Ayers & Obama

Stanley Kurtz has written at the WSJ on former terrorist turned Education PhD William Ayers and his relationship to Obama. What it boils down to is that Ayers sees education and teacher training as the keys for pushing his radical anti-American, anti-capitalist agenda. Bottom line, Obama played a major role in helping Ayers push that agenda. This from the WSJ:

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists. . . .

Read the entire article. Is this important in evaluating Obama's beliefs and the nature of his relationship to Ayers as something more than "some guy" who lived in his neighborhood? Look for this to get zero play in the MSM.

Read More...

Summary only...

He's Baaack . . .

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, purveyor of racial hatred, seperatism, and anti-Americanism, spiritual advisor for Obama for over twenty years, has apparently escaped David Axelrod's shackles deep in the most remote parts of Ghana. He has turned up in Houston. And his lips are a flappin'. According to the NYT Post, he has commented on the current race, noting: "This ordinary boy [Obama] just might be the first president in the history of the United States to have a black woman sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania legally."

Could this be any better timing? Can we schedule this guy for the Sunday talk show circuit?

Read More...

Summary only...

The Perfidy of Europe

According to a Telegraph poll, a plurality of Europe's citizens see America as evil. Further, the socialists of Europe join the ranks of Ahmedinejad, Castro, FARC, Ghadaffi, and other assorted haters of America in desiring to see Obama as President.
_______________________________________________________

The Telegraph ran a poll of several thousand people in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia to determine attitudes towards America. Question 1 was do you consider America a force for good or a force for evil in the world. The results:

Britain - Evil 35% / Good 33% (Et tu, Britain, et tu?)

France - Evil 40% / Good 28%

Germany - Evil 39% / Good 25%

Russia - Evil 56% / Good 16%

Italy was the one country, surprisingly, that has a very positive view of America - Good 49% / Evil 27%. It is also the only country that has finally rid itself of communists and elected a true conservative to head its government.

I am not surprised by the British response, given the stranglehold socialism has on that country, though I am depressed about it. Britain is a natural ally and our closest European ally.

It should also be noted that in a poll taken last year, 48% of Germans believed that the US is a greater threat to the world then a soon to be nuclear armed Iran. With allies like these . . .

The poll also asked several other questions, including whom would you like to see elected President. In every country, the overwhelming majority went for Obama. The sum total of all polled went for Obama, 52% to 15%. You can find the poll results here.

We pulled Europe out of the fire in two world wars. We spent a great deal of our wealth rebuilding all of Western Europe with the Marshall Plan following WWII. We protected Western Europe against the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Even with the fall of the Soviet Union, we are still spending billions each year in support of European defense through NATO. Indeed, virtually all European nations have taken advantage of the situation to run minimal defense budgets and rely on the U.S. for their protection. With all of that, one might expect a bit of good will towards the U.S. But there is little to be found among the perfidious socialists who dominate Europe. Indeed, Der Spiegel, the BBC, and many of the state owned media outlets of Europe promote a virulent form of anti-Americanism.

The photo at the top of this post adequately sums up my take on this. If you have not seen it before, its LTG George Patton urinating into the Rhine in 1945. Can the U.S. get out of NATO and the UN fast enough? And as to the Middle East, if we can get our oil from other locales, we should leave Iran to the Europeans to worry about. The nuclear missles they will have in two years won't reach America, but Brussels will likely be in range. And while I am willing to defend the classical values of western civilization with my life and the life of my progeny, when I see things like this, it leads me to conclude that there is little of such civilization left in Europe to defend.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama, Oprah and the Sword of Damocles

Oprah Winfrey was once a member of Rev. Wright's church. What she heard from Rev. Wright caused her to disassociate from the Church in the mid-1990's, a time when she would have been sitting in the pews with Obama and his family, listening to the same "incendiary" sermons. Given Obama's most recent claim that the sermons he heard for twenty years were not racist or anti-American, it seems his candidacy is operating on borrowed time.
_______________________________________________________

This from Newsweek:

. . . [Oprah] Winfrey was a member of Trinity United from 1984 to 1986, and she continued to attend off and on into the early to the mid-1990s. But then she stopped. A major reason—but by no means the only reason—was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. . .

Read the entire article. The article offers no specifics as to the content of those "incendiary" sermons, but if they were such as to offend her mainstream audience, they had to be similar in nature to the racist and anti-American remarks of Rev. Wright playing across our airways for the past two months.

I earlier posted, in Obama as Marley, that Obama's unbelievable claims about his experiences with Rev. Wright would be his downfall:

Despite what we know about Rev. Wright, despite what we know about black liberation theology that animated Trinity United long before Obama became a member, and despite Obama writing that “white greed runs a world in need” in his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama claims that he heard nothing in the pews over twenty years in the nature of the racism and vile anti-Americanism that forms the core of Rev. Wright's black liberation theology.

. . . When I go to church it's not for spectacle. It's to pray and to find -- to find a stronger sense of faith. It's not to posture politically. It's not -- you know, it's not to hear things that violate my core beliefs. . . .

. . . During the course of me attending that church, I had not heard those kinds of statements being made or those kinds of views being promoted. And I did not vet my pastor before I decided to run for the presidency. I was a member of the church.

It is simply unbelievable on the facts we know. It is completely counterintuitive. And Obama’s sarcastic remark about not “vetting” his pastor is an insult to our intelligence after he spent twenty years in the pews. His denial assures that this issue will not go away. Moreover, given the absolute nature of his denial, this was Obama's "I did not have sex with that preacher" moment. Future revelations regarding what he knew and when he knew it will utterly destroy his credibility and, with it, likely his bid for the presidency.

There is a sword of Damocles hanging over Obama, and as I explained in the above post, it has been needlessly placed there by Obama himself. There just is no question that it is going to fall. The only question is when. I suspect it will be in October.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama as Marley

"I wear the chain I forged in life," replied the Ghost. "I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?"

- Marley's Ghost addressing Scrooge, from A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, 1843

On Tuesday morning, Obama held a press conference in order to stop the bleeding caused by his pastor’s, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s, racist and anti-American screed broadcast live to the nation from the National Press Club on Monday. Because Obama was not honest with the public, the bleeding will continue and portends to be fatal. It need not have been.
____________________________________________________________

Many people have said that Obama needs to distance himself from the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But much like Marley's ghost, Obama has, of his own free will, been creating a chain attaching himself to Rev. Wright. After near twenty years of close association, that chain is so long and ponderous that it cannot simply be cut with a bald repudiation - despite what the editorial board of the NYT posited in the wake of Obama's news conference. That poses a problem for Obama that is quickly becoming, if not already, insurmountable.

If Obama had chosen to be honest and fully forthcoming at any point up through his news conference on Tuesday, a transcript of which is here, Obama could have innoculated himself from much of the negatives of his relationship with Rev. Wright and his membership in Trinity United. He would still have stood a realistic chance in his bid for the presidency. Instead, in an amazing display of hubris, Obama has taken the opposite path. He is being dishonest with the public, attempting to hide his past rather than address it.

Reverend Wright’s several public appearances over the weekend brought into stark relief both the seriousness of Wright’s negatives for the Obama candidacy - particularly in November's general election - and the disingenuousness of Obama’s attempts to paint these negatives as unimportant. The issue of Rev. Wright and Obama’s relationship is a core issue of Obama’s candidacy. It goes directly to Obama’s character, judgment, beliefs and, because of the way Obama has handled this issue, his veracity. Obama admitted as much Sunday, in an interview with Fox News. But he could not have framed this issue any more clearly than he did inadvertently in the Tuesday morning press conference:

. . . When I go to church it's not for spectacle. It's to pray and to find -- to find a stronger sense of faith. It's not to posture politically. It's not -- you know, it's not to hear things that violate my core beliefs.

So what does his twenty years of membership in Trinity United tell us of his core beliefs? We are still not sure, as, in between angry denunciations of the outrageous, now fully in context comments Rev. Wright made before the National Press Club, Obama at his press conference was being incredibly disingenuos about the black liberation theology of his Church and the nature of the sermons to which he has been privy.

John Perazzo wrote an exceptional article in February, before Rev. Wright’s name became a household word, explaining the origins and doctrine of black liberation theology. But for the religious overlay, it is a theology that espouses a world view that is marxist in its purest form, both in term of economics and by interpreting all events within the rubric of blacks as permanent victims of oppression occurring at the hands of whites. It is a gospel and a world view out of touch with reality and one that is completely at odds with the persona Obama has painted to the public in an effort to win the presidency.

Obama was asked at his press conference about the nature of black liberation theology and why he chose a church that practiced that philosophy. Obama’s response was rambling and disingenuous rising to the level of an outright falsehood. Obama's initial response was redolent of a seasoned lawyer defending a guilty client - in this case, himself. He claimed that, despite twenty years at Trinity United, he had no idea about the nature of black liberation theology:

“Well, first of all, in terms of liberation theology, I'm not a theologian. So I think to some theologians, there might be some well-worked-out theory of what constitutes liberation theology versus non-liberation-theology.”

To describe that response as disingenuous is an understatement. But then he rose to unambiguous falsehood when equated Wright's black liberation theology to the "social gospel" of Martin Luther King. This does not stand up to the least bit of scrutiny. Black liberation theology was just being born in the crucible of the Sandanista's communist revolution in Nicaragua at about the time MLK was assassinated. It did not originate out of MLK's sermons or philosophy. More importantly, as to substance, MLK was explicit that his goals for blacks were equality with whites and full integration of blacks into the mainstream of society. And he stated his goals with incredible eloquence:

. . . And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today! . . .

See his speech here.

The black liberation theology of Rev. Wright could not be more different than MLK’s “social gospel”. Black liberaton theology is centered on placing the blame for all the ills of black society on the white oppressors. It does not seek equality, it seeks a reckoning of the historical balance sheet. And wholly opposed to MLK’s soul stirring plea for an integrated nation of equals, Rev. Wright’s black liberation theology promotes separatism and makes an explicit call for its members to reject white middle class society. For Obama to equate Rev. Wright to MLK in an effort to diffuse the issue and halt any further inquiry is an outright falsehood.

But Obama, in his Fox interview on Sunday, actually went one further. He equated the vile anti-American fantasies and diatribes of Rev. Wright to MLK’s 1967 Riverside speech criticizing America’s involvement in Vietnam. Again, this does not hold up to the slightest inquiry. MLK’s criticism of American policy did not “damn America” for genocidal acts against blacks. It was a factually based criticism of why MLK saw the war as wrong. And indeed, the facts that formed the foundation of his criticism are well documented in the Pentagon Papers. That is a far cry from the fantastical claims of Rev. Wright, a man who does not argue a rational point of view, but rather paints a fantasy of evil white society at war against blacks and the world at large. In short, the differences between MLK and Rev. Wright are, dare I say it, as clear as black and white.

And that brings us to the core of the Obama approach to all of this. Despite what we know about Rev. Wright, despite what we know about black liberation theology that animated Trinity United long before Obama became a member, and despite Obama writing that “white greed runs a world in need” in his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama claims that he heard nothing in the pews over twenty years in the nature of the racism and vile anti-Americanism that forms the core of Rev. Wright's black liberation theology.

During the course of me attending that church, I had not heard those kinds of statements being made or those kinds of views being promoted. And I did not vet my pastor before I decided to run for the presidency. I was a member of the church.

It is simply unbelievable on the facts we know. It is completely counterintuitive. And Obama’s sarcastic remark about not “vetting” his pastor is an insult to our intelligence after he spent twenty years in the pews. His denial assures that this issue will not go away. Moreover, given the absolute nature of his denial, this was Obama's "I did not have sex with that preacher" moment. Future revelations regarding what he knew and when he knew it will utterly destroy his credibility and, with it, likely his bid for the presidency.

All of this is unfortunate in the sense that by his very candidacy, he could have made a difference for America on racial issue. He in fact could have led the nation on a true discussion of racism in our society - and I am not refering to the self serving pablum of his Philadelphia speech. Given the robust victimhood culture and grievance politics of the left, such a discussion is sorely needed.

With Obama’s unique background and given the reality that our country’s history is stained with racism and slavery, I think the vast majority of Americans, including conservatives, might have accepted a mea culpa from Obama. Were I to write that speech for Obama, it would be along the lines of what I have written below. I do not know if it is accurate, but I suspect that it might be:

As a young man, I was attracted to Rev. Wright by his dynamic presence, his message of hope, and indeed, his message of black liberation theology. That message combined an admirable belief in Jesus with a dream of hope for bettering the world that so captured my imagination that it still remains at the heart of my motivations today. Unfortunately, Rev. Wright's preaching also contained a message of racism and separatism that grew out of the black experience of the 50’s and 60’s.

I long ago separated the wheat from the chaff at Trinity United. I embraced the belief in Jesus as my savior and am eternally indebted to Rev. Wright gifting to me an unshakable belief in the audacity of hope. In those respects, he gave my life a meaning and a direction that have animated me since.

But the point where I agreed with the other aspects of Rev. Wright’s ministry ended within the first years of my joining Trinity United. I was able to recognize that our society has moved beyond Rev. Wright’s racial perspective and, indeed, have staked my entire political life and philosophy on promoting the opposite message. All the facts of my life in the public realm and in the private realm support that.

There are many good things about Rev. Wright that, indeed, have kept me close to him over the years. But his message of racism and his portrayal of a white government at war with blacks were not among them. I stayed in the Church and close to Rev. Wright wholly in spite of those things.

Many will say this reflects on my judgment. I would like to think it reflects far more on my loyalty and sense of duty to a kind, if flawed man to whom I am so indebted. And while I mean that with utter sincerity, I also speak with utter sincerity when I say that, in retrospect, I wish that had I been forceful over the years with Rev. Wright in expressing to him that his message, to the extent it contained a racist message, was wrong. At first I kept silent in the pews simply out of fear of offending Rev. Wright. As I aged and matured, I made the error of just keeping silent in the pews. I do hope that you will understand and forgive me for that error.

Unfortunately, even if the above is correct, we have seen repeatedly that Obama accepts no personal responsibility when he thinks that he can skate by. Obama lacks the necessary foresight, the intellectual honesty and the intestinal fortitude to make such a mea culpa. And indeed, the time frame in which he could do it and survive politically is likely passed. To attempt a mea culpa when future revelations come out will be interpreted as hypocritical political expediency and unlikely to salvage his bid for the presidency. Like Marley's ghost, Obama has doomed himself to walk the earth under the weight of the chain he built, link by link to Rev. Wright, over a period of twenty years. And he has securely tethered the chain to himself with buckles formed of hubris.

Read More...

Summary only...

How About Some Context?

Reverend Jeremiah Wright had two significant engagements over the past few days. He was interviewed by PBS resident far left personality, Bill Moyers, in a puff ball interview that saw Moyers do his best to redeem Wright. But then today, speaking before the National Press Club, it was Jeremiah Wright unglued in all of his racist, anti-American glory. We will have to await for Obama to provide the context.
________________________________________________________

In 2006 and before, Obama couldn't say enough about his preacher and mentor of twenty years, Rev. Wright. But once Rev. Wright's virulent racism and anti-Americanism became common knowledge, Obama has been trying his best to claim that what we have heard of Rev. Wright was a rare anamoly, taken out of context by the media and not central to the message Obama embraced for twenty years with his attendace and wallet. That canard just become much harder to make with a straight face, compliments of Rev. Wright today. This from Dana Milibank's blog at the Washington Post:

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

. . . Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."

That significantly complicates Obama's job as he contemplates how to extinguish Wright's latest incendiary device. Now, he needs to do more than express disagreement with his former pastor's view; he needs to refute his former pastor's suggestion that Obama privately agrees with him.

Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full "context" of his sermons -- yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.

His claim that the September 11 attacks mean "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?

Wright defended it: "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").

And he vigorously renewed demands for an apology for slavery: "Britain has apologized to Africans. But this country's leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I'm not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, does this hurt, do you forgive me for stepping on your foot, if I'm still stepping on your foot. . . .

Read the entire article.

Update from Wretchard at the Belmont Club:

Maybe James Lewis is onto something when he argues that the "moment of truth for the Left has arrived" because the ideology espoused by Jeremiah Wright and his enthusiastic audience is more a product of the Left's idea mill than anything else. You'll find equivalent versions of the Wright ideology for Latinos, Indians, gays, lesbians and environmentalists. Wright is part of a product line. A small part.

And that's why Obama's associations with people like Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, in conjunction with Jeremiah Wright are more significant than they appear at first glance. They imply a loyalty to the parent brand, the Left, more than to its special product line for black people.

Below are the videos of Rev. Wright's entire appearance today at the National Press Club.

Part 1




Part 2




Part 3




Part 4




Part 5




Part 6

Read More...

Summary only...

The War On Sadr Begins - & The WP Throws Their Support to Sadr (Updated)

For Iraq to create a functioning democracy, it has always been a question of when rather than if U.S. and Iraqi forces would have to deal with Sadr and his Iranian backed Mahdi militia. It would appear that, despite the six month extension to the cease fire proclaimed by Sadr in February, the time for dealing with the Sadr's Mahdi militia is now.




_____________________________________________________

Sadr's Iranian backed Mahdi militia is now in open revolt in Basra and Baghdad as well as other areas in the south of Iraq. U.S. forces have joined the fight. The spark for this fight was Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's order to his army to retake Basra - the major Iraqi port - from the "criminal elements" who are controlling the port as part of an incredibly lucrative enterprise involving theft of oil. Maliki claims that this is not directed at Sadr, yet from the reaction by the Sadrists, there can be little doubt that they form the bulk of the "criminal elements" in Basra and that their major source of funds is now threatened.

This conflict was inevitable. Sadr, alligned with Iran and studying to become an ayatollah based on the Iranian school that requires clerical rule, has been an intensely destabilizing force in Iraq despite his recently declared cease-fires. It has long appeared that Iran wanted to see the Mehdi militia turned into a Hezbollah type of operation with Sadr at its head and loyal to Iran. See here and here. Following the British withdrawal from Basra, the Iranians, working through their Sadr proxies, have been attempting to take control of Basra through a combination of assassinations and intimidation. If there is ever to be a functioning democracy in Iraq, Sadr and his militia must be disarmed, or barring that, destroyed.

And now it has begun. PM Maliki's offensive to retake Basra has lit a larger revolt by Sadrists in Baghdad and throughout cities in the south of Iraq. Sadr himself is calling for a negotiated settlement - something the Iraqi government should not even consider. This from Bill Rogio:

The cease-fire extension issued by Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army, appears to be in jeopardy after the Iraqi government has launched an offensive against the Shia terror group in the southern city of Basrah. Dubbed Operation Knights' Assault, Iraqi security forces have gone on the offensive to wrest control of the strategic oil hub and Iraq's second largest city from Mahdi Army control. The fighting has spread to Baghdad and the southern provinces.

Knights' Assault is an Iraqi-led operation and was ordered directly by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who is in Basrah to direct the operation along with Interior Minister Jawad Bolani. Basrah has seen an uptick in Iranian-backed terror activity since the British withdrew from the city late last year. Political assassinations and intimidation campaigns have been on the rise as the Iranians work to extend their influence in the oil-rich city.

At least 18 Iraqis were killed, including three policemen, and more than 100 were wounded in fighting in the southern city on Tuesday, as Iraqi troops advance to clear neighborhoods controlled by the Mahdi Army. Fighting is reported to have broken out in Baghdad and Al Kut in Wasit province. Curfews have been imposed in Karbala, Wasit, Babil, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, and Basrah after fighting between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi security forces broke out in the South.

The Sadrist Bloc, the political arm of the Mahdi Army, has boycotted Parliament and called for general strike and civil disobedience. Muqtada al Sadr has not officially withdrawn from the self-imposed cease-fire.

Mahdi Army forces have also launched mortar and rocket attacks at US and Iraqi bases in Baghdad. On March 25, twelve mortar and rocket strikes were launched at the International Zone, Forward Operating Base Falcon, Forward Operating Base Rustamiyah, and Joint Security Stations Thawra 1 and SUJ. The attacks were launched from Sadr City, a Mahdi Army stronghold in Baghdad. On March 23, 15 civilians were killed during mortar and rocket attacks aimed at the sprawling Coalition military complex southern Baghdad.

US troops are acting in a support role in Basrah and the south, several US military officers told The Long War Journal. The US is providing intelligence, combat support, and air assets to back Iraqi security forces in Basrah and along the Iranian border.

US forces are also actively hunting the Mahdi Army cells in Baghdad conducting the mortar and rocket attacks. Coalition and Iraqi Army forces detained 11 Special Groups operatives believed to be behind a mortar attack on FOB Falcon.

The current Iraqi offensive has been in the works for some time. The Iraqi Army and police have been massing forces in the South since August 2007, . . .

The clashes with the Mahdi Army come just weeks after Muqtada al Sadr admitted failure in Iraq. "So far I did not succeed either to liberate Iraq or make it an Islamic society — whether because of my own inability or the inability of society, only God knows," Sadr wrote to his followers. "The continued presence of the occupiers, on the one hand, and the disobedience of many on the other, pushed me to isolate myself in protest. I gave society a big proportion of my life. Even my body became weaker, I got more sicknesses." . . .

Read the entire article here. Update: You can find Michael Yon's take on the hostilities in Basra and the Iranian connection in an MP3 interview with Instapundit here.

Sadr has called for a negotiated end to the offensive, an offer Maliki has refused, stating "We entered this battle with determination and we will continue to the end. No retreat. No talks. No negotiations." As reported by Reuters, Sadrists have, in addition to engaging in general hositilities in several areas, kidnapped an Iraqi government spokesman and bombed an oil pipeline.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are both spinning their reporting on this, though the latter is the worst. The NYT reports, U.S. forces have flown reconnisance over Basra and have engaged in a bombing run. As the NYT frames this, the U.S. has been "drawn into" the fight in Basra, as opposed to this being how regular operations are envisioned as Iraqi forces stand-up. If things are working as planned, than offensives such as what is occurring in Basra would have Iraqi forces in the lead, supported as necessary by U.S. forces, and especially U.S. air power, a combat multiplier that the Iraqi military cannot yet field.

The Washington Post reporting, which you can find here, is outrageous, spinning off into the arena of supposition, conspiracy theory and anti-American propaganda:

Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that "we can't quite decipher" what is going on. It's a question, he said, of "who's got the best conspiracy" theory about why Maliki decided to act now.

The WP seems to think this offensive came out of thin air. They ignore both the build-up of Iraqi forces, as reported by the LWJ, and the acts that have made the offensive necessary - i.e., the withdrawal of British forces, the increased Iranian inspired violence in Basra by the Mahdi Army, and the fact that the government of Iraq has the right, responsibility and duty to control their sole major port. The WP seems to be deligitimizing the offensive, portraying it as some sort of corrupt political maneuver against innocent Sadrists. To continue:

In Basra, three rival Shiite groups have been trying to position themselves, sometimes through force of arms, to dominate recently approved provincial elections.

The U.S. officials, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said that they believe Iran has provided assistance in the past to all three groups: the Mahdi Army; the Badr Organization of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Iraq's largest Shiite party; and forces loyal to the Fadhila Party, which holds the Basra governor's seat. But the officials see the current conflict as a purely internal Iraqi dispute.

Some officials have concluded that Maliki himself is firing "the first salvo in upcoming elections," the administration official said.

"His dog in that fight is that he is basically allied with the Badr Corps" against forces loyal to Sadr, the official said. "It's not a pretty picture."

I have no idea who the WP is getting its quotes from, but they are problematic. One, the jump in violence in Basra is primarilly related to the Mahdi army. Two, this government offensive is aimed at "all criminal elements" and to demilitarize the city, meaning it will target elements beyond Sadr's militia. Three, to the extent these other oraganizations are not engaging in assassination, theft and intimidation - and I have seen no reports indicating that the ISCI or Fadhila are doing so as part of regular ongoing operations - then Maliki should be aligned with them. They are part of the democratic process. Four, and perhaps the most galling of this incredibly poor WP report, is that it ignores the fundamental truth that the Iraqi government can, should and must have control of its ports and cities, as well as control Iraq's primary public resource, oil. There is nothing dubious about this offensive. To the contrary, it is absolutely necessary if the government is to ever function.

And the WP is far from done. To continue:

. . . Several Mahdi Army commanders said they had been fighting U.S. forces for the past three days in Sadr City, engaging Humvees as well as the Strykers. By their account, an Iraqi special forces unit had entered Sadr City from another direction, backed by Americans, but otherwise the fighting had not been with Iraqis.

"If there were no Americans, there would be no fighting," said Abu Mustafa al-Thahabi, 38, a senior Mahdi Army member.

The WP repeats that quote and leaves it hanging with no rebuttal - suggesting that the violence in Iraq is solely a function of the U.S. presence. What pure bull.

Sadrists are rising up throughout Iraq and most of the violence is not directed at the U.S. It just so happens that near Sadr City, there are American targets. Further, as a practical matter, this report wholly ignores Iranian involvement in the violence and their efforts to dominate Shia Iraq through the Mahdi Army. And lastly, as a practical matter, leaving this quote hanging implies that having an unsanctioned militia in Iraq whose loyalty is to Sadr, if not directly to Iran, rather than to the Iraqi government is perfectly acceptable. In what world does that make any sense? In essence, what the WP is doing is reporting enemy propoganda unchallenged.

It is one thing to be anti-American, another entirely to be pro-enemy. The WP crosses both lines with its reporting today.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hypocrisy and Obaminations (Update 3)

In the wake of the revelations about Obama's church of twenty years and his close relationship with a vitriolic, racist and anti-American preacher, we are treated in the MSM to near silence and, in several instances, outright dissimulation. Indeed, the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune tell us that "no one with more than a springer spaniel's political awareness" need be concerned with what Rev. Wright has said.


______________________________________________________

Barak Obama is asking for us to vote him into our Presidency. Does he evince sufficient character, judgment and veracity to warrant it?

We evaluate a person based on their deeds, their associations and their words. All three tell us much, as does any dissonance among the three. Do the words match the deeds? Are the associations consonant with both? Of these three, probably the most difficult and fraught with potential for unfairness lies with assessing associations.

That said, one of the oldest sayings that we have in the English language is that a man shall be known by the company he keeps. Indeed, the saying itself has ancient roots, deriving from Book of Proverbs 13:20. Taken past its reasonable moorings, this can lead to an unfair assessment of guilt by simple association. But to dismiss the importance of associations on that possibility alone would be a rejection of the wisdom of the ages. And the longer and deeper the associations, the more important they are in assessing the judgment and character of an individual.

In the case of Barack Obama, we now know that he has had a two decades long and extensive association with the Reverend Jerimiah Wright and Trinity United Church. You can find the details and the videos about the deeply racist and anti-American Rev. Wright here. Here is one of the videos:



The relevant facts for this post are that Obama chose this Church. Obama has attended the church for twenty years, and he has spoken often about how important Rev. Wright has been to his life, how he regularly consulted the Reverend on matters both spiritual and secular, and indeed, how he used one of the Reverend's racist sermons to form the basis of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

Obama's defenses now that the video above and others have surfaced of Rev. Wright's sermons are simply unbelievable:

1. He has tried to deflect the questions about his Church by simply asserting he did not see the Church as "particularly controversial."

2. He attended the Church for twenty years, but claims that he never heard Rev. Wright express this racist, anti-American vitriol that lies at the heart of Rev. Wright's "social gospel."

3. He downgraded the pastor of the Church yesterday to the status of a mere parishioner whose relationship to Obama was that of an acquintance and with whom he had a limited scope of dealings: "I knew him as somebody in my church who talked to me about Jesus and family and friendships."

To put this in perspective, if we were to find that John McCain, for the past twenty years, had embraced as his spiritual advisor a racist who preached vitriol and hatred against his country, who doubts that it would be front page news for months to come. If McCain had not only chosen this man as his pastor, but written about his theories and closely associated with him in his decision making, there would be a great national debate - or at least an unending series of editorials and news analyses - on the pages of the NYT and Washington Post. Left wing pundits would be red-faced and sputtering with righteous moral outrage.

They would be right to do so. And conservatives, I would like to think, would be equally vociferous and, indeed, leading the charge.

Yet, now that it has become clear, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that Obama is embroiled in just such a scenario, there is only the hypocrisy of silence in the MSM for the most part, the brazen hypocrisy of attempting to pretend it does not matter from others.

In the Washington Post, it has only merited a posting to a blog.

In the NYT, we were treated to a blog post discussing only Obama's defenses and a short article on the topic, noting that Obama is "distancing" himself from his preacher.

But by far the most disingenuous is the Chicago Tribune who, in an editorial, have equated Clinton's relationship with Geraldine Ferarro to Obama's relationsip with Rev. Jerimiah Wright and dismissed both:

The controversial, race-based comments of former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro and of retired South Side pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. are of genuine importance to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee. . . .

. . . No one with more than a springer spaniel's political awareness thinks that Ferraro speaks for Clinton, or that Wright speaks for Obama. Demands from one candidate's supporters that the other repudiate what was said on his or her behalf ring disingenuous. . . .

Read the entire editorial. Any equation of Clinton/Ferraro to Obama/Rev. Wright cannot even be rightly described as comparing apples to oranges, because those two are at least both fruit. It really is more like comparing apples to deadly nightshade in the degree of difference between the two. No one claims that Clinton had a twenty year relationship with Ferraro, or that she regularly consulted Ferraro on matters both spiritual and otherwise. Ms. Clinton has not crafted a book and a campaign message on the philosophy of Ms. Ferraro. In short, it would take an axe to chop through the disingenuousness and hypocrisy in the Chicago Times editorial.

All of this creates a tremendous level of dissonance as we attempt to evaluate Obama's character, integrity, and whether he has the judgment to lead America. Obama's appeal to this point has been in his words. He portrays himself as being post-racial, able to unite America as one. And yet one of his closest associations over the past twenty years has been with his choice of a spiritual guide and mentor whose vile racism and divisivness has no part in America today. That is a level of dissonance that cannot be swept under the carpert except by utter fools on one hand and those who happen to agree with the racist and anti-American screed of Rev. Wright on the other.

It may well be, as many have speculated, that Obama merely joined the Church and associated so closely with Rev. Wright over the past twenty years purely for political gain. If that is the truth, than we need to know it and judge Obama accordingly. It will tell us about Obama's charachter, his lack of principle, his opportunism, his lack of veracity, and his incredibly cynical embrace of political expediency.

The alternative, and certainly what was suggested several weeks ago by the remarks of Michelle Obama regarding her being proud of America for the "first time," is that Obama and his wife have been quite amenable to Rev. Wright's racist and anti-American screed. If that is the truth, than it will be equally informative of Obama's character and veracity. In either event, Obama's dissimulation and the attempt by his supporters to assert this does not matter while offering vacuous comparisons will not - and cannot be allowed - to work.

Update: Obama continues his dissimulation, now scrubbing mention of his pastor of twenty years from his website.



(H/T Before and After screenshots from LGF and Powerline)

Update2: In four days, there has been a 5 point change in the poll numbers. Obama is dropping. Clinton now leads in the national polls 47 to 45.

Obama now plans to address the race issue at a speech in Philladelphia on March 18. This from the Atlantic:

Barack Obama plans a major speech tomorrow in Philadelphia on race, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the future.

An adviser said that Obama wants to contain the Wright story. He worries that the 1960s-to-1980s prism of race is what everyone has read into it, and Obama wants to move the discussion forward.

He is expected to recount, in detail, how he came to know Rev. Wright, how he came to admire Rev. Wright, the history and meaning of the Trinity church, and address the controversial remarks attributed to Wright. . . .

Read the article here. Given the dissimulation by Obama himself to this point, I expect nothing less from his speech tomorrow.

Update 3: I have listened to Obama's speech. I will do a seperate post on the speech, though several things struck me. He has now changed his story and admitted that he was well aware of Rev. Wright's racism and bombast, though he did nothing to explain why he would willingly sit through such racist and anti-American screed for twenty plus years. He is trying to create an acceptable grey area out of clear racism and anti-Americanism that should enjoy no support in this land.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News From Around The Web

Amir Taheri takes a detailed look at the good and bad in Iraq beyond the security situation itself. He has harsh words for the government of Iraq.

Iran is hosting its own Middle East peace summit with all of the attendees being those whose invites to Annapolis were apparently lost in the mail. The participants are expected to unanimously agree to a final solution.

Iraqis are returning to Baghdad in large numbers.

Don Surber is celebrating V-I Day. It is a bit early for that – there still seems to be a lot of fighting to do, and Iran is going to be something between a significant and a huge problem until the Khomeinist theocracy is no longer.

There is the Stop the ACLU Roundup at Miss Beth’s Victory Dance. I am not reflexively anti-ACLU at least to the extent that I will listen to what they have to say before making my decision that its bad for America. Its just happens to be that decision is the one at which I invariably arrive.

We knew that President Bush welcomed the Goracle to the White House to honor his Nobel Prize, but did anyone realize that it was a low carbon event in Gore’s honor?

A 17th century book believed to be bound in the skin of a priest hung, drawn and quartered for treason as part of the famous Gunpowder Plot is up for auction in the UK.

Posterizing Democrats over at TNOY. Hilarious.

Hate America bias amongst our friends at Der Spiegel? I do hope they enjoy the good life they are going to have in the EU.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ralph Peters and the 12 Myths of War

Ralph Peters has written an exceptional article in American Legion Magazine, expressing his concerns with the historical misunderstandings held by much of our populace and our politicians. He specifically addresses some of common anti-war memes that dominate our national discoure, accepted as true at face value:

. . . Th[e] combination of national leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.

Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.

This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years, war has been the last resort - and all too frequently the first resort - of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree in our politics or on the manner in which a given war is prosecuted, but we can't pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same.

Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?

Certainly, not all of the changes warfare has wrought through the centuries have been positive. Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won't be deterred by bumper stickers.

Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.

Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if U.S. troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers, and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don't need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win.

And you can't win if you won't fight. We're at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy's feelings.

One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap. It's an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn't want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.

Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today's opinionmakers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. In the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, "War means fighting, and fighting means killing."

And in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

Historically, fewer than one in 20 major insurgencies succeeded. Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century, insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case, but that was because the European colonial powers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not, from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good.

The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.

Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

In most cases, the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win.

The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.

Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.

Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We've allowed far too many myths about the "innate goodness of humanity" to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we're unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that's evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we'll face even grimmer conflicts.

Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims. We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban's Mullah Omar would only unite their followers. Well, we haven't yet gotten Osama or Omar, but Zarqawi's dead and forgotten by his own movement, whose members never invoke that butcher's memory. And no one is fighting to avenge Saddam. The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech, which the global media is delighted to broadcast. Dead, they're dead. And killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don't kill.

Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.

Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March?

The greatest immorality is for the United States to lose a war. While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime. Soldiers are human, and no matter how rigorous their training, a miniscule fraction of our troops will do vicious things and must be punished as a consequence. Not everyone in uniform will turn out to be a saint, and not every chain of command will do its job with equal effectiveness. But obsessing on tragic incidents - of which there have been remarkably few in Iraq or Afghanistan - obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.

Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.

Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against U.S. policy that dwarfed today's let's-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950s and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam. Imagine if we'd had 24/7 news coverage of those rallies. I well remember serving in Germany in the wake of our withdrawal from Saigon, when U.S. soldiers were despised by the locals - who nonetheless were willing to take our money - and terrorists tried to assassinate U.S. generals.

The fashionable anti-Americanism of the chattering classes hasn't stopped the world from seeking one big green card. As I've traveled around the globe since 9/11, I've found that below the government-spokesman/professional-radical level, the United States remains the great dream for university graduates from Berlin to Bangalore to Bogota.

On the domestic front, we hear ludicrous claims that our country has never been so divided. Well, that leaves out our Civil War. Our historical amnesia also erases the violent protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the mass confrontations, rioting and deaths. Is today's America really more fractured than it was in 1968?

Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.

Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda's Vietnam, not ours.

Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.

The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there's nothing more we can do. But we're not there yet, and leaving immediately would guarantee not just one massacre but a series of slaughters and the delivery of a massive victory to the forces of terrorism. We must be open-minded about practical measures, from changes in strategy to troop reductions, if that's what the developing situation warrants. But it's grossly irresponsible to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq - an allegation that ignores history.

Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."

Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless other imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedoms and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel genuinely wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map.

As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Saudi money continues to subsidize anti-Western extremism, to divide fragile societies, and encourage hatred between Muslims and all others. Saudi extremism has done far more damage to the Middle East than Israel ever did. The Saudis are our enemies.

Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.

Muslim extremists would like everyone to believe this, but it just isn't true. The collapse of once great Middle Eastern civilizations has been under way for more than five centuries, and the region became a backwater before the United States became a country. For the first century and a half of our national existence, our relations with the people of the Middle East were largely beneficent and protective, notwithstanding our conflict with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. But Islamic civilization was on a downward trajectory that could not be arrested. Its social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, its lack of scientific curiosity, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a single modern state that served its people all guaranteed that, as the West's progress accelerated, the Middle East would fall ever farther behind. The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.

Read the entire article.

(Hattip: Belmont Club)

Read More...

Summary only...