that we can return to the prosperity of Ronald Reagan.  By cutting tax rates.  For throughout U.S. history whenever the government cut tax rates prosperity followed.  As well as flooded the treasury with tax dollars.  For contrary to the fear peddling of the Democrats cuts in tax rates have historically increased tax revenue.  And can again.  As Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1984, it can be Morning in America again.  We can be prouder, stronger and better.

While at the same time Republicans like to scare people with national security issues.  The Clinton administration handled terrorist attacks against America in the courts.  Which emboldened America’s enemies into an escalation of attacks resulting in 9/11.  The one in 2001.  Not the attack in 2012 on the U.S consulate in Benghazi.  While the Democrats believe our enemies hate us because George W. Bush made them hate us with his cowboy swaggering ways.  And that was the only reason.  Even though Bush had little time to swagger before the attacks on 9/11.  Those in 2001.  Not the ones in 2012.  The Republicans say our enemies hate us for who we are.  As we are too Christian.  And allow our women to have careers and use birth control and abortion.  Something our enemies won’t allow their women to have.

President Obama did not end partisan politics.  He lied about that.  For his administration has been perhaps the most partisan in U.S. history.  With no interest whatsoever in compromise.  He and the Democrats continue to lie about the Reagan tax cuts.  And the Bush tax cuts.  Blaming tax cuts for all our woes.  And our deficits.  Despite those tax cuts increasing tax revenue.  They lied about a war on women.  Having one of their cronies in the mainstream media create it by asking Mitt Romney if he wanted to take away women’s birth control.  And they continuously spread the lie that the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes.  When the top 10% of income earners pay about 70% of all federal income taxes.

So the Left tells a lot of lies to win elections.  Because that’s all they have.  They do not have a Morning in America they can talk about.  Just failed Keynesian economic policies.  Like the 4 years of Jimmy Carter.  The 4 years of President Obama.  And what may have been the 4 years of Bill Clinton had it not been for the Republicans taking control of Congress 2 years into his presidency.  Of course the Republicans can tell a lie, too.  The big one being their claim of being conservative like Ronald Reagan.  As they too often fall for the lies coming from the Left.  And appear more interested in living a comfortable life than sound philosophical beliefs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2012 Endorsements: Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 1st, 2012

2012 Election

Workers Enthusiastically Supported the Nazi Party because it had the Word ‘Workers’ in It

Adolf Hitler joined the German Workers’ Party (DAP) in 1919.  The party platform included nationalist, anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist policy positions.  As well as being anti-Semitic.  A socialist party where everyone was equal.  Unless you were a Jew.  Something Hitler could wrap his arms around.  As he would blame the Jews for Germany’s loss in World War I.  A war in which Hitler served as a messenger.  Even got awarded for bravery.  And he would later blame the bad German economy on the Jews as well.  Having a scapegoat is very important if you want dictatorial powers.  For you have to attack someone as you really can’t run on a platform of wanting dictatorial power so you can oppress your people.  The DAP became the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).  And Hitler designed the party banner.  Creating the swastika.  And the Nazi Party.

Now there isn’t a whole lot of difference between socialism and Marxism.  They are both about sharing the wealth and both are anti-capitalist.  The real reason Hitler hated Marxism is that they were a strong contender for power in Germany.  Power that Hitler wanted for his National Socialists.  And for him.  Which he consolidated by scapegoating, lying and using his personal charisma.  Another important quality for one aspiring to be a dictator.  To create a cult of personality.  Hero worship.  You have to be able to charm the masses so they don’t look that close at your policies.  Or your record.  Germans voted Hitler into office.  He didn’t seize power.  They fell in love with him.  But they had no idea what they were voting for.  World War.  Genocide.  He just moved them so much that they were willing to trust him fully.  Even when some began to learn about what was happening at the death camps or what the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing squads) were doing on the Eastern Front they told themselves that the Führer was doing what he had to do to protect the German people.  Or, at the least, they blamed these atrocities on excesses of the SS and not their beloved Fuehrer.  Or simply chose not to believe these reports.

The Nazis created an employment boom coming off of the Great Depression.  With massive public works projects.  And an aggressive rearmament program to prepare for World War II.   The war economy made industry hum.  Paid for with funds confiscated from enemies of the state.  And through massive monetary expansion.  That is, they printed a lot of money.  Causing a lot of price inflation which raised the cost of living for the working German.  Businesses were buried in red tape.  The Nazi state controlled everything.  Including the private sector.  Complying with Nazi regulations took up about half of all communications for those in business.  As one task could require up to 40 forms.  Probably in triplicate.  The Nazis shut down small businesses and small corporations.  Wanting to deal only with big industry.  So they could better control the businesses.  And the workers.  Business people once warmly supported Hitler during the ascent of his power only to discover later that Hitler was ruining German industry.  Making them to regret their previous support.  As did the workers.  Who enthusiastically supported a party that had the word ‘workers’ in it.  Only to see higher prices.  Lower wages.  Longer hours.  No collective bargaining.  No right to strike.  High income taxes.  Compulsory contributions for sickness, unemployment and disability insurance.  Union dues (for a union that represented the state, not the worker).  As time passed they even lost the ability to quit their job.  Or change jobs.  Being forever chained to the job the state chose for them.  Which worked well to maximize industrial output.  And to prepare for war.

After 9/11 George W. Bush kept America Safe from another al Qaeda Attack while he was in Office

America’s problem with radical Islam probably dates back to the Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979).  Then came the United States Embassy Bombing (1983) in Beirut.  And then the Beirut Barracks Bombing (1983) that killed 241 Americans.  Who were there in a peace-keeping mission during the Lebanese Civil War.  To be neutral referees between the warring Muslim and Christian sides.  Where the Muslims felt that although the Americans claimed neutrality in the conflict they leaned Christian.  Hence the bombing of the Barracks.  There was no real American retaliation for the attack.  As they weren’t certain who was responsible.  With other threats to American forces President Reagan eventually abandoned the mission and pulled out US forces.  One person took great interest in this American response to terror.  Osama bin Laden.  Who learned the following lesson.  When Americans suffer casualties they quit.

Islamist attacks (and plans for attacks) against American targets increased during the Nineties.  Perhaps the most shocking being the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.  An attempt to topple the Twin Towers that failed.  Then came the New York City Landmark Bomb Plot (1993).  The Khobar Towers Bombing (1996).  The United States Embassy Bombings (1998).  The Millennium Attack Plots (2000).  The USS Cole Bombing (2000).  Then 9/11.  An attempt to topple the Twin Towers that succeeded.  Until 9/11 we treated all of these events as criminal offences.  Not acts of war.  We talked about bringing these people to justice.  In a court of law.  Despite bin Laden having declared war against the United States back in 1996.  Well, after 9/11 George W. Bush declared war against Osama bin Laden.  And his terrorist organization.  Al Qaeda.

Bush attacked bin Laden’s safe haven in Afghanistan.  Chasing him underground.  Bush invaded Iraq.  In part to pressure Saudi Arabia to crack down on the Wahhabi in their kingdom financing al Qaeda as the Saudis feared Iran filling any power void in Iraq.  Which made American success in Iraq important to the Saudis.  (The Wahhabi hated the Saudi Royal family as much as they hated America.  While the Saudis had to tread lightly around the Wahhabi lest they provoke a civil war in the kingdom).  It worked.  Bush captured Islamist terrorists and sent them to a detention center at the US Naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Interrogating them for intelligence.  As enemy combatants.  Not as people with American Constitutional protections.  Which helped to thwart future terrorist plots.  Causing the Islamist world to hate George W. Bush with a passion.  But he kept America safe from another al Qaeda attack while he was in office.

If Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden were Alive Today they would likely Endorse Barack Obama and Joe Biden

Things changed under President Obama.  Who also hated George W. Bush.  Blaming him for the Muslim hatred against America.  So he tried to offer a softer, friendly face to the Muslim world.  He stopped using the term ‘War on Terror’.  He wanted to try some 9/11 terrorists in the civilian court system in New York City.  Instead of by military tribunal.  He said the US would no longer torture people.  And promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.  When a radical Muslim in the US Army killed fellow soldiers on an Army base because of America’s ‘crimes against Islam’ the president called that workplace violence.  Not terrorism.  A lot of these things the Islamists liked.  But President Obama also killed indiscriminately with unmanned drones.  Anyone killed that wasn’t on the kill-list was deemed an enemy combatant.  So collateral damage of innocents was greatly reduced.  By simply calling everyone killed an enemy combatant.  And by killing all terrorist and terrorist-adjacent people there were no prisoners to house.  But there was also no intelligence to gather.  Which had its drawbacks.

Years of interrogations and intelligence gathering eventually located Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.  When advised President Obama gave the ‘go’ order to kill him.  So in one day the president killed bin Laden.  Defeated al Qaeda.  And ended the War on Terror.  Something the president likes to say over and over again.  A never ending spiking of the football.  This relentless bragging and the unmanned drone attacks inflamed the Islamist world.  Providing a great recruiting tool for al Qaeda.  Possibly being the impetus for the attacks on the American embassy in Benghazi.  Which was left poorly protected.  Even after the American ambassador requested additional protection.  Especially around the anniversary of 9/11.  But someone in the Obama administration denied the request because President Obama had killed Osama bin Laden.  And defeated al Qaeda.  And having to beef up security in Benghazi would have gone against that narrative.  So they didn’t.

So if Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden were alive today who would they endorse in the 2012 election?  Well, Hitler would have liked the Democrat attacks on rich people.  Seeing that as good scapegoating.  He would be impressed by the cult of personality around President Obama.  Though it wasn’t as good as his.  He would like the attack on capitalists and the massive government interference into the private sector.  And the high income taxes and regulations.  As well as those public works projects.  Those roads and bridges.  No doubt Hitler would have liked a lot of what he saw in the Obama administration.  Though, perhaps, he would be confused as the ultimate purpose of this massive power grab.  And Osama bin Laden?  Well, he hated George W. Bush.  President Obama may have killed him but it was all that War on Terror stuff that brought the Americans to him in Pakistan.  He would prefer the Obama light touch over the Bush hammer.  And he’d probably prefer his people getting killed by drones instead of being captured and pumped for information.  Like the guy that gave up a name that eventually led the SEALs to his hiding place.  And he would just love the opportunity to speak in a US court.  Something that just wouldn’t have happened under Bush.  Finally he would have liked the naïveté and arrogance of President Obama.  Which would have given him a target-rich environment.  Like Benghazi.  If Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden were alive today they would likely endorse the Democrat candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2012 Endorsements: JFK and Ronald Reagan

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 31st, 2012

2012 Election

JFK did all the Democrat things to Stimulate the Economy out of Recession but none of it Worked

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) was a Cold War warrior.  Not to mention a World War II combat veteran.  He warned Nikita Khrushchev that any Soviet interference with U.S. access to West Berlin (located behind the Iron Curtain in East Germany) would be an act of war.  Which meant a nuclear war with the USSR.  The Soviets responded by building the Berlin Wall between East and West Berlin.  Blocking free passage between East and West.  JFK authorized the Bay of Pigs Invasion to topple the Soviet-backed Castro government in Cuba.  The invasion failed for the lack of air support.  Castro feared another US invasion.  Shortly thereafter the Soviets installed intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba.  To counter US missiles placed in Turkey.  Once discovered JFK ordered a quarantine of Cuba.  A US naval blockade.  Leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  And the closest the US and the USSR ever came to all out nuclear war.  Khrushchev and JFK finally resolved the crisis.  Khrushchev agreed to remove their missiles with a public US guarantee that they would never invade Cuba.  And a private promise to remove those US missiles from Turkey.

JFK sent the Special Forces to South Vietnam to stem the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.  He also initiated the coup that toppled the government of Ngo Dinh Diem (though he did not call for his assassination).  Leading to America’s long involvement in the Vietnam War.  And Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense helped make all of this military action possible.  Robert McNamara.  One of the ‘Whiz Kids’ who helped to rebuild the Ford Motor Company.  And he ran the Department of Defense like he ran Ford.  By the numbers.  He made it more efficient.  Saving a lot of money from the existing budget.  While JFK added an additional $8 billion (about $58 billion in 2011 dollars) of defense spending.  Paying for a lot of the weapons a Cold War warrior needed.  However, he was still concerned about the size of the deficit.  So JFK also included some domestic spending cuts to help offset the increases in defense spending.  But it wasn’t enough.  He had a deficit.  Worse, he had a recession.

JFK did all the Democrat things to stimulate the economy out of recession.  Typical Keynesian economics stuff.  Government spending.  And keeping interest rates artificially low.  But it wasn’t working.  One of the problems was that Keynesian stimulus just doesn’t work.  But another problem was the baby boom following the war.  Who grew up and were looking for jobs in the Sixties.  That just weren’t there.  He needed some really solid economic growth to create those jobs.  And for that he turned to supply-side economics.  What we would later call Reaganomics.  He created a more business-friendly environment.  He offered businesses tax credits for investments in new machinery and equipment.  He accelerated depreciation schedules, allowing businesses to expense their assets more quickly.  Which encouraged investment into new assets.  And he proposed tax cuts on both business AND personal income.  It worked.  Unleashing an economic boom that lasted until 1966.

When Reagan entered Office he did what JFK did and created a Business-Friendly Environment

Ronald Reagan was a Cold War warrior.  While President Carter pursued a policy of detente with the Soviet Union Reagan’s policy was more in keeping with JFK’s policy.  He called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and pursued a goal of destroying it.  And like Kennedy he built up a strong military.  Reagan invaded Grenada when hard-line communists overthrew a moderate socialist government.  While there were Cuban construction workers and military personnel building a 10,000 foot reinforced runway.  Which would be handy for the Soviets to use in their Central American activities.  Which Reagan also opposed in Nicaragua.  As he helped the Mujahideen resist the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Reagan revived the Carter-canceled B-1 Lancer bomber program.  He introduced the MX intercontinental ballistic missile program.  And when the Soviets deployed SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missiles Reagan deployed Pershing medium-range ballistic missiles in West Germany.  Then he took it up a notch and introduced a strategic ballistic missiles defense system.  The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).  When Reagan gave a speech at the Berlin Wall’s Brandenburg Gate with Mikhail Gorbachev in attendance he said, “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

The Soviets couldn’t keep up with the spending as their command economy was a mess.  It was a different story in America.  In fact, it was Morning in America.  Not only did the Americans spend the Soviets to the brink of collapse they did that in what those on the Left call the Decade of Greed.  Because economic times were so good there was excessive materialistic consumption.  So while the Soviets stood in line for soap and toilet paper the Americans enjoyed Sony Walkmans, CD players, VCRs, new cars, big houses and all the delicious food you could eat.  Americans had a weight problem.  While the Soviets had a malnutrition problem.  The Soviet Union would collapse about 3 years after Reagan left office.  George H. W. Bush, Reagan’s vice president, having the honor to be in office at the end of the Soviet Union.

Like JFK Reagan also had a recession.  As he entered office following the disaster of the Carter presidency.  Carter did all of the Keynesian stuff like JFK.  Using inflation to try to end unemployment.  Which only gave the nation high inflation and high unemployment.  Stagflation.  And malaise.  But unlike JFK Carter refused to try something different when it didn’t work.  When Reagan entered office, though, he did what JFK did.  He created a business-friendly environment.  That included tax cuts.  Tax cuts that stimulated economic activity.  So much economic activity that federal tax receipts went up even though tax rates went down.  So Reagan’s deficits weren’t a revenue problem.  They were a spending problem.  Much like they are today.  Much like they always are.

If JFK and Ronald Reagan were Alive Today they would likely Endorse the Republican Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

The attacks on 9/11 didn’t just happen.  It was the last in a chain of events.  There was the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.  The New York City Landmark Bomb Plot (1993).  The Khobar Towers Bombing (1996).  The United States Embassy Bombings (1998).  The Millennium Attack Plots (2000).  The USS Cole Bombing (2000).  Then 9/11.  Until 9/11 we treated all of these events as criminal offences.  Not acts of war.  While Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda acted from the start as if they were fighting a war.  Not breaking the law.  President Obama is also reluctant to call these radical Islamist attacks war.  When a radical Muslim in the US Army killed fellow soldiers on an Army base because of America’s ‘crimes against Islam’ the president called that workplace violence.  And when an American ambassador asked for additional security in Benghazi someone in the Obama administration denied the request because President Obama had killed Osama bin Laden.  And defeated al Qaeda.  Having to beef up security to defend against a growing al Qaeda presence, though, would have gone against that narrative of defeating al Qaeda.

The current so-called economic recovery is about the weakest on record.  Despite doing the normal Keynesian things to revive the economy.  Including an almost trillion dollar stimulus package.  Leading to record deficits.  Money the government had to borrow.  Borrowing which required an increase in the official debt ceiling.  This excessive debt and government spending cause the first downgrade of US sovereign debt.  All of this to fix the economy.  Only the economy is not fixed.  And the people who can’t find a full time job holds steady at 14.7% (U-6 unemployment rate).

So if JFK and Ronald Reagan were alive today who would they support in the 2012 election?  Who would a couple of Cold War warriors who risked nuclear war to protect the United States support?  These practitioners of supply-side economics who brought their economies out of recession to record economic growth?  Probably not the candidates foolishly hanging on to failed Keynesian policies despite a real unemployment rate of 14.7%.  Or the ones refusing to accept that we are still being targeted and killed by al Qaeda and other radical Islamist elements in the ongoing War on Terror.  No.  If JFK and Ronald Reagan were alive today they would likely endorse the Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The British foil al Qaeda Plot in Britain following al Qaeda’s Defeat in the War on Terror

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 28th, 2012

Week in Review

If you’ve been paying attention to the US presidential campaign you probably have heard that President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.  And defeated al Qaeda.  This was May 2, 2011.  Which is why the Benghazi attack took this administration by surprise.  And why they were reluctant at one time to call it a terrorist attack.  For with the killing of bin Laden the War on Terror was over.  Was this just an isolated incident?  Or was al Qaeda keeping busy even with the death of Osama bin Laden?  As it turns out, yes.  In fact, it was business as usual for some in the immediate months following bin Laden’s death (see ‘Terror suspect trio plotted to massacre crowds using a car fitted with knives and detonating eight suicide bombs in attack bigger than July 7’ by Chris Greenwood posted 10/22/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Three British Muslims were accused yesterday of plotting a suicide bomb attack designed to wreak more devastation than the July 7 attacks.

The Al Qaeda-inspired trio masterminded a conspiracy to detonate eight home-made rucksack devices, a court was told.

They bragged how the attacks would have caused ‘mass deaths’ in crowded areas. One of the men was secretly recorded saying the 2005 London attacks had ‘gone a bit wrong’ because the killers forgot to put nails in their bombs.

They also discussed mass poisoning and fixing blades to the wheels of a vehicle before driving it into a crowd of people, and boasted their plot would be ‘another 9/11’.

The trio raised thousands of pounds to fund the plot by posing as street collectors for the humanitarian charity Muslim Aid, the jury was told. Two of the men are alleged to have travelled to Pakistan to attend a terrorist camp and received training with explosives, weapons and poisons. They are said to have recorded ‘martyrdom videos’ explaining their actions which were to be released to the media after their deaths…

Two of the men – unemployed graduate Irfan Naseer, 31, and former security guard Irfan Khalid, 27 – are accused of twice travelling to terrorist camps in Pakistan. They spent 15 months learning how to make bombs, use weapons and create poisons ‘for the sole purpose’ of bringing their knowledge to Britain and using it, the court heard.

When they returned in July 2011, they teamed up with Ashik Ali, 27, whose ground-floor flat was transformed into a safe house to experiment with explosive chemicals. The court heard Naseer was recorded agreeing with another man that July 7 had ‘gone a bit wrong’ because the bombers did not use nails.

Naseer, a heavily-built man known as ‘Chubbs’, used knowledge from his pharmacy degree to mix the chemicals. He bought an instant cold pack, in the mistaken belief it contained ammonium nitrate.

The men were recorded talking about training with AK-47 assault rifles and grenades as well as firing a rocket launcher and the vehicle blade plot, which was in the Al Qaeda magazine, Inspire…

The terrorist cell was allegedly inspired by internet videos and the writings of Osama Bin Laden and US-born Yemeni extremist Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was killed in a drone strike 12 days after the suspects were arrested.

These men were in Pakistan when President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.  So they must have known of his death.  And the end of the War on Terror.  Yet they returned to England and continued their planning and preparations.  Lucky for the British that they didn’t let their guard down.  For it appears radical British Muslims in Britain didn’t get the memo that the War on Terror was over.  Which is why the British pulled their people out of Benghazi as the radical Islamists were increasing their attacks against Western targets.

The world is still not a safe place.  Al Qaeda is not defeated.  And the War on Terror continues on.  Where some of the Islamists are still trying to inflict another 9/11 on the West.  And this after the death of bin Laden.  Which explains the rise of Islamist violence in Benghazi.  And the death of four Americans.  Casualties in a war that the Americans had declared victory in that the other side never acknowledged.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Salafists, Jihadists and other Islamist Extremists are Joining the Syrian Rebels

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2012

Week in Review

During the Democrat National Convention two of the main themes were that GM is alive.  And Osama bin Laden is dead.  Over and over they hammered home how President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.  No doubt angering the Islamist world with excessive spiking of the Osama bin Laden football.  The only thing the president didn’t do was some taunting end zone dance.  And an ‘In your face, al Qaeda” from the president to the Islamist extremist world.  The president wanted to sound tough to dispel rumors that he’s too soft on national security.  So they made it clear to the people watching the Democrat National Convention, and to the world, that President Obama killed Osama bin Laden.

Shortly after this terrorists killed the American ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.  Was there a connection?  Well, the Islamist extremists hated America to begin with.  And rubbing the killing of Osama bin laden in their faces probably didn’t help soften their seething hatred of Americans.  It may have played a part.  But being that it was on 9/11 and they used heavy weapons suggests that the attack was in the planning for awhile.  However the protests at embassies throughout the world following the Benghazi attack may have been inflamed by the spiking of the Osama bin Laden football.  Or the publicity of a YouTube video to blame the violence in Benghazi on that people in the Islamic world did not even see until the Obama administration brought it to their attention.

Of course, this Islamist reaction completely baffles the Obama administration.  For they have gone out of their way to be nice to these people that hate us.  When there were protests against our staunch ally in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, President Obama was quick to call for Mubarak to step down from power.  At the beginning of the Arab Spring.  Yes, he was a dictator.  Like most are in that region.  But he was a dictator that promoted regional stability.  That suppressed Islamist extremism.  Kept Iran in its place.  Prevented the flow of arms to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  Made the Suez Canal safe for all shipping.  Kept the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood out of power.  And made it safe for Western tourists to travel to Egypt.  But President Obama said Mubarak had to go.  He did not help him.  Did not try to broker a peace deal leaving him in power.  Or one with Mubarak in exile to live out his life.  So Mubarak stepped down.  The Muslim Brotherhood stepped up.  They threw open their border with the Gaza strip.  And talked about abandoning their peace treaty with Israel.  Causing great instability in the region.

When Libya erupted in civil war the Obama administration supported the rebels.  Even though no one knew who the rebels were.  Other than including members of al Qaeda.  Libya was no longer an active enemy of the United States.  And not even a major oil supplier to the United States.  They had even begun to clamp down on Islamist extremists in their country following the US invasion of Iraq.  Yet we supported the rebels with US air power.  Because if we didn’t the war could spill over their borders.  Leading to Libyans fleeing their country and causing a humanitarian crisis.

The Assad regime in Syria was not a friend of the US.  Saddam Hussein may have hidden his chemical weapons in Syria when the US invaded Iraq.  They are a supporter of terrorism.  A client of Iran.  They support Hezbollah in Lebanon.  So they are no friend to the US or regional peace.  Yet when they erupted in civil war the Obama administration did not help these rebels.  And the things they said would happen in Libya if they didn’t get involved there are happening in Syria.  And now because the US (as well as the international community) didn’t help the rebels someone else is (see Syria despatch: rebel fighters fear the growing influence of their ‘Bin Laden’ faction by Ruth Sherlock posted 10/13/2012 on The Telegraph).

Standing on a patch of muddy scrubland just inside Syria’s broken border fence with Turkey, the rebel commander watched glumly as the group of jihadists crossed into his country.

Scruffy, with long beards, some wearing khaki jackets and each clutching a black travel bag, the six men walked silently through the crowd of refugees who had assembled and were waiting to leave Syria. A driver in a pick-up truck quickly greeted the men and drove them away into the countryside.

“Libyans”, muttered the rebel Free Syria Army leader under his breath, shooting the men a dirty look. “We don’t want these extremist people here. Look at them; we didn’t have this style in Syria – who is this? Bin Laden?”

Even before President Bashar al-Assad has been defeated, a war within the civil war is brewing in Syria. It is a battle of ideas, a struggle for the overall direction of the insurgency that is pitting moderate-Muslims against Salafists, jihadists and other Islamist groups.

Syria’s most powerful Islamist brigades have united under a new “liberation front” to wage jihad against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.

President Obama’s foreign policy has not been much of a success.  In fact, he has made the Middle East, North Africa, the United States and the world a less safe place.  If he had purposely tried to help the Islamist extremist he probably could not have done a better job.  The Arab Spring was less about replacing dictatorships with democracy than replacing one kind of dictatorships with another.  A dictatorship of Islamist extremists.  Salafists, jihadists and other Islamist groups.

None of this is spontaneous.  And none of this had to do with a YouTube video.  Not even the spiking of the Osama bin Laden football.  But the spiking of the Osama bin Laden football is no doubt working as a recruiting tool to bring more jihadists into these extremist groups.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Iran and al Qaeda hate America and Anyone who Associates with America or Sells them Oil

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 28th, 2011

In 2001 al Qaeda was by far More Evil than Iran but the Evil Race is Still On

Iranian president Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust.  And that al Qaeda brought down the Twin Towers.  Which is really pissing off al Qaeda (see Al Qaeda to Iran: Stop Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Theory by Lee Ferran posted 9/27/2011 on ABC News).

“The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government,” an article reads. “So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?”

Though Iran was the first of the two to use the “Great Satan” as a synonym for the U.S., the author claims that Iran sees itself as a rival for al Qaeda when it comes to anti-Americanism and was jealous of the 9/11 attacks.

“For them, al Qaeda was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world,” the article says. “Al Qaeda… succeeded in what Iran couldn’t. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories.”

Reminds me a little of that Austin Powers movie where Dr. Evil laments that his son is not evil enough.

In your face, Iran, says al Qaeda.  Yes, in 2001, al Qaeda was by far more evil than Iran.  Sadly, the evil competition hasn’t ended.  And we should worry about escalation in the evil race.  Especially when one of these evil competitors may already have a nuclear bomb.

I wonder how the 9/11 deniers will take this?  All those George W. Bush haters who said Bush imploded the Twin Towers.  So he could invade the Middle East.  Most everyone else blamed al Qaeda.  Something al Qaeda, incidentally, never denied.  And claims responsibility for to this day.  Even after punishing retribution.  And the death of their glorious leader.  Osama bin Laden.

And what about those saying that our only enemy is al Qaeda?  That Iran’s nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.  And their meddling in the Middle East is nothing to worry about.  Sure they support Hezbollah.  And they support Hamas.  And support these groups in their goal of removing American ally Israel from the world map.  But there’s nothing to worry about.  For I’m sure their territorial ambitions will end with Israel.  Much like Hitler‘s did with the Sudetenland.  Besides, who else says they have an anti-American agenda?  Other than the big bad of anti-Americanism?  Al Qaeda.

The Wahhabis don’t like the House of Saud or their Coziness with the U.S

So, yes, Virginia, radical Islamists want to hurt Americans.  Despite the last 2+ years of de-Bushifying the nation.  Despite the Cairo speech.  Nothing has changed.  The bad guys are still gunning for Americans.  Wherever they can find Americans (see US warns of possible kidnap plot in Saudi Arabia posted 9/28/2011 on CBS News).

The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia warned Americans on Wednesday that a terrorist group may be planning to abduct Westerners in the capital of Riyadh…

Saudi Arabia has waged a heavy crackdown on Islamist militants since al Qaeda’s Saudi branch launched a wave of attacks in the country in 2003, including suicide bombings and shootings that killed dozens of Saudis and foreigners. At least 11 Americans were among the dead.

Saudi Arabia is an important U.S. ally in the Middle East.  And friend.   Which is why they get a lot of this kind of stuff in their kingdom.  And their actions in 2003 prove this.  For everyone talks about the Saudi money that financed bin Laden.  But it wasn’t the House of Saud.  It was the Wahhabi Muslim sect residing within their kingdom.  From whence bin Laden came.

The Wahhabis don’t like the House of Saud.  Or their coziness with the U.S.  So the Saudis walk a fine line.  Staying friendly with the U.S.  Without being too friendly with the U.S.  To keep the peace in their kingdom.  And to maintain stability in the Middle East.

And all the while they’re dealing with this threat from within they have to deal with the threat from without.  Iran.  Who may have a hand in these Arab uprisings.  Especially where there are Shiite majorities.  To expand Iranian hegemony into the Middle East.  Especially in the Sunni areas of the Middle East.

On Monday, the former chief of Saudi intelligence services said the kingdom’s sizable oil installations were safe despite the growing threat of terrorist attacks in the region.

Prince Turki al-Faisal said the unrest in the Arab world would not spill over into Saudi Arabia.

“While the general picture of Saudi Arabia’s surroundings is predominated by this great turmoil, at the center of these many storms sits our Kingdom, which, I am glad to report, remains stable and secure,” he said.

Which is good.  Because next to Canada, Saudi Arabia is the second largest source of U.S. oil imports.  Even expanded their production to compensate for the loss of Libyan crude.  Again, Saudi Arabia is an important ally.  And friend.

The Loss of Refinery Capacity Now will make Gas Prices Soar During any Economic Recovery

Oil is the lifeblood of a modern economy.  Advanced nations consume oil with a voracious appetite.  That’s why Saudi crude is so important.  Both to the West.  And the enemies of the West.  Because if they can disrupt it they can disrupt the Western economies.  So any threat to Saudi Arabia is a national security interest.  Especially when it’s against Americans in the kingdom.

So oil is important.  As is the price of oil.  When it falls it’s for one of two reasons.  Either we’ve increased supply.  Or people just aren’t buying it (see Crude Oil Set for Second Straight Quarterly Decline on Europe Debt Crisis by Mark Shenk posted 9/28/2011 on Bloomberg).

Crude oil fell in New York, heading for the biggest quarterly drop since 2008, on concern that Europe’s debt crisis will linger and on rising U.S. stockpiles…

Crude stockpiles advanced as imports rose and refineries reduced operating rates…

Gasoline stockpiles rose 791,000 barrels to 214.9 million in the week ended Sept. 23, the report showed. Supplies of distillate fuel, a category that includes heating oil and diesel, increased 72,000 barrels to 157.7 million.

Sadly, this fall in price is due to people not buying it.

What?  Oil prices are falling?  That’s good news, yes?  Sadly, no.  Not in this case.  Because they are falling for a bad reason.  Weak demand.  From an economy on the precipice of another recession.  (The economy is so bad that people just aren’t buying gasoline).  Though some will argue we’ve never emerged from the Great Recession.  And it gets worse.

“The crude market is also under pressure because of the announcement of yet another possible shutdown of an East Coast refinery,” said Carl Larry, director of energy derivatives and research at Blue Ocean Brokerage LLC in New York. “At some point we’ll be able to count on both hands the number of operable refineries on the East Coast.”

Refineries are shutting down because of this extraordinary weak demand.  Which will not be good on the far side of this recession.  When the economy picks up.  For with the loss of this refinery capacity, when demand picks up gas prices will soar.  And it gets worse.

As economies heat up so will demand for oil.  Making oil prices soar.  Making high gasoline prices even higher.  Dampening any economic recovery.  Perhaps even throwing us back into recession.

A Big Oil Shock could Take any Bustling Economy and Thrown it into Recession

So the post-recession oil supply is not looking good.  Is there anything else to worry about?  Of course there is (see Double-dip ahead? Posted 9/28/2011 on The Economist).

Unfortunately, the economy has been battered for most of the year: by lousy weather, a seismic disaster in Japan, soaring oil prices, a major intensification of the European crisis, the end of QE2, and a down-to-the-wire blow-up over the debt ceiling among other things. There was good reason to think that the economy might have grown at 4% this year, but actual performance is largely governed by two big factors: what shocks occur and how policymakers respond to them.

Shocks, eh?  There could be a big oil shock in the pipeline.  Thanks to a bad economy that is closing down refinery capacity.  And an Arab Spring that is going to no one knows where yet.  And there are those who have eyes on Saudi Arabia.  People who don’t like America.  So, yeah, there could be a big oil shock coming our way.  Which could take any bustling economy and throw it into recession.

What Happens in the Middle East Matters to the Price of Gasoline and to American Security

There is a race between Iran and al Qaeda to see who can do America more harm.  We have made some progress against al Qaeda.  But we haven’t done much on the Iranian front.  And they’re about to acquire nuclear weapons.  Or already has them.

If our archenemy says that Iran is their rival in anti-Americanism, then Iran is probably anti-American.  And we should probably act accordingly.  Like the Saudis have against al Qaeda.  Despite the great risks that brought to their kingdom.  From the al Qaeda-sympathetic Wahhabi population.

When George W. Bush invaded Iraq many called it blood for oil.  They were adamantly against that.  Almost as much as they were against $4/gallon gasoline.  For they want their cheap gasoline.  And believe they should be able to get it no matter what happens in the Middle East.

But what happens in the Middle East matters.  To the price of gasoline.  And to American security.  They are linked.  And if given the chance, our enemies will use one.  To get to the other.  Us.  Because oil is the lifeblood of a modern economy.  And if they can’t defeat us in military arms.  They can shut us down by controlling the oil in the Middle East.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Ten Year Anniversary of 9/11

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 10th, 2011

Why the Attack on America on 9/11? 

Sunday is the 10 year anniversary of 9/11.  Ten years is a long time.  And during those years it’s been safe in the U.S.  Which makes people complacent.  That’s what time does.  People tend to forget.

So what was it?  And why was it?  The attack on America on 9/11? 

The ‘what’ is simple to answer.  A group of Muslim men hijacked four jetliners.  They crashed two into the World Trade Center.  Crashed one into the Pentagon.  And the fourth?  The passengers fought back.  Having learned of the other hijackings.  They attacked the attackers.  Fought.  And died.  Bringing the fourth plane down in a field in the country.  Far from its intended target.  These were the first to fight back in the war on terror.  A war where Americans were dying before 2001.

The ‘why’ is a little more involved.  It’s because of the Jews.  In the Middle East.  Who now live on ancient Jewish land.  Israel.  Land that has changed hands a few times since the time of King David (born 11th Century B.C.).  And King Solomon (born 10th Century BC).  And the people that lived on this land before the Jews returned to their homeland?  Muslims.  Who wrested this land from Christians.  Who got the land when the Roman Empire became Christian.  Who took the land from the Jews.  When the Romans were still pagans.  And on and on it went.  Back in time.  Until you get to King David.  And his conquests to consolidate his kingdom.

Long Story Short, Jews and Muslims hate each other in the Middle East

The Muslims want it back.  Because they conquered that land.  And they believe this makes it their land.  But if they believe that he who conquers the land has claim to the land, they have a problem.  Because the British won that land in World War I.  When they defeated the Ottoman Empire.  A member of the Central Powers.  Who lost the war. 

World War II soon came along.  And the HolocaustAdolf Hitler hated Jews.  Tried to kill them all.  So when Nazi Germany lost the war, displaced Jews who survived the Holocaust went to British Palestine.  To their ancient homeland.  Shortly thereafter they declared themselves the State of Israel.  And asked the Palestinians to kindly leave.  And they did.  Into refugee camps surrounding the new State of Israel.  They lived in refugee camps because the surrounding countries didn’t want to take them in.  So in these camps they stayed.  Where they’ve lived with a simmering hatred since.

Anyway, long story short, Jews and Muslims hate each other in the Middle East.  Israel is a tiny Jewish island in an Arab sea.  The Arabs tried to take this land a few times but were beaten back.  Thanks to an assist from the U.S.  And they lost land to boot.  The Sinai Peninsula.  The West Bank.  The Golan Heights.  And the Muslim Arabs want those lands back, too.

Militant Muslims hate America with every Fiber in their Body

Eventually the Egyptians made peace with Israel.  Anwar Sadat formally recognized the State of Israel.  And fundamentalist Egyptian officers assassinated him because of it.  His successor honored the peace Sadat made.  Hosni Mubarak.  For some 30 years.  Got a lot of U.S. aide for helping America’s most important Middle East ally.  Until he was toppled from power during the Arab Spring.

So there’s some history in the Middle East.  The Muslim Arabs hate the Jews.  And want that land back.  And they hate the Egyptian government who made peace with Israel for all those years.  They hate the British for taking that land from the Ottoman Empire.  And perhaps most of all they hate America.  Who they blame for everything.  Had they not entered World War I, that war may have ended in a draw with no lost of Muslim land.  Had they not entered World War II, Hitler may have won that war.  Or at least killed more Jews.  If the Americans had not ‘bribed’ Sadat with aid he may never have recognize the State of Israel.  And had America not helped Israel during the Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs may have won those wars.

So do militant Muslims hate America?  With every fiber in their body.  Can we get them to like us?  Not a chance in hell.  You see, defeating us is just step one in their grand plan.  Once upon a time Muslim power controlled the Middle East, North Africa and southern Europe.  And they want to again.  They want to restore the caliphate.  And spread Sharia Law.

Osama bin Laden led the War against America

So the radical Muslims, fundamentalists, Islamists, whatever you want to call them, waged war against the U.S.  Attacking U.S. nationals out of the country.  And planning and conducting attacks inside the country.  Osama bin Laden led the war against America.  With his al Qaeda getting bolder over time.  Leading up to September 11, 2001.

So far every subsequent plan has been foiled.  Or failed.  Like the underwear bomber on that Detroit bound plane.  And the Times Square bomber.  So it’s been relatively safe in America.  But there is unrest in the Middle East.  Which is very ominous.

Representative Democracies rarely break out Amidst Chaos

What happens in Egypt may very well tell us the future of the world.  Will they maintain their peace with Israel?  Or will they drift further into the Iranian orbit?  Further pressuring Israel.  Bordered in the north by Iranian client Hezbollah.  And in the south by Iranian client Hamas.  With an open border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt.  It’s getting tense over there (see Israel, Egypt try to stem damage from embassy riot by Diaa Hadid, Associated Press, posted 9/10/2011 on the Toronto Star).

Israel and Egypt’s leadership tried Saturday to limit the damage in ties after protesters stormed Israel’s embassy in Cairo, trashing offices and prompting the evacuation of nearly the entire staff from Egypt in the worst crisis between the countries since their 1979 peace treaty.

The 13-hour rampage deepened Israel’s fears that it is growing increasingly isolated amid the Arab world’s uprisings and, in particular, that Egypt is turning steadily against it after the fall of Hosni Mubarak, the authoritarian leader who was a close ally…

Egypt’s new military rulers, in turn, appear caught between preserving key ties with Israel — which bring guarantee them billions in U.S. military aid — and pressure from the Egyptian public. Many Egyptians are demanding an end to what they see as too cosy a relationship under Mubarak, who they feel knuckled under to Israel and the U.S., doing nothing to pressure for concessions to the Palestinians.

The big question is who will succeed Mubarak.  The Muslim Brotherhood?  They have close Iranian ties, too.  So that wouldn’t be good.  But at this time they are probable the largest organized political force in Egypt.  Which carries a lot of weight following a civil war.  I mean, representative democracies rarely break out amidst chaos.  And if it did, it could even be worse.  For a lot of Egyptians don’t like Israel.  Or that peace treaty.  Which means if the people get their way, it could be bad for Jews.  And Christians.

On this Day of Remembrance, we should make sure that those who died did not die in Vain 

We need to be concerned with what’s happening in Egypt.  For if the wrong people get into power there will be no peace for Jews.  Christians.  Or for much of the Western World.

If Iran gains power and influence in the area there will be no peace for Jews.  Christians.  Or for much of the Western World.  This is even a greater concern.  Because they may soon have a nuclear weapon.  If they don’t already.

Ten years is a lot of time.  But we must not become complacent.  And not forget what happened on that day.  Because the threat to America is real.  And it won’t go away with diplomacy.  For you can’t talk sense to people who hijack jetliners full of innocent men, women and children.  To kill innocent men, women and children.

On this day of remembrance, we should make sure that those who died did not die in vain.  As in any war, some may die so that others may live.  So we must honor those who died.  By living.  And being strong.  Strong enough to deter any attack on our soil again.  To protect those they left behind.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Osama bin Laden is Dead

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 2nd, 2011

SEAL Team Six

Early reports credit SEAL Team Six with the take down of Osama bin Laden.  Despite losing a helicopter, they executed the mission with extreme precision.  Which is the way SEALs like to do it.  A grateful thanks goes out to all our men and women in the armed forces, especially those in the Special Forces community.  Much of what they do never ‘officially’ happens.  So they are truly America’s unsung heroes.  And a special thanks goes out to Navy SEAL and Rogue Warrior Richard Marcinko.  He created SEAL Team Six and made it the potent asset it is today.  It’s not easy to become a SEAL.  And Marcinko made it harder still to get into SEAL Team Six.  A lot of what they do isn’t humanly possible.  And yet they do it.  Because that’s their business.  Doing the impossible.

A Work in Progress

Number 1 on the FBI’s most wanted terrorist list took awhile to find.  Starting in the Clinton administration even before 9/11.  Yes, he was killing Americans before 9/11.  There were the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya.  And the 2000 USS Cole bombing.  Then came 9/11.  Which intensified the manhunt (see Getting Osama bin Laden: How the mission went down by Mike Allen posted 5/2/2011 on Politico).

In the biggest break in a global pursuit of bin Laden that stretched back to the Clinton administration, the U.S. discovered the compound by following one of the terrorist’s personal couriers, identified by terrorist detainees as one of the few al Qaeda couriers who bin Laden trusted.

“They indicated he might be living with and protecting bin Laden,” a senior administration official told reporters on a midnight conference call. “Detainees gave us his nom de guerre, or his nickname, and identified him as both a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 11th, and a trusted assistant of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the former number three of al Qaeda who was captured in 2005.”

Officials didn’t learn the courier’s name until 2007. Then it took two years to find him and track him back to this compound, which was discovered in August 2010.

It was this courier that led us to bin Laden.  Identifying him was key.  So important that President Bush authorized some forceful interrogation techniques (see Woman who died as a human shield was one of bin Laden’s wives: White House posted 5/2/2011 on The Toronto Star).

Torture and interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Romania and Poland extracted the courier’s name from Mohammed and his successor, Abu Faraj Al Libi, the Associated Press reported.

Former U.S. president George W. Bush had authorized the CIA to use torture; Obama closed the prison system.

Which of course led us not to some cave in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border.  But inside Pakistan.  In relative comfort (see US kills Osama bin Laden decade after 9/11 attacks by Kimberly Dozier and David Espo, Associated Press, posted 5/2/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Long believed to be hiding in caves, bin Laden was tracked down in a costly, custom-built hideout not far from a Pakistani military academy…

The compound is about a half-mile from a Pakistani military academy, in a city that is home to three army regiments and thousands of military personnel. Abbottabad is surrounded by hills and with mountains in the distance.

Critics have long accused elements of Pakistan’s security establishment of protecting bin Laden, though Islamabad has always denied it, and in a statement the foreign ministry said his death showed the country’s resolve in the battle against terrorism.

Still, bin Laden’s location raised pointed questions of whether Pakistani authorities knew the whereabouts of the world’s most wanted man.

And there he was.  Hiding in our ally’s back yard.  With all the comforts of home.  Including a wife or two.  For years.  And all that time not that far from under our very noses.  Was Pakistan complicit?  Time will tell.  Of course, Muslims helping Westerners to hunt down and kill Muslims is a tricky business.  Helping Americans isn’t exactly in their best interests.  They may have been hiding him.  But there were no communication lines going into that compound.  The only contact with the outside world was via those couriers.  So, yes, he was there.  But what exactly was he doing while he was there?  Probably not a lot.  So even though he wasn’t in Gitmo or dead, he may have been, for all intents and purposes, neutralized.  Which would have helped American national security interests.

From Osama bin Laden to Egypt

So bin Laden is dead.  Does it change much?  Perhaps.  But not in the way most would think.  Since 9/11 bin Laden hasn’t been all that active.  It’s hard to be active when you’re always hiding.  The real al Qaeda threat of late has been in Yemen.  Not Afghanistan.  The recent attempts (the underwear bomber and the printer cartridge bombs) were launched from Yemen.  So killing bin Laden may actually have a negative impact on U.S. security.  Because it brought him back from relative obscurity.  Perhaps offering a rallying call for our enemies.  Especially when the U.S. acted unilaterally inside a sovereign Muslim Pakistan.  Where the local population doesn’t much like the U.S. to begin with. 

Osama bin Laden may still have been active.  And taking him out sends a message to other terrorists.  But it is a distraction from more disturbing developments in the Middle East.  In Egypt to be specific.  Where a whole lot of change is happening.  Some of which may not be for the good.  Such as the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Opening the Gaza border crossing.  Their brokering a unity deal between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  And Egypt’s move to normalize relations with Iran.  Little good can come from these developments.  And a lot bad can.  So, yes, bin Laden got what he deserved.  But the developing theater in the War on Terror may now be in the Middle East.

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood Condemn the Killing of Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi.  ‘Was’ being the operative wood.  The Saudis were glad to see him go (see Saudi hopes bin Laden death will aid terror fight by Mahmoud Habboush, Cynthia Johnston, Joseph Logan and Mark Heinrich, posted 5/2/2011 on Reuters).

“An official source expressed the hope of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia that the elimination of the leader of the terrorist al Qaeda organization would be a step toward supporting international efforts aimed at fighting terrorism,” the news agency said.

It added that Riyadh hoped that bin Laden’s demise would also help break up al Qaeda cells and eliminate the “misguided thought” it said was drives militancy.

He and the Wahhabi sect had been a problem for the Saudi kingdom.  They were glad to get rid of him first from the kingdom.  Then from the living.  And when the U.S. offered them bin Laden’s body for burial they refused.  They did not want him buried in Saudi soil.  But not everyone in the Middle East shared Saudi opinion (see Hamas condemns killing of al-Qa’ida leader by Reuters posted 5/2/2011 on The Independent).

Hamas condemned on Monday the US killing of Osama bin Laden as the assassination of an Arab holy warrior, differing sharply with the Palestinian Authority, the Islamist group’s partner in a new unity deal.

“We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs,” Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, told reporters. ..

Hamas, classified by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist group over its violence against Israel, is due to sign a unity deal this week in Cairo with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s more secular Fatah movement.

Israel has condemned the agreement, saying it could sabotage any efforts to revive peace talks with the Palestinians. The deal envisages an interim unity government comprised of independents and Palestinian elections later in the year.

This is no surprise that Hamas would condemn bin Laden’s killing.  They share his hatred of Americans.  And the State of Israel.  What is troubling, though, is the unity deal between the secular Fatah in the West Bank and the Islamist Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  Especially with that unity deal being brokered in post-Mubarak Egypt.  This is very troubling indeed.  For the Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel.  Which is still in the charter.  Which begs the question, what will be a unified Hamas/Fatah position on Israel?  Especially now that the Muslim Brotherhood, who supports that proviso in the Hamas charter, is ascendant in Egypt.  Perhaps we can learn by the Muslim Brotherhood’s reaction to the killing of bin Laden (see Egypt Muslim Brotherhood condemns Bin Laden death by the Associated Press posted 5/2/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, a conservative organization with links around the Islamic world, has condemned the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces as an “assassination.”

The Brotherhood, which seeks the establishment of a state run according to Islamic principles through peaceful means, is Egypt’s most powerful and organized political movement.

Post-Mubarak Egypt is not looking good.  If current trends continue, it may be like exchanging a Mubarak-Egypt for another Iran.  On the all important Suez Canal.  And but a short walk from Israel.  Public enemy number one for radical Islam.  And let’s not forget that Iran is working on a nuclear program.

The Dawn of a new Islamist Day in Egypt?

It’s hard to find a bigger mistake in the Middle East than forcing Mubarak from office.  For Egypt has a lot more radical Islam fomenting in their populace than they do democracy.  Even bin Laden’s number two, Ayman Al-Zawahri, is an Egyptian.  And he may shortly become al Qaeda’s number one.  Which is cause for concern.  Because he’s not as nice a guy as Osama bin Laden was (see Egypt’s Al-Zawahri likely to succeed bin Laden by Hamza Hendawi and Lee Keath, Associated Press, posted 5/2/2011 on the Daily News Egypt).

With bin Laden killed, Ayman Al-Zawahri becomes the top candidate for the world’s top terror job.

It’s too early to tell how exactly Al-Qaeda would change with its founder and supreme mentor gone, but the group under Al-Zawahri would likely be further radicalized, unleashing a new wave of attacks to avenge bin Laden’s killing by US troops in Pakistan on Monday to send a message that it’s business as usual.

Yes, the mentor bin Laden was the less radical one.  The protégé, Al-Zawahri, may very well take it up a notch.  At least to avenge his mentor’s death.  Unless the U.S. gets to him first.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon made bin Laden Enemy No. 1 to the United States. But he likely could never have carried it out without Al-Zawahri. Bin Laden provided Al-Qaeda with the charisma and money, but Al-Zawahri brought the ideological fire, tactics and organizational skills needed to forge disparate militants into a network of cells in countries around the world.

“Al-Zawahri was always bin Laden’s mentor, bin Laden always looked up to him,” says terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University.

Osama bin Laden may have put out the call for jihad on 9/11.  By Al-Zawahri made it happen.  And created an international terror network to boot.

Al-Zawahri ensured Al-Qaeda’s survival, rebuilding Al-Qaeda’s leadership in the Afghan-Pakistan border region and installing his allies as new lieutenants in key positions. Since then, the network inspired or had a direct hand in attacks in North Africa, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, the 2004 train bombings in Madrid and the 2005 transit bombings in London.

It was Al-Zawahri, not bin Laden, who was responsible for post-9/11 al Qaeda.

But before Al-Qaeda — and before Al-Zawahri focused his wrath on the “far enemy,” United States — his goal was to bring down the “near enemy,” the US-allied government of then president Hosni Mubarak in his native Egypt.

And in what may prove one of the greatest blunders of national security, Al-Zawahri’s ‘far enemy’ took out his ‘near enemy’.  And now all that radical Islam that’s been simmering below the surface can boil over now.  Because the U.S. got rid of the guy that contained it.  Hosni Mubarak.

At the same time, Al-Zawahri began reassembling Islamic Jihad and surrounded bin Laden with Egyptian members of Jihad such as Mohamed Atef and Saif Al-Adel, who would one day play key roles in putting together the Sept. 11 attacks.

The alliance established Al-Zawahri as bin Laden’s deputy and soon after came the bombings of the US embassies in Africa, followed by the 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, an attack Al-Zawahri is believed to have helped organize.

Apparently these Egyptians went to work for bin Laden because they were not welcomed in Egypt.  Of course, that may have all changed.  Egypt is moving closer to Hamas.  And Iran.  And there’s talk about pulling out of the Camp David Accords with Israel.  No doubt these Egyptians are now feeling that there is no place like home.  And they’re probably going back to Egypt.  Eager to take part in the dawn of a new Islamist day there.

Developments in Egypt are of Greater Concern

President Obama acted boldly by giving the go ahead for SEAL Team Six to take down Osama bin Laden.  And some are already talking about how this will help his 2012 reelection chances.  Of course, Osama bin Laden may be moot by then if the economy is still in recession.  George H. W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton after riding record approval numbers after his victory in the Gulf War.  Because it was the economy, stupid.  Osama bin Laden is big.  But his he bigger enough to overcome a recession?

But Obama has a bigger problem, though.  He told Hosni Mubarak he had to go.  That was a mistake.  And it can have huge consequences.  On the War on Terror.  On Middle East stability.  And on world peace.  Bad things are already lining up to happen.  The degree of bad may very well determine the 2012 election.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Going all George W. Bush in the Middle East?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 19th, 2011

Fighting Wars on the other Side of the World

In 1775, the shooting in the American Revolutionary War began.  The world’s superpower, the British Empire, had planned on taking some arms away from local rebels.  Some shots were exchanged at Lexington and Concord.  And the small British force retreated to Boston.  The rebels harassed the British column the entire way.  The war did not begin well for the British.  And it would end like it began.  Not well.  The British formally recognized the United States of America 8 years later with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

The British outclassed the Americans in every way but one.  Lines of communications.  The British lines were some 3,000 miles back to Great Britain.  About a 6 hour flight today.  Then, a couple of months by ship.  By contrast the Americans held the advantage of short, interior lines.  We could ‘hit and run’ and melt back into the surrounding country.  Like we did in 1775 during that British retreat.  As we did throughout the war.  Though General Washington wanted to defeat the British in a decisive battle, he would not get the chance to meet the British in such a battle until 6 long years later at Yorktown.  Unable to win a decisive battle, he did the only thing he could.  Not lose a decisive battle.  The American Revolutionary War was a war of attrition.  The British sued for peace when the cost of continuing the war was greater than the British people were willing to pay.  As wars are wont to be with such long lines of communications.

Military planners have learned this lesson.  You are probably familiar with a more recent war that was similar.  Where a world superpower was involved in a war of attrition half way across the world.  In South Vietnam.  The Americans came into the conflict to support South Vietnam from Communist North Vietnam.  There is no South Vietnam today.  Like the British some 200 years earlier, we won the military engagements but just couldn’t win the war.  When the cost in blood and treasure became too great, we met in Paris, too, to end the war.  We signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.  And we learned the British lesson of 1783.

Winning the War is Easier than Winning the Peace

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, George H. W. Bush assembled an international coalition and threw the Iraqis out of Kuwait.  Operation Desert Storm was an overwhelming victory.  However, Bush was heavily criticized for ‘not finishing the job’ in the Gulf War.  His critics said we should have gone on to Baghdad to remove Hussein from power.  We didn’t.  For a couple of good reasons.  First of all, the coalition included Arab nations.  They only joined to repel Hussein from Kuwait.  Not to remove him from power.  The other reason was that if we toppled Hussein we would own Iraq.  And we would probably end up there for years trying to ‘win the peace’.

Following the Gulf War there were uprisings throughout Iraq.  The world watched hopeful that he would be overthrown by his own people and democracy would break out.  It didn’t.  He suppressed the rebellions brutally.  So brutally that no-fly zones were established in the north over the Kurds and in the south over the Shiite population.  But we didn’t invade.  And he remained a thorn in our side.  And his people suffered.

After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan.  Then Iraq.  The official reason was his weapons of mass destruction that he never documented destroyed.  He had used chemical weapons against the Iranians.  And the Kurds.  Being a ‘supporter’ of terrorism there was worry he might provide these weapons to a terrorist.  So there was that reason.  The other reason was a little more convoluted.  Osama bin Laden was a Wahhabi Sunni.  He had ties in Saudi Arabia.  And there was a large Wahhabi population in Saudi Arabia providing funding to al Qaeda.  The Saudis were reluctant to shut down this funding for fear of a rebellion by the Wahhabis against the House of Saud.  But there was one thing that worried them more than the Wahhabis.  Shiite Iran.  By invading Iraq we forced their hand.  They had a vested interest in seeing us succeed in Iraq.  And in our war against al Qaeda.  We made progress against al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan.  And the Saudi started to shut down their funding.  The Iraq War was a success.  But the one drawback was that we now owned Iraq.  And winning the peace was nowhere as easy as winning the war.  As George W. Bush learned.

Obama Commits Military Force in Libya

The US has some very important friends in the Middle East and North Africa.  Among these are Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.  To name a few.  These are nations with Sunni populations and/or Sunni governments unfriendly to Iran.  Egypt made peace with Israel and kept the Suez Canal open for international trade for decades.  Saudi Arabia peacefully coexists with its neighbors and is the largest oil exporter in the world.  Except for the oil embargo of 1973, they have maintained the flow of that oil at market prices to Western economies.  The US Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain.

These nations aren’t perfect.  Saudi women can’t drive a car, for example.  But they’re stalwart US allies.  One of these nations was pretty progressive as well as being a staunch US friend.  Egypt.  Egyptian women were about the freest in the Middle East, second only to Tunisia.  Egypt and Tunisia, though, were suffering economically.  Had high unemployment.  And a Muslim opposition unhappy with their ‘Western’ ways.  The largest organized opposition group is the Muslim Brotherhood.  And they can be best described as being more simpatico with Iran.  When Egypt had their uprising, the Obama administration called it a democracy uprising and called for Hosni Mubarak to give up power.  Without considering who would step into that power void.  Which did not go over well with Mubarak.  Or the Saudis.

Now Libya is burning.  Qaddafi is attacking his own people.  The US dithered for weeks.  While the Libyans cried for help.  Even other Arab nations cried for our help.  But we did nothing.  Even though Qaddafi is not a US friend.  And was a sponsor of terrorism.  As the carnage mounted, though, someone took action.  The French of all people (see U.S. Missiles Strike Libyan Air-Defense Targets by David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Bumiller posted 3/19/2011 The New York Times).

American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Saturday, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war…

The campaign began with French warplane missions even before the end of an emergency summit meeting in Paris, where leaders, reacting to news that Colonel Qaddafi’s forces were attacking the rebel capital city of Benghazi on Saturday morning despite international demands for a cease-fire, said they had no choice but to act to defend Libyan civilians and opposition forces.

France has a Muslim problem.  They had some riots a few years back in some Paris Muslim suburbs.  Where young Muslims were unemployed.  Unhappy.  And not all that willing to assimilate into French culture.  Though they want to live in France.  So there’s been tensions between the French and their Muslim population.  So it says a lot that France was on point in this attack on a Muslim country.  Yes, at this time the international community, including some Arab states, approve of this action.  But you play with fire whenever you attack a Muslim country.  Especially if they have oil.  And Libya has oil.  In fact, it’s some of the finest oil in the Middle East.  A low-sulfur sweet crude.

When the international community was coming together against him, Qaddafi was defiant.  Warned us to stay out of their internal affairs.

“Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans,” he wrote in one letter, read to the news media by a spokesman. “This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe.

“You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs.”

Colonel Qaddafi addressed President Obama as “our son,” in a letter jarring for its familiarity. “I have said to you before that even if Libya and the United States enter into war, God forbid, you will always remain my son and I have all the love for you as a son, and I do not want your image to change with me,” he wrote. “We are confronting Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, nothing more. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? Tell me how would you behave so that I could follow your example?”

Could this be why the Obama administration was so reluctant to act?  Because of a father-son relationship between Obama and Qaddafi?  You gotta admit this is a strange thing for Qaddafi to say.  Makes you wonder just what was the extent of Obama’s apology tour in the Middle East.  One thing for sure, it will give fuel to those who think Obama is a Muslim.  I mean, it just doesn’t help when the bad guy calls you a son.

Regret?  We should take that threat seriously.  After some military encounters with Libyan losses in the Gulf of Sidra Qaddafi retaliated with the bombing of a German disco frequented by US troops.  When we discovered his connection to that bombing we bombed Tripoli.  In retaliation for that bombing he had a bomb smuggled aboard a 747.  Pan Am Flight 103.  Brought down on Lockerbie, Scotland.  So he has a history of getting even.  Which we need to be on guard for.

Obama now Owns Libya

So it’s war.  Missiles are flying.  People are dying (see Libya: British forces launch missile attacks on Gaddafi by Colin Freeman, in Benghazi and Sean Rayment posted 3/20/2011 on the UK’s Telegraph).

Explosions were reported at an airport east of Tripoli as a British Trafalgar Class submarine and US Navy ships and submarines stationed off Libya fired 110 Tomahawk missiles at 20 targets in what one source described as a “night of carnage”.

The missiles targeted Libyan command and control centres, radar installations and surface-to-air missile sites. Libyan officials said the attacks were “barbaric” and causing civilian casualties…

British sources and Pentagon officials said Nato would undertake a “battle damage assessment” of Libya’s military during daylight hours and would decide whether to continue with further attacks.

Sources at the Elysée Palace said Britain, France and the United States had assumed the “leadership” of the coalition in early talks between the Prime Minister, Mr Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State. The “extremely purposeful conclusion” of the early talks was endorsed by the full meeting, where speakers included Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary general.

Well, President Obama has his third war.  Pretty impressive for a guy that said he would get us out of Iraq (he didn’t).  That he would fully prosecute the Afghanistan War to victory (he hasn’t).  And he wouldn’t nation-build like his predecessor.  George W. Bush.  He now may.  There’s no way Qaddafi can withstand the military force now aligned against him.  So he will lose.  But what then?  Who will fill that power vacuum?  In an already unstable and changing Middle East?  He can say what he wants about Iraq and Afghanistan, but it’s different with Libya.  This happened on his watch.  And he now owns it.  It will be up to him to win the peace.  Or lose it.

Those naval operations against Libya will be based out of Bahrain.  I sure hope he doesn’t encourage any more ‘democracy’ uprisings while we’re using that base for combat operations.  It would be a shame to lose that base during the middle of these operations.  And by a shame I mean a complete and utter disaster.  Because that would greatly extend our lines of communications.  And history has shown what that can do in war.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries