Monthly Archives: June 2009

Well, the decision to send those Jihadis to Palau and Bermuda isn’t working out so well

Obama’s decision to shut down Gitmo at all costs continues to have unexpected consequences for friends of America around the globe.

The folks in Bermuda aren’t real thrilled with their new Uighur neighbors. Now the government there is facing a no-confidence vote. This, of course, comes after America’s staunchest ally, Great Britain, was once again purposely insulted by Obama by our failure to notify them of the deal to send the Uighur jihadis to a commonwealth nation.

Why Obama hates the Brits so much and what he expects to gain by treating them so shabbily is certainly a mystery to me.

Meanwhile, some of the other Uighurs who were slated to go to Palau after Obama bribed that poor nation into taking them, now say they don’t want to go, at least that’s what their lawyers are telling us. (Think how surreal this is; enemy Jihadis captured on the battlefield being represented by American lawyers. I still can’t get used to the concept.)

Since the Uighurs don’t want to go to Palau, I have some suggestions as to where we might send them:

French Frigate Shoals

French Frigate Shoals

Wake Island

Ascension Island
Ascension Island
South Georgia Island

South Georgia Island

Diego Garcia

Diego Garcia

33 Taliban become “moderate”

The search for the elusive and mythical “moderate” Taliban that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton keep telling us about uncovered 33 such individuals in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan…

Baloney from Obama on North Korea–and Covering for Iran

In the video below, President Obama is asked if his policies toward North Korea and Iran are accomplishing anything, other than buying those two nations time to expand their nuclear programs.

This was a surprisingly excellent question from the media–and one that could only have been asked overseas. There is simply no way in hell that any member of the lapdog White House press corps, which may as well be a branch of the administration staff, would have sacked up to ask this question.

Predictably, Obama, sans teleprompter, stuttered and stammered his way clumsily through a non-answer. Watch as French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose administration led negotiations with Iran for some time and was critical of Obama’s naivete’ regarding Iran, is clearly uncomfortable sitting next to Obama as our president pratfalls his way through his attempt at an answer:

There is much that is troubling about Obama’s answer, besides his obvious inability to articulate on the subject.

He appears to be taking shots at the Bush administration by stating repeatedly that North Korea will no longer be rewarded for bad behavior.

But the fact is, his policy toward North Korea is EXACTLY a continuance of the Bush policy: We’ve got Russia and China on our side…

Russia and China are NOT on our side here. China in particular has a long history of supplying arms to North Korea. Without Russia and China, in fact, North Korea’s nuclear program would be a group of physicists in a lab conducting experiments and nothing more.

It is especially ironic that Obama is attempting to distance himself from the Bush policies given that he himself personally selected the architect of the Bush policy toward North Korea, Christopher R. Hill, to be ambassador to Iraq, where, even more ominously, he will no doubt have to interact with the neighboring Iranians. Obama picked him over the desires of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who wanted retired Marine General Anthony Zinni for the Iraq ambassadorship. This is an indication of just how impressed Obama is with Hill.

We can only shudder to think what Hill might give away to appease the Iranians. He had North Korea taken off the terrorist-sponsoring list, above the objections of US ally Japan, because of their perceived “cooperation” on their nuclear program, only to watch with his thumb up his you-know-where as they went back on those agreements after the fact. If there is one man in the United States of America who we do NOT want dealing with the Iranians, it is Christopher R. Hill.

Note in the video that Obama completely ignores the issue of Iran. He does not even attempt to answer that part of the question and basically covers up the Iranians’ actions:

1. Like North Korea, Iran has also conducted ballistic missile tests.

2. Iran has announced that they are now spinning 7200 centrifuges–in violation of international treaties and UN Security Council resolutions.

3. Iran has refused to cooperate with IAEA inspectors–again, in violation of international treaties and UN Security Council resolutions.

4. Iran continues to supply heavy weapons to the Taliban, which the Taliban use to kill US GIs in Afghanistan

Obama mentions none of this.

 

Why?

Taliban continue to get heavy weapons from Iran

For years now, NATO commanders have been saying that Iran has been supplying weaponry to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

For instance, General Petraeus told reporters back in February that Iran was aiding the Taliban:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aru5H2YB1Tv8&pid=20601087

However, these reports go at least all the way back to 2007, when a US State Department representative cited irrefutable evidence of Iran arming the Taliban:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/13/iran.taliban/index.html

In fact, NATO intercepted a shipment of arms from Iran to the Taliban just about two years ago:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html

Nevertheless, some on the Left have been skeptical of Iran’s support for the Taliban, based on the fact that the Taliban are Salafi Sunni Muslims and the Iranians are Shiite Muslims.

This type of blind dogma continues to hamstring US policy, despite overwhelming evidence that Iran works enthusiastically with Sunnis against the West.

For instance, HAMAS receives the lion’s share of its funding and arms from Iran, despite the fact that HAMAS is a Sunni terrorist offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, another Salafi Sunni organization. This is not in dispute. Iran admits that they fund HAMAS and HAMAS admits that they get money from Iran.

Moreover, Iran has also aided the Taliban’s greatest ally, Al Qaeda, another Salafi Sunni terrorist organization. Many continue to dispute that Iran sponsors Al Qaeda, but the facts are out there for analysis, as yours truly wrote in National Review back in March 2008:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGE0ZWE0MWVjMmI2YjI4NzI1OTg2YzZmMjJjNzMwOGY

Despite Iran’s record of aiding Sunni terrorist organizations and the Taliban in particular, the Obama administration has been trumpeting the idea of enlisting Iran’s aid in the battle against…those same Taliban.

The problem is, predictably, the hairbrained scheme to get the Iranians to help NATO battle the Taliban in Afghanistan is running into a little problem: Iran is arming the Taliban.

What now Obama?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5477283/Iranian-weapons-getting-through-to-Taliban.html

Purple Hearts for the Two Soldiers Shot by the Little Rock Jihadist?

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who reportedly studied jihad with an Islamic scholar in Yemen, shot Private William Long and Private Quinton I. Ezeagwula. Long died from his wounds.

Will these two soldiers killed/wounded by the Jihadist in Little Rock get Purple Heart awards?

That might be a question with national policy implications in terms of Obama’s nomenclature for the war formerly known as “on terrorism” and now known as “overseas contingency operations.”

Little Rock isn’t overseas and the perpetrator might be regarded as a “criminal” and not the enemy that he is.

Given the new parameters of the Obama administration, would the slain soldier and wounded soldier be eligible for Purple Hearts? Had the two soldiers been standing in front of the recruiting office and been slain/wounded in an armed robbery, they certainly would not be eligible for Purple Hearts.

If the Obama administration views Jihadist terrorism as a law enforcement issue, as they claim, would these two soldiers be eligible for Purple Hearts? And, if they do receive Purple Hearts, isn’t that a tacit acknowledgement that they were in fact not involved in a crime but in an action in which they were killed/wounded by enemy fire?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,829 other followers

%d bloggers like this: