► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘John Kerry’

Flying Pig moment – John Kerry roasts Turkey!

by Mojambo ( 240 Comments › )
Filed under Islamists, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, Turkey at March 8th, 2013 - 11:30 am

It’s about time someone told that vile piece of filth Recip Tayyip Erdogan to shut his bigoted mouth regarding our friends in Israel. Erdogan  is an incredibly boorish, loud mouthed, Muslim Brotherhood front man and has been getting away with anti-Semitic statements for several years now. The Government of Israel until recently has been ignoring them in the vain hope that Erdogan will get it out of his system and try to at least restore a modicum of the relations that the two nations have had in the past. However Erdogan’s recent statement calling the Jewish state criminal has finally unshackled Israel and to her credit, Israel has mentioned the Turkish occupation of Cyprus and its mistreatment of the Kurds.

by Lee Smith

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not a man who minces words. He has called Israel a “terrorist state” and has suggested that “Allah would punish” Israel for its inhumane actions in Gaza. Usually, the United States pretends not to hear Erdogan’s rants—but not on Friday, when John Kerry, while visiting Ankara during his first trip abroad as secretary of state, denounced Erdogan for calling[1] Zionism “a crime against humanity.” In response to Erdogan, Kerry said[2]: “We not only disagree with it, we found it objectionable.”

On Monday at AIPAC, Vice President Joe Biden praised[3] Kerry for standing up to the Turkish prime minister—and Kerry deserved the props. Kerry’s comment is as critical as State Department language gets regarding a NATO ally—and it’s about time. Policymakers from the Bush and Obama Administrations have sweet-talked and protected Erdogan since his Justice and Development party, known by its Turkish acronym AKP, came to power in 2003. Both White Houses saw Turkey as the model for moderate Islamism, a political current ostensibly willing to embrace democratic norms and project friendly power abroad, including the continuation of its strategic relationship with Israel. They believed Erdogan held the future of U.S. Middle East policy in his hands.

But for Erdogan and the AKP that vision has come undone. [……..]Abroad, the uprising in neighboring Syria has shown Ankara’s limits, incapable of shaping even its own immediate sphere of influence. These days, Turkey is looking less like an Anatolian tiger than the mouse that roared. The prospective pillar of Obama’s Middle East policy—the regional power that the White House might have hoped would replace Israel as a strategic ally—is now in meltdown.

***

It all looked like it was going Turkey’s way just two years ago. Erdogan had positioned himself as a power broker, and Barack Obama considered[4] him one of his closest friends among world leaders. From the White House’s perspective, Erdogan seemed like he had the best possible shot at bridging the distance between Washington and Tehran. The administration hoped he might strike a deal over the Iranian nuclear program that would satisfy both sides. Moreover, the White House believed he would serve as an intermediary between the Americans and the Middle East’s increasingly powerful Sunni Islamist movement, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt and elsewhere.

All this was made possible by the fact that Erdogan had radically re-oriented Turkey. Ever since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had founded the Turkish republic in 1923, Turkey had looked westward for inspiration and friendship, distinguishing itself as a key NATO ally and bulwark against Soviet encroachment. But in spite of American entreaties, the EU kept deferring Ankara’s membership throughout the 1990s, justifying Europe’s obvious contempt of Turkey by conditioning EU accession on a healthy human-rights record. (And indeed, today Turkey has more journalists in jail[5] than China does.)

[……..]

In order to show his seriousness, Erdogan played a hand guaranteed to win him the approbation of Muslims and Arabs: the Israel card. In the wake of Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s winter 2008-09 military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, he confronted Israeli President Simon Peres at Davos and told him: “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill”—and then stormed off the stage. In May 2010, when Israeli commandos boarded a Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, to stop it from breaking the naval blockade of Gaza, they were attacked by ship passengers, nine of whom were killed. [……..]

Obama worked on Turkey’s behalf to secure an apology[8], in the apparent belief that the burden for fixing a relationship that Erdogan had set out to trash was on Israel. (Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu refused to apologize.) The White House also gave the Turkish leader a pass when the AKP and its allies in the Gulenist movement, a cultlike political trend associated with the charismatic preacher Fetullah Gulen[9], started prosecuting journalists and military officers on charges stemming from the so-called Ergenekon plot. [……..]

The White House ignored the obvious signs of Erdogan’s problematic character because the role for which it had cast him was too important. With American troops out of Iraq and scheduled to depart from Afghanistan, and Obama determined to avoid committing more resources to the Middle East, the administration sought a partner capable of keeping the order and doing the work it no longer wanted to do itself. In other words, Obama wanted to switch Israel for Turkey. Jerusalem would remain a U.S. ally, but the heavy lifting and the diplomatic outreach would be done by Ankara, which, unlike Israel, was a Muslim power in a Muslim region and, also unlike Israel, prided itself on its zero problems with its neighbors’ policy.

***

But the sticking point is that if you live in the Middle East you are always going to have problems with your neighbors. Erdogan found this out the hard way, with the outbreak of the Syrian uprising. The Turkish prime minister considered[11] Bashar al-Assad a “good friend,” but after watching the Syrian president fire on what were then peaceful demonstrators for more than half a year, Erdogan finally called[12] for Assad to step down in November 2011. With refugees flowing across the border, Erdogan tried to enlist the Obama Administration in a more pro-active policy to topple Assad, but he was ignored[13].

Hung out to dry by Obama, Erdogan was left vulnerable to Assad as well as domestic criticism. In June, the Syrians, with Russian help, downed a Turkish jet, and the White House sided[14] with Damascus’ account of the incident, blaming it on Ankara. In October, Syria shelled[15] Turkish villages, and all Erdogan could do was complain.

Erdogan’s Syria policy, according to Turkish journalist Tolga Tanis, marks the first time that Turkish public opinion has tilted against the AKP’s foreign policy. “At least 60 percent according to the polls are against Erdogan’s Syria policy,” said Tanis.  [……..]

Supporting the anti-Assad rebels has exposed Turkey to retaliation from a longstanding Syrian ally and Turkish enemy, the Kurdish Workers’ party. Also, Turks don’t want a refugee problem on their hands, especially when some of those refugees crossing the Syrian border are Islamist militants. Moreover, with Syria consumed by civil war, Turkey has lost a major trade route to the rest of the region.

Then there’s the failure of Erdogan’s once-vaunted soft power. The Obama Administration tasked out much of its Arab Spring diplomacy to its man in Ankara, and in the immediate aftermath of the upheavals that brought down dictators, Erdogan was greeted by throngs in Cairo praising him as the region’s great new leader. [……..] Were Erdogan to show his face today in the Egyptian capital, it would likely serve as a target for an unhappy, unemployed shoe-thrower.

At home, Erdogan’s AKP is now at odds[16] with the Gulenists, who seem to have taken charge of the Ergenekon trials in order to secure their hold over what Turks call the “deep state,” which includes the judiciary and police. When the army’s former chief of staff Ilker Basbug was arrested[17] last year even Erdogan thought this was going too far. [……..]

Undermined at home and exposed abroad as a weakling—it’s hardly any wonder Erdogan is ranting against Israel again. “It was not improvised, but scripted,” said Tanis. “He was anticipating Kerry’s visit.” The difference between now and Davos in 2009 or the Mavi Marmara in 2010 is that Erdogan is projecting not power but neediness. He wants to know if the White House still loves him and needs him more than Israel. The evidence is not in his favor.

Read the rest – Kerry roasts Turkey

UPDATE by Macker: How can we forget to visually represent this?

The ‘all powerful’ Israel Lobby strikes again

by Mojambo ( 360 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Democratic Party, Egypt, Hamas, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan, Palestinians at February 28th, 2013 - 3:00 pm

The so called “Israel lobby” (or as Chuckster Hagel referred to it as “the Jewish lobby”) cannot hold a candle to the Saudi lobby.

by Daniel Greenfield

The Israel Lobby which controls American foreign policy, but has thus far been unable to get the United States to stop funding the terrorists currently shooting rockets at its 14th largest city, has struck again as Senate Democrats voted unanimously to make Chuck Hagel the next Secretary of Defense.

The dreaded Israeli Lobby, Jewish Lobby, Israel Lobby or any other permutation of the form that you prefer, has largely kept silent during the Hagel nomination. The head of the ADL was heard to mutter something and the AJC suggested that the Senate should possibly rethink the nomination before falling silent again. As if anyone needed more proof that the Zionist Entity controls Washington.

AIPAC and all the other groups who regularly send out envelopes warning of disaster if the check doesn’t come in the mail have an amazing track record.

When Israel builds apartment buildings in its own capital city, the State Department, that branch of government which Hagel claimed was an adjunct of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, denounces the provocative act of putting one brick on top of another. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia arrests Christians for celebrating Christmas and you couldn’t pay the State Department to pay attention.

Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden and still rolls in the foreign aid. Egypt’s government is torturing protesters. Libya arrested Christian missionaries in Benghazi, but still can’t be bothered to arrest those responsible for the murder of Ambassador Stevens. The Palestinian Authority hasn’t held an election in forever and is actually paying the salaries of convicted terrorists.

[……] To hear them talk, East Jerusalem is the only thing standing in the way of peace in our time. And talk like that is just more evidence that the Israel Lobby really does run everything.

John Kerry, the new Secretary of State, gave Code Pink, the radical leftist Anti-War and Anti-Israel group, a pass to go see Hamas. John Brennan Islamized Jerusalem. Hagel blamed the Jewish Lobby for spoiling his milk. But what do you expect in a Washington D.C. run by the Israel Lobby?

There are constant dire warnings that Israel is about to pull the United States into a war. The number of wars that Israel has pulled the United States into clocks in at zero. The number of wars that the Saudis have pulled the United States into clocks in at three; if you count a Saudi terrorist funded by Saudis using a bunch of Saudis to ram planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

True aficionados of the nefarious Jewish Lobby however know that the House of Saud was framed by a few thousand Jews who showed up early to wire up the towers with C4 and then punched out before the flights arrived. That is if the planes weren’t just holograms full of passengers who never existed as part of a false flag operation against a fake terrorist group created by the CIA in a conspiracy to steal all the opium in Afghanistan.

And in the same way they know that Hagel really is an Israeli agent. Why else did the Jewish Lobby remain silent? And wasn’t it suspicious how Hagel seemed to hate Israel so much? […….]What if beneath that mopey exterior that bespeaks a man who has spent his entire life watching a fly crawl across a window, beats the heart of a Semitic partisan who is just raring to begin bombing Iran as soon as he figures out how to make his executive chair go up and down?

Hagel’s triumph is a disappointment to them. It would have been better if he had gone down a martyr, his stumped visage adorning book covers alongside James Forrestal and Adlai Stevenson III as another victim of the lobby in the blue-and-white hotel. A brave truth-teller like Charles Freeman who wasn’t approved for a position chairing the National Intelligence Council for taking money from Saudi Arabia and China, and claiming that Tienanmen Square was a moderate response, but mostly because of the Israel Lobby.

There’s no question that the Israel Lobby is a truly impressive beast. Every now and then it convinces a bunch of senators to sign a letter calling for peace and a two-state solution while condemning the taxpayer supported terrorists who shoot rockets at Israeli cities. The letter doesn’t actually call for ending funding to the terrorists. It just asks the President or Secretary of State to review the situation and strongly urge the terrorists to stop shooting rockets because that endangers the future of the peace process.

[……..]

Occasionally the Israel Lobby will get truly serious and a non-binding resolution of support will be introduced in Congress. Everyone will vote for it, even the senators and congressmen whose fondest wish is that Israel didn’t exist.  […….]

In a truly disturbing overreach of power, sometimes there will be a bill proposing to cut off aid to the terrorists unless they stop shooting rockets at Israeli cities. The bill will allow for a national security waiver by the president. And every president will employ the waiver making the bill slightly less useless than a non-binding resolution, but not in any way that can be pinned down.

Meanwhile the three-hundred blogs dedicated to exposing the Israel Lobby’s muzzling of dissent will denounce the bill and author six more books describing how the dreaded lobby makes it entirely impossible to discuss the conflict from the perspective that Israel is to blame for absolutely everything. This is a perspective that seldom appears in major newspapers and magazines and is absolutely never heard on CNN. You could go a whole five seconds without encountering it on any world news broadcast.

It’s not always clear what the Israel Lobby’s accomplishments really consist of. There’s a good deal of traffic between the interlocking American and Israeli defense industries that adds up to a sizable amount of foreign aid.  [……] To say nothing of the Pakistani Hotel Taliban. Israel is doing better than Taiwan which can’t convince the United States to sell it any serious firepower for fear of offending China, and if folks like Hagel had their way, Israel might be in the same boat.

Beyond that, Israel and the United States have a mutual agreement. The State Department, an adjunct of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, will blame Israel for all of America’s troubles with the Muslim world, especially those caused by Saudi Arabia, and Israeli diplomats will attend negotiating sessions with terrorists that will fail and then accept responsibility for the failure.

The United States will provide foreign aid to Israel and the countries and terrorist groups trying to destroy it. This will be known as a pro-Israel policy because Israel will get more aid than the countries trying to destroy it giving it a qualitative advantage.

The United States will help fund the terrorists shooting rockets at Israeli cities and help fund the Israeli Iron Dome anti-rocket program, so that both sides are evened out. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood will get fighter jets and tanks and Israel will get a visit from Obama. The last time Obama visited Egypt, it imploded, but when he visits Israel, he promises not to reduce the country to a violent civil war and urban anarchy. And so qualitative advantage is upheld once again due to the work of the Israel Lobby.

In one of his more brilliant moments, Hagel signed on to a report that called on Obama to present Israel with his own peace plan backed by a 60,000 NATO peacekeeping force deployed inside Israel that would include soldiers from Muslim countries. We have no idea if this latest brilliant plan will ever come to fruition, but carving up Israel like a turkey and deploying Muslim armies inside it is clearly another creation of the Israel Lobby.

It doesn’t sound like something the Saudi Lobby would come up with, does it?

Read the rest – The dreaded Israel lobby strikes again

John Kerry: the radical careerist

by Mojambo ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Progressives at January 29th, 2013 - 7:00 am

John Kerry would have made a God awful president. The fact that he came as close as he did in 2004 reminds us of how important we need to have strong candidates to run for president.

by Daniel Greenfield

November 1971. The Anti-War movement was moving into high gear even as the Vietnam War was fading away. Americans troops were leaving Vietnam in large numbers and the last American offensive in Vietnam had begun the year before. But for the Anti-War movement, the actual war was only a pretext for undermining their country and promoting themselves.

Few men fit that description better than John Forbes Kerry who had not needed a weatherman to know which way the winds of political fortune were blowing. Vietnam Veterans Against the War became the platform for an aspiring Congressman seeking to remake his image. Despite its name VVAW was as bent on attacking the men fighting the war, as the war itself. Its publicity stunts, such as Operation RAW or Kerry’s own Senate testimony, were calculated to cast returning veterans as war criminals and murderers.

Toward the end of 1971, VVAW was balanced on the edge of its own irrelevance. The publicity stunts had brought it fame and undermined America’s position in negotiating a departure from Vietnam, but the departure was still underway. Rather than speeding it up, Kerry and VVAW had slowed it down to make the most of their moment in the sun, but once the public and VVAW’s membership realized that the war really was ending, so would their popularity.

For John Kerry, VVAW had accomplished its goal by making him famous. […….] But not every VVAW activist had a political exit strategy. Some had a more violent one in mind.

At the Kansas City leadership meeting of VVAW, a proposal was put forward to use the Christmas recess to murder several senators. Murdering senators would not be helpful to Kerry’s career plans, but neither would informing the authorities of the plot. Unlike much of the VVAW, Kerry didn’t want to storm the Senate, he wanted to work there. And so the man of nuance found a compromise, he resigned without telling anyone of the plot.

Three months later he was running for Congress.

Kerry’s second desertion was to become a pattern in his career. While some in the VVAW were career radicals, Kerry was a radical careerist. Leftist politics were his way up the ladder, but he never let them get in the way of his own career.

Over 40 years later, Kerry, the fake war hero turned fake anti-war hero, would try to pull off the same trick a second time, going from pro-war to anti-war in Iraq.

During his Senate testimony, Kerry had said, “We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now.” But John Forbes Kerry had always been a summer soldier, a straw man playing a part, a traitor to everything but his own career. John Kerry had gone to Washington not to tell the truth, but to tell the profitable lie.

Kerry was willing to lie, to portray himself as a war hero when it suited him and as a war criminal when it suited him, and to switch from one to the other, as quickly as he switched from supporting a war to opposing it. He was willing to cover up the planned assassination of United States senators, to throw away medals that he claimed were his before claiming that they weren’t, and to make common cause with America’s enemies, so long as it got him where he needed to go.

John Kerry has spent thirty years holding public office, twenty-eight of them as a United States Senator, and he has spent that time pushing the same bankrupt politics of international appeasement. The Kerry who made up imaginary war crimes in Vietnam while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee became a member of that same Committee while making up imaginary war crimes in Nicaragua.

The career of Senator Kerry is bookended by his support for the Sandinista terrorists at its inception to his recent support for Assad. In that time, the man who would be Secretary of State demonstrated that he had learned nothing from his constant mistakes.

In 1985, Kerry insisted that America needed to put its faith in the goodwill of the Sandinistas, as he had earlier expected it to puts its faith in the goodwill of the Viet Cong’s peace offer that he had announced in Washington D.C.

In 1970, as Kerry was taking aim at his first Congressional campaign, he told the Harvard Crimson, “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”  [……..]

In 1985, Kerry finally became Senator Kerry. Shortly thereafter, Senator Kerry announced that he was going to Nicaragua to meet with the Sandinistas as a Vietnam Veteran to avoid “repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.”

To Kerry, Nicaragua was just another Vietnam. The Comandante, Daniel Ortega, was just another Ho Chi Mihn and the old winter soldier was back in the saddle galloping to the rescue of another Communist dictatorship. […….] In his Senate floor speech a year later, he argued against military aid to the Contra rebels by invoking Vietnam.

“Mr. President, how quickly do we forget? How quickly do we forget? No one wanted to widen the war in Vietnam.” Then followed the usual tale of young Kerry suffering through Christmas in Cambodia and a plea not to send off another generation of American soldiers to die in Nicaragua. It was a shameless speech that Kerry would repeat with tedious regularity throughout his long political career of finding new Vietnams around the world.

While Nicaragua did not have much in common with Vietnam, the Sandinistas and the Viet Cong both had Kerry selling their agenda in Washington. In the Senate, John Kerry did exactly what he had done outside it… represent the interests of the Communist foe.

Having found himself another Vietnam, Kerry obstructed Reagan’s policy as much as he could. He met with Ortega and brought back his proposal to block all aid to the contras. […….] It claimed that the Sandinistas were non-aligned, when they were aligned with the USSR, and Ortega’s visit to Moscow shortly thereafter would humiliate and discredit pro-Sandinista Democrats like Kerry. Kerry’s claim that he was not illegally negotiating with Ortega, but only passing along a message, was an even thinner tissue of lies.

When Reagan imposed sanctions on the Sandinista regime, Kerry denounced it as an “unpardonable” “unilateral display of arrogance.”  [……]

John Kerry defined himself as a veteran, but the one consistent attitude that he has shown is contempt for the American soldier.

As far back as his Yale days, Kerry had been insisting that American’s foreign policy problems were caused by its military. Kerry’s political career began with his demonization of American soldiers in Vietnam and it wrapped up with his demonization of American soldiers in Iraq.

In 1971, Kerry had accused American soldiers of cutting off ears and heads, raping women and behaving in a way reminiscent of Genghis Khan. Thirty-four years later, Kerry accused American soldiers in Iraq of terrorizing women and children.

[……]

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,” he told students.

John Forbes Kerry, Yale man, was far too smart to get stuck in Iraq or Vietnam. Instead he did his homework and finessed his way out of Vietnam and into Washington DC. Unlike those fools in the military who believed in winning wars, he believed in losing them and profiting politically from the defeat.

This was the lesson that Kerry had taken away from his work with Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the same lesson that he had taken away from every war, that it was safer to be the senator than the soldier, the critic rather than the commander. […….] It is the lesson that he intends to bring with him to his work as Secretary of State.

For all his cleverness, John Kerry has always been a pawn of foreign interests. Kerry let himself be used by the Viet Cong and by the Sandinistas, by the Soviet Union and by half the Muslim world. As Secretary of State, he will go on being used, no longer as a Senator, but as the most important foreign policy figure in the Obama Administration.

If John Kerry becomes Secretary of State, then every terrorist group that he panders to and every tyrant that he plays up to will ascend that post with him. The Senate confirmation of John Kerry will mean that every enemy power or group that despises the United States will have an ally at the head of this country’s foreign policy establishment.

Over 40 years ago, Kerry learned that treason will be rewarded by the political establishment of the left. If his political career is capped off with this honor, then American foreign policy will be in the hands of a man with no principle except contempt for the military and no guiding light but the efficacy of treason.

Read the rest – John Kerry: Unfit for duty

The four horesemen of the American foreign policy apocalypse

by Mojambo ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Cold War, Egypt, Fatah, Hamas, Hezballah, History, Iran, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinians, Syria at January 14th, 2013 - 7:00 am

Barack Obama as president, John Kerry as Secretary of State, Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, and John Brennan as C.I.A. chief,  Barry Rubin thinks that John Brennan wins the prize as being the worst of the four. You can take your pick but as the cliche goes, the fish stinks from the head down. I wish Susan Rice did not withdraw her candidacy for Secretary of State.

by Barry Rubin

I did a lot of soul-searching before writing my latest article, “After the Fall: What Do You Do When You Conclude America is (Temporarily or Permanently) Kaput?” Of course, I believed every word of it and have done so for a while. But would it depress readers too much? Would it just be too grim?Maybe U.S. policy will just muddle through the next four years and beyond without any disasters. Perhaps the world will be spared big crises. Possibly the fact that there isn’t some single big superpower enemy seeking world domination will keep things contained.Perhaps that is true. Yet within hours after its publication I concluded that I hadn’t been too pessimistic. The cause of that reaction is the breaking story that not only will Senator John Kerry be the new secretary of state; that not only will the equally reprehensible former Senator Chuck Hagel be secretary of defense, but that John Brennan, the president’s counterterrorism advisor, will become CIA chief.
About two years ago I joked that if Kerry would become secretary of state it was time to think about heading for that fallout shelter in New Zealand. This trio in power—which along with Obama himself could be called the four horseman of the Apocalypse for U.S. foreign policy—might require an inter-stellar journey.[…….]
You can read elsewhere details about these three guys. Here I will merely summarize the two basic problems:
–Their ideas and views are horrible. This is especially so on Middle Eastern issues but how good are they on anything else? […….]  Far worse is that they are pro-Islamist as well as being dim-witted about U.S. interests in a way no foreign policy team has been in the century since America walked onto the world stage.Brennan is no less than the father of the pro-Islamist policy. What Obama is saying is this: My policy of backing Islamists has worked so well, including in Egypt, that we need to do even more! All those analogies to 1930s’ appeasement are an understatement. Nobody in the British leadership said, “I have a great idea. Let’s help fascist regimes take power and then they’ll be our friends and become more moderate!  […….]

–They are all stupid people. Some friends said I shouldn’t write this because it is a subjective judgment and sounds mean-spirited. But honest, it’s true. Nobody would ever say that their predecessors—Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and David Petraeus—were not intelligent and accomplished. But these guys are simply not in that category. Smart people can make bad judgments; regular people with common sense often make bad judgments less often. But stupid, arrogant people with terrible ideas are a disaster.

 

Brennan’s only life accomplishment has been to propose backing radical Islamists. As a reward he isn’t just being made head of intelligence for the Middle East but for the whole world! […….] All he has is a proximity to Obama and a very bad policy concept. What’s especially ironic here is that by now the Islamist policy has clearly failed and a lot of people are having second thoughts.

 

With Brennan running the CIA, though, do you think there will be critical intelligence evaluations of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, or even Hamas?  […….]   Can we have confidence about U.S. policy toward Iran?

To get some insight into his thinking, consider the incident in which a left-wing reporter, forgetting there were people listening, reminded Brennan that in an earlier private conversation he admitted favoring engagement not only with the Lebanese terrorist group Hizballah but also the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.  [……..]
Kerry, of course, was the most energetic backer of sponsoring Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad before the revolt began. Now he will be the most energetic backer of putting the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Syria. Here is a man who once generalized about American soldiers in Vietnam as being baby-killers and torturers. Such things certainly happened but Kerry made the blame collective, except for himself of course.As for Hagel, suffice it to say that the embarrassing quotes and actions from him in the past–including his opposition to sanctions against Iran–fueled a response to his proposed nomination so strong that the administration had to back down for a while.
What would have happened if President Harry Truman turned over American defense, diplomacy, and intelligence in 1946 to those who said that Stalin wanted peace and that Communist rule in Central Europe was a good thing?
[…….]

I apologize for being so pessimistic but look at the cast of characters? When it comes to Obama Administration foreign policy’s damage on the world and on U.S. interests one can only say, like the great singer Al Jolson, folks, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

To get a sense of his thinking, check out Brennan’s article, […….] Here’s the conclusion:

“If the United States actually demonstrates that it will work to help advance rather than thwart Iranian interests, the course of Iranian politics as well as the future of U.S.-Iranian relations could be forever altered.”
The Obama Administration followed this advice during its first two years with the result being total failure. The theme of the 2008 article carries over to his view of the Muslim Brotherhood. If the United States shows it is friendly, helpful, and does not oppose their taking power then revolutionary Islamists will become moderate.
For example, he also proposes a U.S. policy, “to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system….” This step, he suggests, will reduce “the influence of violent extremists in the organization.”
Of course, Hizballah does not need to stage terrorist attacks if it holds state power! Terrorism is only a tactic to seize control of countries.  […….] Yet putting them in power does not increase stability, improve the lives of people, or benefit U.S. interests. If al-Qaeda, for example, overthrew the Iraqi or Saudi government you would see a sharp decline in terrorist attacks! If the Muslim Brotherhood rules Egypt, Tunisia, or Syria it doesn’t need to send suicide bombers into the marketplaces.
The same by the way would apply to anywhere else in the world. If Communist rebels took power in Latin American or Asian countries you wouldn’t find them hanging out in the jungles raiding isolated villages.In Brennan’s terms, that means the problem would be solved. Instead, the correct response is parallel to Winston Churchill’s point in his 1946 Fulton, Missouri, speech: “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.”
This is what Brennan—and the Obama Administration—fails to understand regarding this point. The danger is not terrorism but a dangerous revolutionary movement that becomes even more dangerous if it controls entire states, their resources, and their military forces.
Read the rest – Noxious nominations: the four horsemen of the American foreign policy apocalypse