Saturday, 28 April 2007
 

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 13

See all of my "Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter" posts in one place here.

Jimmy Carter, Arab Front Man
Ed Morrissey

Alan Dershowitz has often infuriated conservatives with his liberal ideology and sharp-witted speech. He drew insults by the bucketload for defending OJ Simpson in the mid-90s, when it appeared OJ would require a strong team for an appeal-- before a Los Angeles jury proved that celebrities don't need Dershowitz's services. However, Dershowitz has always remained strong in the war against radical Islam and a stalwart defender of Israel, and as such he has come increasingly into conflict with a man he once admired, Jimmy Carter.

Now Dershowitz has discovered that Carter gets his funding for his pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab positions from very suspect sources:

***

The Real Jimmy Carter 
By Alan M. Dershowitz

I have known Jimmy Carter for years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice. I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in  my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign.  Shortly thereafter, my former student, Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I  immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and  principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.

When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given  out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met  him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East.  Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that  he was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human  rights.

Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections  to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a  monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How  could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money  from so dirty a source?

And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source.  Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money  for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts. 

They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first  century there were still foundations that espoused these views.   ...

***

My Problem with Jimmy Carter's Book
by Kenneth W. Stein

Jimmy Carter's engagement in foreign affairs as a former president is unprecedented in U.S. history. Because he regards the Arab-Israeli conflict as among Washington's most important foreign policy topics, he has written more than two dozen articles and commentaries about the conflict, eight in the past year alone. In these publications, Carter uses his credibility as a former president, Nobel laureate, and key player in the September 1978 Camp David accords and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty to unfold his set of truths and often to criticize U.S. policy. He relishes the role of elder statesman and believes that with his accrued wisdom and experience, he can contribute to solutions.

But Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter's twenty-first book and his second to focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, is deficient. He does what no non-fiction author should ever do: He allows ideology or opinion to get in the way of facts. While Carter says that he wrote the book to educate and provoke debate, the narrative aims its attack toward Israel, Israeli politicians, and Israel's supporters. It contains egregious errors of both commission and omission. To suit his desired ends, he manipulates information, redefines facts, and exaggerates conclusions. Falsehoods, when repeated and backed by the prestige of Carter's credentials, can comprise an erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and policymaking. Rather than bring peace, they can further fuel hostilities, encourage retrenchment, and hamper peacemaking. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 28, 2007 at 12:36 AM in Abu Jimmy, Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 12 April 2007
 

2007.04.12 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Updated from the top. Please treat this as a blog-within-a-blog, come back often, and scroll down till you hit something you saw on your last visit.

• Dems Invite Muslim Brotherhood to Speak to Congress
• Bureau of Disinformation
• Baghdad Report: Bombs and A Bridge Too Near
• Suicide bomber infiltrates Iraqi parliament, kills three; Update: MP’s bodyguard, wider plot suspected; Update: Bomb video added
• Three Lawmakers Killed in Bomb Attack on Iraq's Parliament Building
• The troops in Fallujah speak
• Explosion In Green Zone Kills Two
• McCain Unbound
• Congressman Proudly Claims Syria Trip 'Led To Embarrassment'
• Enmity Begins at Home
• "Fighting Back Was Not an Option" Revisited

***

Dems Invite Muslim Brotherhood to Speak to Congress
Charles Johnson

The MEMRI Blog has a translated report from Egyptian daily Al-Masryoon that Democrats have invited the Muslim Brotherhood to visit the United States and speak to Congress.

It just keeps getting worse; even though it’s a report from Egypt, I have little doubt that it’s accurate. Not only are they setting up their own shadow government, and pandering to the worst dictatorships on the planet, the Democrats are now openly inviting virulent enemies of Western civilization into our country. ...

Kim Priestap, Allahpundit and RBT have more.

***

Bureau of Disinformation 

Click the pic to read the blog post that goes with it.

***

Baghdad Report: Bombs and A Bridge Too Near
This morning Baghdad lost one of its historic icons when the terrorists blew up the Sarrafiya Bridge.
By Omar Fadhil

This morning Baghdad lost one of its historic icons when the terrorists blew up the Sarrafiya Bridge. This was an attack on both a vital infrastructure of the city and our morale, let alone the innocent lives that were lost in this vicious attack. What we lost today was not just a bridge, it was a piece of the Baghdad history.

Jisr al-Hadeed (“the iron bridge”), as many Baghdadis like to call it, was the first fixed bridge to be built over the Tigris as a gift from the British to the Iraqi people back in the 1940s.

I have many beautiful memories of Jisr al-Hadeed; memories of how many times I sat in that coffee shop and stared at the glittering reflections of its lights on the water, of how many evenings I sat under it with friends. When we were young and couldn’t drink at home, the Nazla (the river bank immediately under the bridge) was one of our favorite spots. Once there we’d drink cold beers in hot summer nights, with the sound of the slow and small waves of the Tigris as our music. ...

Everyone I talked to today was more saddened by the bridge attack than the explosion at the parliament building that killed two of its members. They all seemed to agree that if there’s anyone to blamed for that it’s the members of parliament themselves. Parliament members are famous for complaining about ‘security measures’ in the Green Zone being “insulting” to them and to Iraq’s sovereignty. They didn’t want their vehicles and guards to be searched. This is the result. ...

***

Suicide bomber infiltrates Iraqi parliament, kills three; Update: MP’s bodyguard, wider plot suspected; Update: Bomb video added
Allahpundit

Totally demoralizing, which of course was the point. They’re not sure yet what caused it, but:

One politician said the attack was carried by a suicide bomber.

“I am standing now at the site of the explosion and looking at the severed legs of the person who carried out the operation,” he said…

Dozens of people were injured - some critically - as the blast tore through a cafeteria while lawmakers were eating lunch.

Mohammed Awad, a member of the Sunni National Dialogue Front, was killed, according to the leader of the party, Saleh al-Mutlaq. A Shia MP also died.

They had a hot tip something was up, too, because security was using bomb-sniffing dogs at the entrance to the building, which apparently rarely happens.

What they’re trying to do here, very clearly, is show the surge isn’t working by demonstrating that even the safest part of the city is more vulnerable than it’s been. That’s why they’ve been focusing more on the Green Zone in the past few weeks. It started with the rocket attack during Maliki’s presser with Ban Ki-Moon, then another rocket attack killed an American soldier, then they found two suicide vests somewhere in the area. The fact that the bomber attacked in the cafeteria instead of the main assembly hall, where he could have done a lot more damage, makes me think he was probably a menial employee, not someone in an MP’s security detail (although I wouldn’t be surprised if I was wrong). Assuming they did a diligent job with the dogs as people were coming in, it also means the bomb was hidden somewhere in the building before the doors opened this morning.

The irony? Iraqi government officials complained last week that they were tired of unnecessary searches inside the Green Zone.

***

Three Lawmakers Killed in Bomb Attack on Iraq's Parliament Building 

BAGHDAD —  A suspected homicide bomber detonated himself inside the Iraqi parliament cafeteria Thursday, killing at least eight people -- including three lawmakers -- in a stunning assault in the heart of the heavily fortified, U.S.-protected Green Zone, the American military spokesman said.

The blast in the parliament building came hours after a homicide truck bomb exploded on a major bridge in Baghdad, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars tumbling into the Tigris River, police and witnesses said. At least 10 people were killed in that attack.

Security guards sealed off the parliament building, allowing no one — including lawmakers — to enter or leave. Iraqi officials said.

A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said no Americans were hurt in the blast. Iraqi officials said 30 people were wounded.

The bombings came amid a two-month-old security crackdown in Baghdad, which has sought to restore stability in the capital so that the government of Iraq can take key political steps by June 30 or face a withdrawal of American support.

President Bush was briefed on the parliament blast, and White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the multinational forces will be taking steps to strengthen security and make sure that such an attack doesn't happen again. ...

***

Hat tip: Michelle

***

Explosion In Green Zone Kills Two
Ed Morrissey

This will bode ill for supporters of the war in Iraq. An apparent suicide bombing has killed two members of the Iraqi parliament within the Green Zone as they ate in the Assembly's cafeteria:

A bomb exploded in the Iraqi parliament's cafeteria in a stunning assault in the heart of the heavily fortified Green Zone Thursday, killing at least two lawmakers and wounding 10 other people.

The blast in the parliament building came hours after a suicide truck bomb blew up on a major bridge in Baghdad, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars tumbling into the Tigris River, police and witnesses said. At least 10 people were killed.

The bomb in parliament went off in a cafeteria while several lawmakers were eating lunch, media reports said. In addition to the two dead, state television said at least 10 people were wounded. ...

According to initial reports, the bomber may have made it through Iraqi security force checkpoints. One Iraqi parliamentarian reported seeing the severed legs of the suspected bomber in the hallway outside the cafeteria, and decried the security provided by the Maliki government. This comes less than two weeks after the US Army discovered suicide vests within the Green Zone, which means that this attack has probably been planned for quite a while.

The indiscriminate nature of the attack suggests, as Khalaf al-Ilyan told Iraqi reporters afterwards, that the bombers were less concerned about faction and ideology in their target than in attacking representative government altogether.  ...

Pajamas Media is tracking the story here. (Hat tip: Michelle)

***

McCain Unbound
John Hinderaker

Earlier today, John McCain delivered a speech on the Iraq war at Virginia Military Institute. It was an excellent, hard-hitting speech. You can read it all here; these are a few key paragraphs:

After my first visit to Iraq in 2003, I argued for more troops. I took issue with statements characterizing the insurgency as a few 'dead-enders' or being in its 'last throes.' I criticized the search and destroy strategy and argued for a counter-insurgency approach that separated the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable. That is the course now followed by General Petraeus, and the brave Americans and coalition troops he has the honor to command.

It is the right strategy. General Petraeus literally wrote the book on counter insurgency. He is a determined, resourceful and bold commander. Our troops, many of whom have served multiple tours in Iraq, are performing with great skill and bravery. But the hour is late and, despite the developments I just described, we should have no illusion that success is certain. But having been a critic of the way this war was fought and a proponent of the very strategy now being followed, it is my obligation to encourage Americans to give it a chance to succeed. To do otherwise would be contrary to the interests of my country and dishonorable.

McCain was unsparing in his criticisms of Congressional Democrats: ...

***

Congressman Proudly Claims Syria Trip 'Led To Embarrassment'
Steve Schippert

Enough. It is time to lay the hammer down and put an end to what has been referred to even by the Washington Post as the ‘shadow presidency’. Regardless of what carefully chosen words have been used thus far by participants in explaining their mission in visiting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, Congressman Tom Lantos makes their end-game abundantly clear in an interview he gave to Assad’s regime-controlled Syrian Arab News Agency. But, with teeth fully clenched, this is not a game, nor is it an election campaign tour. Brace yourself for the text in full.

Washington, (SANA)- Democratic Member of the US. House of Representatives and Chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affaires Tom Lantos has underlined that Syria vehemently believes in the dialogue in its relations with the US and in dealing with the issues. In an interview on Tuesday, Lantos described the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to Damascus as important to open dialogue channels with it as saying: “The visit expressed in a marvelous way interests of the US, that led to embarrassment of the current US administration which has closed doors for dialogue with Syria.”

Any questions? But Lantos continues…

“President Bashar al-Assad strongly encourages the continuation of the Syrian-American dialogue,” Lantos added.

Well, you bet Assad “strongly encourages the continuation of the Syrian-American (read: American Congressional) dialogue.” Lantos, Pelosi and all others from both sides of the aisle are a gold mine for the state sponsor of terrorism. But wait, there’s more…

Lantos expressed desire to visit Damascus once more and that he will not comply with the policy of the US President George W. Bush regarding it. [All emphasis added.]

Again, any questions? This is an interview with Assad’s media organ. Before grinding my teeth to powder, two points that must be considered in the context of the above and the current global conflict at hand. ...

***

Enmity Begins at Home
James Taranto

After the smashing success of their Syrian jaunt, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos are
considering another trip--"to open a dialogue with Iran," the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go--and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.''

Still, the Democrats have their limits. The Chronicle reports that there is one world leader with whom congressional Democrats are unwilling to hold an unconditional dialogue:

President Bush, raising the political stakes in his fight with Congress over the war in Iraq, made Democratic leaders an offer they could and did refuse--come to the White House to accept his demand for continued, unfettered funding of the war.

"We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill: a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," the president said of the fight over the emergency war spending legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking Tuesday at a news conference in San Francisco, forcefully rejected Bush's invitation--as had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada several hours earlier at a Capitol appearance.

"What the president invited us to do is to come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants," Pelosi said. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people. And I join with Sen. Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind. . . ."

Meanwhile at the Puffington Host, John Kerry* defends Pelosi's junket to Syria: ...

***

"Fighting Back Was Not an Option" Revisited
Posted by Dean Barnett

Colonel Austin Bay and I were planning a very civil blog feud on the nature of the British naval surrender that led to the appalling spectacle in Iran. Unfortunately, there’s not enough distance between us to have any real virtual hair-pulling. Still, what differences do exist between us are worth exploring.

We both think the soldiers acquitted themselves disgracefully after their abduction. Austin aptly calls the events in Tehran a “moral disgrace.” Our only dispute centers on the soldiers’ conduct during their actual abduction. I wrote (in so many words) that their subsequent declaration that “fighting back was not an option” was ludicrous. My suggestion was that they should have fought back, and that going meekly into Iranian custody paved the way for the ensuing national disgrace.

Austin, who knows a lot more about such thing than I do, disagreed, writing:

[...]

I’m hardly in a position to take issue with Austin’s tactical assessment. The one bone I would pick here is whether the Iranians would have had the nerve to actually slaughter the British troops. I think there’s ample room for doubt on that score.

On Easter Sunday, Frank J. of IMAO.us posted a letter from one of America’s own guests of the Ayatollah from 1979 -1981. Frank’s correspondent is a Marine, and his whole letter is must reading. I found the following bit particularly relevant to mine and Austin’s conversation: ...

***

In case you missed a day:

• 2007.04.11 Islamism Delenda Est // Dem Perfidy Roundup
  • War Czar
  • The Taliban Offensive: Red On Red
  • Iraq in the Balance
  • A Citizen Journalist In Fallujah
  • McCain: I Blame Rumsfeld For Iraq
  • Where Do Nancy Pelosi's Loyalties Lie?
  • Pelosi Diplomacy: Legitimizing Terrorism
  • Gates: Army tours extended by three months
  • Video: Angry Gates unloads on Pentagon leaker
  • I'm sorry for selling my story, says Iran hostage Mr Bean
  • British servicemen unload on littlest sailor, a.k.a. “Mr. Bean";
    Update: Video of Mr. Bean impersonation added!
  • Iraqi insurgents being trained in Iran, U.S. says
  • al Qaeda attack in Algiers

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 12, 2007 at 12:40 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Great Britain, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sunday, 08 April 2007
 

Dhimmicratic leadership -- Take 5
-- Hoyer schmoozes with Muslim Brotherhood
-- Lieberman says Pelosi’s trip was “bad for America”

In case you didn't make it by yesterday:

• Dhimmicratic leadership -- Take 4
  • When a dilettante takes on Hizbullah
  • Nancy Pelosi to be Appointed US Ambassador to the Sun

***

U.S. congressman meets with Mubarak's banned rival

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- A top U.S. Democratic congressman met a leader of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's most powerful rival, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, U.S. officials and the Islamist group said Saturday.

Visiting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with the head of the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni, twice on Thursday -- once at the parliament building and then at the home of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, said Brotherhood spokesman Hamdi Hassan.

U.S. Embassy spokesman John Berry would confirm only that Hoyer, who represents Maryland, met with el-Katatni at U.S. Ambassador Francis Ricciardone's home at a reception with other politicians and parliament members.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has refused in the past to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's largest opposition group. ...

***

Video: Lieberman says Pelosi’s trip to Syria was “bad for America”
Ian Schwartz

Sen. Lieberman condemned Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria, calling it “bad for the United States of America” and “good for the Syrians.” Lieberman went on to talk about Syria’s support of terrorism throughout the Middle East, including Iraq. Liebs doesn’t seem to agree with Pelosi’s notion that “the road to peace goes through Damascus.”

BLITZER: What about Senator Lieberman? What do you think?

LIEBERMAN: I respectfully and strongly disagree with Arlen Specter and with Nancy Pelosi. I believe her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians. And I say this because Syria — we’re in a war. We’re in a war against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.

BLITZER: But they had nothing to do with 9/11.

LIEBERMAN: They have — let me tell what you they have got to do with what we’re into now. The Bashar Assad Syrian government has allowed terrorists and arms to flow across its country into Iraq that are being used to kill Americans today. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 8, 2007 at 02:32 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 05 April 2007
 

Dhimmicratic leadership -- Take 3/"Take Nancy. Please."
-- Nancy Pelosi, Peacemaker or Klutz?
-- "I Went To Syria And All I Got Was This Lousy Scarf"

See previous: Dhimmicratic leadership -- Take 2

Peloopsi As Pelosi Syriasly Bungles Mission
By Ian Bishop,  Post Correspondent (H/T: R J Del Vecchio)

April 5, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday met with Syrian dictator and terror sponsor Bashar Assad - drawing an immediate slap from the White House for rewarding his "bad behavior."

And, to make matters worse, she botched a peace message she carried from Israel.

Vice President Dick Cheney was livid, saying Assad has "been isolated and cut off because of his bad behavior. And the unfortunate thing about the speaker's visit is, it sort of breaks down that barrier."

"It means that without him having done any of those things he should do . . . he gets a visit from a high-ranking American anyway. In other words, his bad behavior is being rewarded," Cheney told ABC News Radio.

Pelosi brought a message from Israel to Assad - but bungled the diplomatic overture, forcing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office to issue a statement correcting the House speaker.  ...

***

Pelosi's Pratfall
Ed Morrissey

Nancy Pelosi's amateurish fumble in Syria left the Washington Post less than impressed. In an editorial titled "Pratfall in Damascus," the Post doesn't stop at scolding Pelosi for demonstrating why egotistical Representatives should not insert themselves into diplomacy. It also questions her motives and accuses her of attempting to create a shadow presidency:

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. ...

The Democrats, led by Pelosi, have tried to undermine Bush for years. Now that they have the majority in Congress, they can give full vent to their schemes. The efforts of the past couple of months show that the Democrats want to turn the Constitution upside down, strip the executive branch of its power, and make Congress the supreme power in the American system.

Well, sorry, but that's the British system.  ...

***

Nancy Pelosi, Peacemaker or Klutz? 
Rick Moran

Now we know why Pelosi was wearing that head scarf in Damascus yesterday. It wasn’t in deference to Muslim tradition. It was to keep her brains from dribbling out of her ears:

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a rare “clarification” Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that “although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.” ...

Obviously, she should have tied the scarf a little tighter given the copious amounts of gray matter that must have oozed out during her visit to the Middle East. Or perhaps she should have used a tin foil hat:

Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks.

“We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said after meeting Assad.

She said the meeting with the Syrian leader “enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well.”

According to officials in the Prime Minister’s Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.

Anyone who believes any “assurances” from that murderous thug Assad obviously needs some additional Reynolds Wrap on their tin foil beanie to deflect all the rays marked “stupid” from penetrating their skull. ...

***

Divide and Conquer Here!
Jules Crittenden

This one’s so good it deserves a mini-moronocy roundup all its own. Matt Stoller at MyDD:

Pelosi is acting as a real Secretary of State or President would in foreign affairs.  She is negotiating and representing an America that offers itself as a trusted partner for peace and collective security.

Sure, if you think it’s presidential to veer way out of your lane to cater to people who are actively involved in the murder of our troops and those they are trying to protect. It’s cool to give terrorist regimes photo ops!

Much of what America did in international affairs prior to the Bush Presidency was to act as sort of buoy, or a neutral third party in negotiations, a bulwark that other nations could broadly trust.

Not sure which alternate universe this guy has been dwelling in.  The United States fought hard battles with communism (evil) in Korea and Vietnam, fought more battles through proxies in Central America and Afghanistan and maintained massively expensive, explicitly non-neutral garrisons in Europe and Asia.  The bobbing around like a neutral buoy was mainly done by people like Jimmy Carter (vs. Iran) and Bill Clinton (vs. al-Qaeda).  Nations trusted us because they knew where we stood, which was between them and the people who would enslave all of us.  Our enemies feared us, even after our failures showed them our weak points.  Reaction to the surge strategy shows this continues to be true, although a serious mistake was just made in dealings with Iran, which was allowed to toy with our ally. ...

***

Pelosi Got Played
Dan Riehl

Speakerette San Fran Nanny Pelosi has embarrassed the United States by misrepresenting important details of her visit to the Middle East and allowed herself to played like a strung out pole dancer in a sleazy night club not even on the main strip.

The Prime Minister's Office has strongly denied that Israel relayed a message to Syria, accepting its calls to renew peace negotiations.

In a special statement of clarification, the bureau stressed that Olmert had told Pelosi that Israel continued to regard Syria as "part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East."

According to sources at the Prime Minister's Office, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her."

Ouch! Amateur hour is over now, little Nancy, it's past time to come home. If you behave, your party may even let you go out, again. All you did was stick a feather in a terrorist's cap - you should be proud.

It's time we admit that, gender aside, Pelosi is a, in a word, moron. From reader Andrew: ...

See also: I Went To Syria And All I Got Was This Lousy Scarf

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 5, 2007 at 11:48 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Nancy Pelosi, Politics, Syria | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 04 April 2007
 

Dhimmicratic leadership -- Take 2
-- Did Pelosi give Assad the wrong message from Israel?
-- Why Foreign Policy Belongs In The Executive Branch

See previous: Dhimmicratic leadership   

Syriana

... IBD Editoirals: Mrs. Chamberlain.

We've seen how well Iran plays with others, capturing 15 British sailors in what in earlier times would have been considered an act of war. It is killing U.S. troops with advanced armor-piercing IEDs it supplies Iraqi jihadists. It plays host to Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi army has tried to destabilize Iraq's infant democracy.

Still, Pelosi insists we follow the ISG's advice.  ...

***

***

Ground Pounding 
Jules Crittenden

A picture’s worth a thousand words:  Pelosi hits the ground crawling.  She’s also freelancing as a go-between for Israel.   And it’s peace in our time!  But how can Pelosi sort out the ancient woes of the Middle East and tell a peace partner from a terrorist when she hasn’t even read her own job description yet?   

Free Syria has more on who Pelosi is talking to. ثقافة الأجهزة القمعية.  Read the whole thing.  Here’s another view on Syria, from across the border.

Big question. A liberal Dem asks: What happens on the ground in Iraq if Pelosi gets her way? ...

***

Did Pelosi give Assad the wrong message from Israel?
Allahpundit

I was skeptical when I first saw Gateway Pundit’s post, but if he’s wrong then why is the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office issuing formal clarifications of what Olmert said to her a few days ago? Quote:

The Prime Minister emphasized that although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the axis of evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.

In order to conduct serious and genuine peace negotiations, Syria must cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbוullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran…

What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel, as was communicated to other foreign leaders.

It’s that middle paragraph that’s key. No peace talks until the terror stops. Absolute precondition. Now here’s how Pelosi described what she said to Assad today, via Gateway Pundit:

“[Our] meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks,” Pelosi told reporters in Damascus after talks with Assad.

Pelosi said Assad in turn assured her of his willingness to engage in peace talks with Israel.

“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process,” Pelosi said. “He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel.”

An Israeli government official said that was not the message Olmert had asked Pelosi earlier this week to convey to Assad, who seeks the return of the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War.

“The prime minister said Israel is interested in peace with Syria, but Syria would first have to abandon the path of terror and providing support for terrorist groups,” the official said, in reference to Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

The left aren’t exactly hard bargainers when it comes to terrorism, but I can’t believe she’d purposely omit a prerequisite as crucial as that in conveying the offer to Assad. Particularly given that it’s an offer from Israel, to whom the Democrats are anxious to prove they’re every bit as strong an ally as Republicans. Which means either she bungled the offer unintentionally, out of sheer, royal stupidity, or she didn’t bungle it at all and there’s simply been a miscommunication somewhere. I’ve got to believe it’s the latter. For all her faults, Pelosi isn’t stupid.

The AP adds a bit that mitigates it somewhat: ...

***

Why Foreign Policy Belongs In The Executive Branch 
Ed Morrissey

The Jerusalem Post notes that the Israeli Prime Minister's office had to issue a "clarification" after Nancy Pelosi attempted to deliver a message from Ehud Olmert to Syria's Bashar Assad. The PMO's statement contradicts Pelosi and points up the problems when amateurs attempt to involve themselves in sensitive diplomacy:

The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

Pelosi somehow forgot the part about ending support for terrorism when she met with Assad. She told the Syrian dictator that Israel was ready to meet with Assad on a peace proposal, which only told part of the story. In delivering only part of the message, Pelosi not only arrogated to herself the role of American foreign policy director -- which Condoleezza Rice has as Secretary of State -- she did the same with Israel's foreign policy as well.

Not a bad night's work for an incompetent.

When diplomats meet with enemies, they make sure to get their positions coordinated with their allies and execute strict message discipline. They do not "wing it" -- they check with their elected governments when any questions arise about the directions of talks. Only someone with an ego in inverse proportion to her talent would start making stuff up as she goes when dealing with the Syrian-Israeli relationship, one of the most explosive in the world. ...

***

Video: Carter defends Pelosi’s meeting with Assad, says it’s “long overdue”
Ian Schwartz

CNN asked Jimmy Carter who is the better “peacemaker,” the actual Secretary of State, Condi Rice, or the woman who thinks she’s the Secretary of State, Nancy Pelosi. Carter said what you’d expect him to say:

Well I wouldn’t want to compare the two women, no. But, I was very pleased when I learned the Speaker would go to Syria. It’s long overdue.

Because really, you just can’t meet with terrorists and dictators quickly enough.

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 4, 2007 at 01:39 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Nancy Pelosi, Syria | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 03 April 2007
 

Dhimmicratic leadership

Thank you Squez35 for the picture. I'm pretty sure it came from somewhere in this neighborhood but I can't find a direct link to it.

***

Pelosi in Damascus
Allahpundit

Drudge has his faults, but it’s kind of awesome that he’s leading with this photo right now. The campaign commercial practically writes itself.

Ah well. A woman must know her place when entering a mosque.

In fairness to Nancy, she did make a rather bold gesture while inside. And had she opted against the headscarf, CAIR would have just photoshopped one onto her anyway.

Can’t resist:

[...]

Expect some sniping from the nutroots at the right (mainly at LGF, I suspect) for posting this photo, which mocks the easy coexistence of feminism and multiculturalism in the progressive belief system. It pains the left too, I’m sure, to see the most powerful woman in America having to yield, however slightly, to a misogynistic culture’s expectations, but they can’t vent their anger at the people responsible so they’ll vent it at Charles or me or whomever instead. Good people. I like ‘em a lot.

***

Bush Raps Pelosi's Trip to Syria

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria on Tuesday, saying it sends mixed signals to the region and to the government of President Bashar Assad.

"There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President Assad: some Americans, but a lot of European leaders, high-ranking officials. And yet we haven't seen action," Bush told reporters at a Rose Garden news conference. "He hasn't responded."

Bush said that Assad had not reined in violent elements of militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah as requested by the international community, had acted to destabilize the democratically elected government of Lebanon and was allowing "foreign fighters" to move into Iraq from Syria.

"Sending delegations hasn't worked. It's just simply been counterproductive," Bush said.

The president spoke shortly after Pelosi, leading a congressional delegation, arrived in Damascus as part of a tour of the Middle East.

***

Nancy Pelosi Conducts her Own Foreign Policy
Kim Priestap

To say she's audacious is to be kind. She's in Syria today to speak with Bashar Assad, the president of Syria, in direct opposition to President Bush, who is the only one who can set our country's foreign policy. When President Bush criticized Pelosi, she thumbed her nose at him in return:

[...]

Speaker Pelosi's visit to Syria carries a lot more weight than those of random Senators because she's right behind Vice President Cheney for the presidency, and she knows it. She and the Democrats have decided that they don't like President Bush's policy regarding Syria, so the they have decided to conduct their own foreign policy.

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 3, 2007 at 06:08 PM in Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Nancy Pelosi, Syria | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 02 April 2007
 

Sharia in the classroom
-- Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

Political correctness and teaching history 
Betsy Newmark (H/T: Dan Riehl)

History teachers have long felt the pull of political correctness in the teaching of history. For some teachers, this takes the form of teaching American history as one long discourse on how despicable white men were to all sorts of groups. In England, concern for the sensitive feelings of Muslim students is causing some teachers to drop whole units from their curriculum lest Muslims take offense.

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'. ...

So now Holocaust denial has become an article of faith that teachers must not offend. The inmates really have taken over the asylum if this is the case. I wonder how much this is due to fear of offending some students or actual fear of what the students might do to teachers. ...

***

Allahpundit has more here.

***

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims 
By Laura Clark (H/T: Michelle)

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.  ...

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

It added: "In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.

"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques."

A third school found itself 'strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination'.

The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship."

But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable."

The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers - particularly at primary level - was leading to history being taught in a 'shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning'.  ...

***

Kim Priestap: Dhimmitude Marches on in Britain

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 2, 2007 at 11:42 AM in Dhimmitude, Great Britain, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dems to become even more offensive

Dems Strong On Defense: Just Not For Us
Dan Riehl

According to the Washington Post, while America is struggling with two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the war on terror, the Democrats are planning to broaden the front by increasing their attacks  ... on Bush. And they intend to do it in ways that will weaken America's ability to fight terrorism anywhere it is found.

Despite the threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.

The Blame America First crowd apparently now sees it's mandate as undermining America's ability to fight terrorism. The liberals at the head of the party will fight to give rights they don't have or deserve to non-citizen terrorists at the very same time they connive to cut off funds for our own troops in the field.

"I suppose there's always a risk of going too far," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "but the risk of not going is far greater."

You think so, Hoyer? Just wait. Too liberal and inside the beltway Democrats have a rude awakening in their future. If they succeed in undermining this country the way they would like, after we get hit again, it is the Democrat Party that will have blood on its hands. ...

***

Democrats To Widen Their Offensive 
Ed Morrissey

Now that they have settled into their offices, the Democrats now want to focus even more on their main enemy. They plan to challenge the Bush administration on a host of issues, most of which have direct correlation to key special interest groups that form their base:

Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues -- such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders -- with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.

For his part, Bush, who also finds himself under assault for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the conduct of the Iraq war and alleged abuses in government surveillance by the FBI, is holding firm. Though he has vetoed only one piece of legislation since taking office, he has vowed to veto 16 bills that have passed either the House or the Senate in the three months since Democrats took control of Congress. ...

Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of legislative victories, Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "political price" at the polls: "If they let their constituents and their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react."

Can they overshoot? Most definitely, and when they do, they will hand on silver platters opportunities for Bush to look presidential. Leon Panetta understands the danger. The Democrats have yet to prove they can govern, and they need to stick to their basics before rushing into the entire national-security panoply. He advises them to stick ti health care, immigration, and social programs and build a record of success there first. ...

George Bush will be warming up his veto pen and preparing for battle himself. The Democrats don't have the votes to override him on any of the important issues, and may wind up making the same mistake Newt Gingrich made in 1995.

***

Democrats win: Here come the constituency payoffs
Bryan Preston

The Democrats are just doing what any party does when they win power: Payback the folks that brung you. And no one should mistake voters with the folks that brung ‘em. The Democrats certainly aren’t.

First payoff: Unions.

Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues — such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders — with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.

Would unionizing airport security workers make us safer or make the system work better? That seems unlikely, to say the least. It would make airport security workers practically unfirable. But it would pay off the unions that strongarm members–in ways other political movement leaders can’t–into donating to the Democrat cause.

Second payoff: Terrorists.

Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.

And –

They also want to reopen last year’s law creating military commissions to restore the right of habeas corpus to terrorism suspects and to revise rules that allow convictions to be based in part on evidence yielded by interrogation methods that critics call torture.

The Gitmo detainees are captured illegal enemy combatants. They were captured battling against US troops during the war in Afghanistan, or in places like Pakistan, where they plotted attacks against Americans. They are not US citizens, and they are not common criminals. Granting them access to the rights afforded US citizens accused of common crime may be the most idiotic idea currently under discussion. And the Democrats are hell-bent to see it happen. Clearly they’re putting the rights of captured enemy combatants, who have never in our history been granted class access to civilian courts, above the rights and safety of the American people. Clearly, the Democrats believe they’re going to benefit from this somehow. The Democrats might be naive enough to believe that granting capture enemy combatants access to civilian courts would win the US favor with the so-called international community. And it might, a little. But will it help us win the war? Is this something average Americans even support?

There’s more in the story, ... 

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 2, 2007 at 10:41 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 14 March 2007
 

al-NYT: CAIRing about America

See previous: The Dhimmicratic party; CAIRing about America

Gray Lady Uses Skirts To Hide CAIR 
Ed Morrissey

The New York Times runs a remarkable article today on the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), painting the group as a victim of bigotry and anti-Islamist fear. Neil MacFarquhar uses the latest controversy over Democratic Congressman Bill Pascrell's arrangement for the use of a House conference room by CAIR to cast criticism of the group as wholly unfounded:

With violence across the Middle East fixing Islam smack at the center of the American political debate, an organization partly financed by donors closely identified with wealthy Persian Gulf governments has emerged as the most vocal advocate for American Muslims — and an object of wide suspicion. ...

“Of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares,” said Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. official who directed counterterrorism in the Washington field office from 2002 to 2005.

Really? All they get are blank stares? Guilt by association? For an article that purports to inform its readers of the controversy surrounding CAIR, it does its best to avoid looking for any details of the criticism it has received -- which has been specific and part of the public record. Even while MacFarquhar notes Joe Kaufman, the Investigative Project, and the Middle East Forum, the only coverage he gives of their opposition to CAIR is a quote from Kaufman about CAIR being a front group.

Let's get specific and move past any blank stares, shall we? ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 14, 2007 at 02:13 PM in Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Media Malpractice | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 21 February 2007
 

A message for YouTube
Michelle Malkin

Please correct the record on our yanked anti-jihad videos. They were not "removed by the user." They were removed by you.

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 21, 2007 at 03:17 PM in Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 07 February 2007
 

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 12

See all of my "Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter" posts in one place here.

Carter Attacks:
Accuses Simon Wiesenthal Center of 'Falsehood and Slander'
Daniel Freedman (Hat tip: Scott Johnson)

After the Simon Wiesenthal Center sent 25,000 signed petitions to Jimmy Carter protesting his book, Carter responded, accusing the Center of "falsehood and slander."

The Center's head, Rabbi Hier responded: "Let me say, Mr. President, that I am not one who believes that Israel is infallible ... the only reason there is no peace in the Middle East is because of Islamic extremists who refuse to compromise, not because of the State of Israel.

We post the full exchange below: ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 7, 2007 at 05:57 PM in Abu Jimmy, Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 06 February 2007
 

The Democrats' hateful new imam
Michelle Malkin

We highlighted the video last week.

Debbie Schlussel exposes more in her NYPost piece today:

THE Democratic National Committee made a strange choice to deliver the invocation last Friday at its winter meeting: Husham al-Husainy - an extremist who has a long record of support for prominent Islamists at war with America and Israel.

Al-Husainy's words before the Democrats - asking God to "help us stop . . . occupation and oppression" - were jarring enough, since he was likely referring to either American soldiers in Iraq or Jews in Israel.

But his past statements and activity make those words even more ominous. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 6, 2007 at 01:23 PM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 02 February 2007
 

The DNC imam's prayer

Video: Imam prays to stop ‘oppression
and occupation’ at DNC meeting 
Ian Schwartz (H/T: Michelle)

The Democratic National Committee is in the midst of its winter meeting. Here’s the convocation for today’s festivities, offered by an imam.

Transcript:

We thank you god, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, god, to make us a great nation. We thank you, god toss send us your messages through our father Abraham, and Jesus and Mohammed, through you, god, we unite, so guide us to the right spot we wish for peace, equality and help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. (emphasis added)

Update (Bryan): We have an ID on the imam. ...

Robert Spencer has more here.

***

Jules calls it Another Dean Scream

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 2, 2007 at 05:31 PM in Dem Dumbness, Dhimmitude, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 27 January 2007
 

Al Qaeda-Cowed Nation Persecutes U.S. Soldiers

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 27, 2007 at 03:19 AM in Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 26 January 2007
 

Talking Ourselves Into Defeat;
Why Many Democrats Won't Even Consider Success in Iraq; Democrats sat whenever the ‘V’ word was uttered

Why Many Democrats Won't Even Consider Success in Iraq
Lorie Byrd

In my Townhall column today I go into the reasons I believe many Democrats are more concerned with politics and the destruction of George W. Bush, than they are the outcome in Iraq.

Over the past months and years, those on the left have gone to great effort to paint the mission in Iraq as "failed," "doomed" and a "disaster." They have failed to acknowledge the accomplishments of the U.S. military in Iraq, but have been quick to talk about those in our armed forces as child victims of a failed policy or (worse) as bloodthirsty thugs engaging in torture and terror.

It is certainly not a pleasant thing to accuse fellow Americans, particularly ones entrusted by the citizenry with the nation's well being, of playing politics with American lives or of providing moral support to her enemies, but I think it is time to ask some hard questions.

Why have so many critics of the war spent more time talking about alleged abuses at Gitmo than they have talking about the new freedoms being enjoyed by those in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of actions taken by the U.S. military?

Why is it that ....

***

Lorie Byrd: Democrats sat whenever the ‘V’ word was uttered

WASHINGTON - The most dramatic statement in the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night did not come from the president, and it was made without speaking a single word.

During his speech, President Bush spoke with conviction about the importance of achieving victory in Iraq:

“This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.”

The majority party’s response to that statement, and others, made more of an impression on me than anything the president said. In response to his call to “turn events toward victory,” the majority of congressional Democrats sat on their hands.

President Bush went on to speak of the consequences of failure in Iraq: “Nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East … to succeed in Iraq … and to spare the American people from this danger.”

But most congressional Democrats’, led by their new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, remained seated and did not applaud.  ...

***

Talking Ourselves Into Defeat
By Daniel Henninger (Hat tip: Austin Bay)

The United States is talking itself into defeat in Iraq. Its political culture is now in a downward spiral of pessimism. In the halls of Congress, across endless newspaper columns, amid the punditocracy and on Sunday morning talk shows--all emit a Stygian gloom about America.

Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins wonders "whether the clock has already run out." To U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the new strategy is "a dead end." For the Bush troop request, presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted "overwhelming rejection." (His committee resolution to that effect yesterday passed by three votes.) Presidential candidate Chuck Hagel: "We have anarchy in Iraq. It's getting worse." And not least, Sen. John Warner this week heaved his tenured eminence against the war effort, proposing another "non-binding" resolution against more troops.  ...

To pick one amid scores of similar characterizations in the media, the Associated Press wrote from Washington before the State of the Union speech that "Democrats--and even some Republicans--scoffed at his policy." "Scoff" is a strong word, suggesting eye-rolling ridicule. (The line was so good that the AP ran it after the speech as well, under another writer's byline, this time from Baghdad.) But of course amid the giddy vapors of mass mockery, they all "support the troops." ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 26, 2007 at 05:26 PM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 24 January 2007
 

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 11

See all of my Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter posts in one place here.

Video: Jimmy Carter “apologizes” for
being a Palestinian suicide bombing apologist
Ian Schwartz

[video link]

Jimmy Carter apologized — infront of a Jewish audience — for this passage from his new book:

He says it was “worded in a completely improper and stupid way” and adds he has “apologized to many audiences.” Alan Dershowitz isn’t buying it, as you will see at the conclusion of the video.

***

See also: Brandeis Censors Attendance at Carter Lecture    

***

***

Jimmy Carter: Meta-Liar
By: The Hatemongers Quarterly

As Joshua Muravchik reports in Contentions, the dynamite new "weblog" of Commentary magazine, Jimmy Carter made the following statement during his visit to Brandeis University in an attempt to defend his new book: "This is the first time I've ever been called a liar." In making this claim, former President Carter asserted that, until his tome Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid hit the bookshelves, he had never been charged with mendacity.

Naturally, this is itself a boldface lie--as Mr. Muravchik, referring to a 1976 Harper's article called "Jimmy Carter's Pathetic Lies," makes clear. What strikes us, the crack young staff of "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," as so offensive, moreover, is the fact that it is such an obvious fib.

We mean, come on: Who in his right mind believes that any president of the United States has entirely avoided being dubbed a liar? On its face, Jimmy Carter's statement is entirely unbelievable. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 24, 2007 at 10:38 PM in Abu Jimmy, Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude,