An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Iraq War. This follows this post about alcoholism. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

Don't Fight for a Dying Regime

  by Paul Suckling Estimated reading time: 1 minute

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

"Don’t fight for a dying regime!" This was the advice of President Bush to the Iraqi people and soldiers just before the Iraq war began. Baghdad seems to have finally been freed from Saddam Hussein’s grip. His regime and brutal rule appear almost over. As life goes on and the U.S. military tries to sort out the next government and prevent anarchy and civil war, questions remain.

As time goes by, troubles and disappointments will again emerge. Human nature doesn’t change and suffering will continue. President Bush’s message parallels what Jesus said when He was here on earth. He told His followers to pray, “Your kingdom come” (Matthew 6:10 Matthew 6:10Your kingdom come, Your will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
American King James Version×). That Kingdom is yet ahead for all humanity, and when Jesus Christ returns to earth He will institute a government that will rule humanity in love and according to the laws of God. Jesus told the Roman governor Pontius Pilate at His trial: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight … but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36 John 18:36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
American King James Version×). So God’s message to us is the same as President Bush’s advice to Iraqis: “Don’t fight for a dying regime.”When Jesus began His ministry He came into Galilee “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’ ” (Mark 1:14-15 Mark 1:14-15 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent you, and believe the gospel.
American King James Version×). Repent means to turn—to turn from the past, to believe, to look forward to the future God planned for us. That future will be so different from what most of humanity experiences today! If we are awake to the message of the Bible, we will see that this world is a dying regime and nothing that we should fight or die for. Rather we should accept the Bible’s message and look forward to a regime change unlike anything humanity has ever experienced—the truly good government Jesus Christ will establish on earth when He returns.

Jeb Bush, Immigration, and the Iraq War!

A timely post about from www.vdare.com about Immigration and the Iraq War. This follows this post about commencement speeches, including Michelle Obama, who is highlighted by VDARE here. This follows this post about Sofia Vergara.
You can follow me here.

Knowing That Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act Elected Obama, Would Jeb Bush Repeal It?

By Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter’s new book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole, will be released on June 1, 2015.
Was Jeb Bush too busy watching telenovelas during his brother’s presidency to remember the Iraq War?
We went to war at such breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing the “rush to war.”
So I remember the arguments.
Contrary to the fairy tale the left has told itself since Obama truculently gave away America’s victory in Iraq, our argument wasn’t that we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. And the left’s argument certainly was not: “He doesn’t have any WMDs!”
Our argument was: There were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and none to keep him.
Indeed, after Bush’s State of the Union address laying out the case for war with Iraq, The New York Times complained that he had given too many reasons: “Even the rationale for war seems to change from day to day. Mr. Bush ticked off a litany of accusations against Iraq in his State of the Union address …” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)
Among the reasons we invaded Iraq were:
(1) Saddam had given shelter to terrorists who killed Americans. After 9/11, it was time for him to pay the price:

• The mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, Abu Abbas, who murdered a wheelchair-bound American citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, then forced the passengers to throw his body overboard, was living happily in Iraq. (Captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad less than a month after our invasion.)
• The terrorist who orchestrated the murder of American diplomat Laurence Foley in October 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also took refuge in Saddam’s Iraq. (Killed by U.S. forces in Iraq on June 7, 2006.)
• The one terrorist behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who got away, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Iraq, where he was given money and lived without fear of being extradited to the United States. (Whereabouts unknown. Possibly being groomed for a prime-time show on MSNBC.)
• Czech intelligence reported that Mohammed Atta, 9/11 mastermind, met with Iraqi agents in Prague shortly before the attack.

We’re not supposed to mention the Prague meeting on penalty of liberals yelling at us. Apparently, our CIA discounts that report. On the other hand, the CIA didn’t see the 1993 World Trade Center bombing coming, didn’t see 9/11 coming, didn’t see the Fort Hood massacre coming and didn’t see the Times Square bombing coming. No one tell liberals, but our CIA knows NOTHING—although they’re pretty sure something bad happened at Pearl Harbor a while back.
(2) Saddam had attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States. Liberals complained that it was a family feud because that president happened to be Bush’s father, but, again, he was also a FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (Does being a relative of the president make you fair game for assassination attempts? Bill Clinton, please pick up the white courtesy phone.)
(3) Saddam not only had WMDs, he had used them—far more prodigiously than Syria’s Bashar al-Assad did when Obama masterfully backed down from his “red line” threat if Assad ever used chemical weapons. (Assad’s WMDs killed about a thousand civilians—350 according to French intelligence, which is a lot better than ours. Saddam’s WMDs killed an estimated 100,000 civilians. That’s according to everyone—the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Clinton-era ambassador Peter Galbraith.)
(4) We needed to smash some Muslim strongman after the 9/11 attack, and Saddam was as good as any other—at least as good as the Taliban primitives who had allowed Osama bin Laden to pitch his tent in their godforsaken country.
It worked: Moammar Gadhafi, terrified that Bush would attack Libya next, invited U.N. inspectors in, gave up his WMDs, and paid the families of his Lockerbie bombing victims $8 million apiece.
(5) Saddam had committed atrocities on a far greater scale than our current bogeyman, ISIS. He tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis—removing their teeth with pliers, applying electric shocks to men’s genitals, drilling holes in their ankles and forcing them to watch as their wives were raped—as reported by USA Today, among others. There was no risk that we were accidentally taking out the Arab George Washington.
(6) Saddam was a dangerous and disruptive force in a crucial oil-producing region of the world. We need oil. Why not go to war for oil?
(7) The Iraqi people were a relatively sane, civilized and educated populace with a monstrous ruler. Removing that leader would provide a golden opportunity for an actual functioning Arab democracy—an Arab Israel.
That worked, too. In under two years, Iraqis were waving their purple fingers to symbolize having voted in their first democratic election. A few years after that, young Iranians were demanding their own democracy in another good people/bad rulers country.
But then an innocent 26-year-old girl, Neda, was gunned down in Tehran by the Iranian military. President Obama responded forcefully by going out for an ice cream cone. And thus ended the democratic movement in the Muslim world.
The least important reason to invade Iraq—the one that was tacked on for the sole purpose of taunting liberals over their goofy reverence for the United Nations—was that Saddam had refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in, leaving the strong impression that Iraq was chock-a-bloc with WMDs. It was the equivalent of asking where the feminists were when we invaded Afghanistan—although technically, we didn’t invade because the Taliban were mean to women.
In fact, the only time The New York Times got testy with Saddam was after the “powerful case” made by Secretary of State Colin Powell, “that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions.” (Who cares?)
Liberals didn’t mind Saddam’s sheltering terrorists, using poison gas, invading his neighbors or attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president. But Saddam had disrespected the U.N.!
Far from claiming that estimates of Saddam’s WMDs were overblown, liberals cited those very WMDs to warn America that any invasion would result in catastrophe for the Great Satan. Thus, for example:

• The New York Times cautioned in an editorial that an invasion might create chaotic conditions, allowing “terrorists to grab biological or chemical weapons.” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)
• Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg predicted that Saddam would “use poison gas against U.S. troops.” (Jane Sutton, “Pentagon Papers’ Ellsberg Sees Deja Vu in Iraq,” Reuters, Nov. 25, 2002)
• In the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman warned: “Once American troops set foot on Iraqi soil, they may be bombarded with poison gas.” (Steve Chapman, “What Could Go Wrong in the War With Iraq,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 17, 2002)
• The Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote that if we invaded Iraq, “Saddam may well launch missiles with chemical warheads at Tel Aviv.” (Nicholas Kristof, “Flirting With Disaster,” Feb. 14, 2003)

This is why all six of Jeb Bush’s answers to Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly—as well as Marco Rubio’s premeditated answer a week later—were ridiculous. It’s annoying enough having liberals invent these historical fantasies. Do our fearsome Republicans have to keep retelling them, too? If they don’t follow the news, can’t they read?
Kelly asked Bush: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”
The correct answer is:

Now that we know that a half-century of Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act would result in a country where a man like Barack Obama could be elected president, and then, purely out of antipathy to America, would withdraw every last troop from Iraq, nullifying America’s victory and plunging the entire region into chaos, no, I would not bother removing dangerous despots in order to make America safer.

Instead, I would dedicate myself to overturning our immigration laws, ending the anchor-baby scam and building a triple-layer fence on the border, so that some future Republican president could invade Iraq without worrying about a foreign-elected president like Obama coming in and giving it away.

Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is the author of TEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here.
Her most recent book is Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a Republican.Her new book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole, will be released on June 1, 2015.

Update: Rutgers Faculty Protest Condoleezza Rice but not Nancy Pelosi

An interesting article from www.yaf.org about Rutgers allowing a Liberal speaker, but not a conservative one. This follows this post about the Liberal March Madness Sweet Sixteen, referenced from www.yaf.org. This follows this post about last year's Liberal March Madness Sweet Sixteen about Spring Break warnings and this post about the anniversary of Hillary Clinton's reset button with the Russians.  You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!

Update: Rutgers Faculty Protest Condoleezza Rice but not Nancy Pelosi

 Posted by Raj Kannappan

Email  Print

A few days ago, we mentioned in a post that some faculty members at Rutgers University at New Brunswick are protesting their school's invitation of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for the commencement address.
A resolution passed by the Faculty Council claims that, as a member of the George W. Bush administration, Dr. Rice "played a prominent role" in the effort to mislead Americans "about the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq and the existence of links between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime.
In other words, these faculty members are demanding that Rutgers rescind its invitation to Dr. Rice because they believe that, among other things, she: 1. Lied about Iraq's possessing WMDs, and 2. Lied about the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.
Let us then examine these two points through the record of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who has been invited by the Eagleton Institute at Rutgers for an event on March 24 about women and public policy.
In 1998--following President Bill Clinton's authorization of a bombing campaign against Iraq to destroy the country's biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons facilities--Pelosi proclaimed, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." In 2002, well after the Bush administration began discussing the possibility of war with Iraq, she stated on NBC's Meet the Press, "Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons...Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
Regarding al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq, Pelosi went on the record in 2004 to agree with the Bush administration that the terror network of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--at the time, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq--"used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies." She ultimately agreed--indeed, argued--that the Iraq War was "part of the ongoing global war on terrorism." In other words, according to Pelosi, al Qaeda and Iraq were most certainly related.
The group of faculty members protesting Dr. Rice's invitation has not demanded with the same fury the Eagleton Institute's rescission of Congresswoman Pelosi's invitation. However, if these academics' convictions dictate that Dr. Rice lied, then they must logically dictate that Pelosi did the same. One is forced to wonder whether this double standard is a function of ignorance or bias. Neither is acceptable.

Raj Kannappan is the Program Officer for Young Americans for Freedom. 

America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies

A very interesting post from www.Stratfor.com about fighting Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda, Iraq, and other enemies. This follows this post about Saudis being the primary victims of a weak economy. This follows this post about terrorism from mosques in Saudi Arabia. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read a very interesting book HERE.

America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies


George Friedman http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-War-Worldwide-Struggle/dp/0767917855/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347372193&sr=8-1&keywords=america%27s+secret+war
 The latest chapter in the 'Great Game'
By J. Dretler

Format:Hardcover
Amazon Verified PurchaseIn "America's Secret War", George Friedman, the chairman of Stratfor, a private intelligence and information service, guides us through the intricacies of the origins and consequences of what he calls the `Fourth Global War'.

He starts by comparing the war to a game of chess where, to the unknowledgeable, there are many possible opening moves, but to the initiated there are only a few. This is a book of current events and recent history. It is, by design, more informative than inspirational. Friedman has an opinion, not always expressed in his Stratfor reports, but it is not obvious. He claims, in the foreword that he is trying to be cold and objective, rather than passionate, and while he is successful in maintaining objectivity, his passion or intensity comes through.

He challenges conventional wisdom with his allegations that Desert Storm was not about Iraq, but about Iran and her challenge to Saudi Arabia over who will be the leader of the Moslem world. In the West, he says the war was seen as a perfect example of modern statecraft with proper objectives and an exit strategy'. It had something for everyone. It appealed to three different groups, and to each within their own geopolitical constructs. For the `cold-warrior' perception of global politics the war was the proper defense of a Cold-War ally. For those who have a more Kissingerian realpolitik interpretation of the world saw the war as the proper containment of Iraq and of Saddam in balance of power terms. Finally the `End of History' post-modernists viewed the war as an expression of the multi-lateral `new world' working together against a rogue state. All of these views combined to make this a popular war in the West. Friedman says that what was not appreciated in this view was that the perception in the Moslem world was wholly different. In his opinion, the Islamic world saw this intervention as anti-Islamic rather than anti-Saddam and by supporting this use of `infidel' troops to pursue war against other Moslems the Saudis pushed the anti-Saudi fundamentalist factions over-the-top. These factions recruited disaffected, newly trained, mujahedin empowered by their successful pursuit of the anti-Soviet Afghan war to create the anti-western Al Qaeda organization. Al Qaeda is a working intelligence organization that pursues the goals of toppling the current Islamic regimes that they see as illegitimate, creating an uprising in the Moslem world and reestablishing the Caliphate. Friedman says that in spite of the errors we have made in the war, Al Qaeda has still failed to meet any of these objectives.



According to Friedman, in the Clinton administration foreign policy was more about doing good things to help deserving people, than about pursuing America's national interests. As the worlds only superpower, war was now optional, to be pursued or declined at our option, since no enemy had the power, it was assumed, to force us into war. The attack on 9/11 showed otherwise. Although the earlier attacks; in 1993 on the World Trade Center, and on the US Embassy and Marine Barracks in Beirut, the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole in Yemen were mostly declined by the Clinton Administration, the audience for the attacks was not the US, but the Moslem world. By failing to respond the US showed weakness and impotence while highlighting Al Qaeda's effectiveness. These attacks vanquished the hopelessness and powerless feeling in the `Arab street' and helped to create the current resurgence of aggressive militant Islam. Friedman compares this war to WWII. Although the traditional idea of war with a competing nation-state is diluted by the non-local or pan-Islamic nature of the Al Qaeda Islamo-fascism, it is still a war. The current conflict has many similarities to the ideological wars of national liberation against Marxism-Leninism, but the historical comparison and precedents in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 are, to him, obvious. The legalistic interpretation that war is simply crime, and the perpetrators of war, criminals is, to Friedman at least with historical perspective, nonsense. He posits that this view would have led FDR on December 7, 1941, to declare that we would hunt down the Japanese pilots who participated in the attack and subject them to judicial proceedings to determine their proportionate guilt and subsequent punishment. This is, as he maintains, absurd. It was, however, the position supported by the Clinton administration in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the current view of Harold Koh, dean of the Yale Law School among others. This view helped to justify the separation between the US Justice Department and the US intelligence gathering organizations In the US, the FBI is a police organization entrusted with the prosecution of crime. Intelligence organizations are involved in the collection of information in anticipation of and to prevent future action. According to Friedman, these functions are not compatible and many of our intelligence failures are the result of this misalignment of resources.



In Friedman's opinion, the only response for a nation who has received a surprise attack is to quickly go on the offensive. Political considerations are, at that time, more important than military ones and more modest goals are to be eschewed in favor of more robust ones even if less than ideal conditions are present for this action. This view resulted in the attack on Afghanistan that caught Al Qaeda and the Taliban by surprise since they didn't think we could respond quickly with more than limited air attacks. This show of force was also necessary to gain the allegiance or at least the attention of the various Afghan warlords whom we had largely abandoned after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and who had now made accommodation with or had direct ties to the Taliban. Although the Afghan campaign worked well and has resulted in the installation of Hamid Karzai as Afghan President, who is now a US ally rather than a Pakistani surrogate, it has not been so great a defeat for Al Qaeda that they lost standing or credibility in the Islamic world. To do this, and to further erase our image of weakness, we needed a greater show of force and determination. This had to be the invasion of Iraq.

The need for invasion was not unrelated to nuclear proliferation. We were worried about the control of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program as well as those in Iran and Iraq. While the State Department favored supporting centralized state control in Pakistan and Iran, they were opposed by the Defense Department which said that nuclear weapons or facilities in control of governments in whom we had no confidence was an intolerable situation. Defense said that 9/11 had created a situation where compromise was unacceptable and a military response was necessary. State was focused on the limits of our capability, Defense was focused on the threat, Defense won.

Friedman says our putative allies were torn. They understood that the US had to wage war on Al Qaeda and they were willing to help us track down Al Qaeda operatives. They were not willing, however, to help us invade Iraq and thereby (at least in their minds) shift the global balance of power. They opposed the Iraq invasion for the same reason we wanted it: it would make the US the preeminent power in the Middle East. That, combined with our control of the seas, would give us a global empire that was not in the interests of the so-called `Great Powers'. These nations feared that with Saudi Arabia and Iran surrounded, America would have more influence on oil production denying Russia the oil pricing advantage she currently enjoyed. France had been pursuing an essentially anti-American foreign policy since WWII seeing America as a threat to her national interests and her attempts to dominate Europe through her collaboration with a psychologically subordinate and submissive Germany. Friedman says that France thought 2003 was the perfect time to create a unified European foreign policy under guidance from Paris and Berlin with the help of Moscow. What they underestimated was the historical collective memory of Eastern Europe who remembered past treatment by Moscow, Paris, and Berlin and welcomed Rumsfeld's categorization of `New Europe'. The result was an increased influence in Europe for the US and embarrassment for France that some may call a victory for the Bush Administration.

Friedman ends the book with a scorecard of gains and failures. He regards the lack of understanding of how completely Iran had built political and administrative control in the Shiite community and through the efforts of Ahmed Chalibi as major failures, as well as the underestimation of the depth and quality of planning in Saddam's guerrilla war. On the success side, he says there has been no `toppling of regimes', no rising of the `Arab street', and virtually all Islamic regimes have increased their support for anti-Al Qaeda activity and are using their own intelligence services to achieve US anti-terrorist goals. The war has also succeeded in the Machiavellian objective of making the US hated and feared in the Arab world instead of hated and held in contempt, which Friedman calls a positive. In summation he says that the American people understand and can endure war, it is the American elite that project their own timidity and self-doubts onto the national character. He says that this is indeed a war, and probably a war `to the finish'. Friedman's book adds some specific new information along with focus and clarity to the continuing debate. It also reads easily and with Steven Coll's "Ghost Wars" provides a continuous detailed history of the latest chapter in the conduct of the `Great Game'. .

 A tremendously good book
By americangadfly

Format:HardcoverI just finished reading this book when I saw the author on CNN this morning. Synchronicity. He was what I had expected: sharp, smart, to the point, and not self-evidently in the thrall of a particular political bias.



In fact, this is what drew me to the book. In the introduction he makes a point of saying, "This is not a passionate book. Passion is overrated." Instead, his book is a coldly (and very provocatively) analytical look at the strategic chess match between the U.S. and Al Qaeda since 9-11. There were quite a few things I hadn't seen reported before about the Afghan War (B-52's as sky writers -- who knew?). He sees the Iraq war as a strategic flanking move aimed at influencing Saudi Arabia. Deep strategic thinking underlies the U.S. strategy there, but of course it's too complex and ruthless to explain or sell to the American people, so we got WMD. But it makes good cold sense, and Friedman describes and analyzes this new angle quite convincingly.



He's a clean writer and an insightful thinker with access to a great deal of evidently fresh information. I like his lack of passion. The executives at MSNBC should take one of their screaming blowhards -- Joe Scarborough or Chris Matthews, take your pick -- and replace them with a real-deal analyst like Friedman. A voice of reason in an unreasoning time.



I had never heard of George Friedman before grabbing his book off the shelf and striking gold. This book is full of smart analysis delivered straight. And it may just make you optimistic about the long-term prospects for the war against Islamo-fascism.

 The Doctrine of Unintended Consequences
By William Holmes VINE™ VOICE

Format:HardcoverOnce you begin to read this book, you will find it difficult to put down. Friedman writes clearly and forcefully about the real reasons why America invaded Iraq and the role that the invasion plays in the War on Terror.



Friedman begins his narrative with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, a nightmare development that threatened to give the Soviets control of the Persian Gulf and to lead to America's expulsion from the Middle East. The Carter Administration recognized the strategic threat and began moving quickly to assemble an Islamist guerrilla force to bog down the Soviets in their own Vietnam. The US strategy was intensified by the Reagan Administration and ultimately proved successful, but it had the side effect of convincing the Islamists that they could, if they fought hard enough, topple a superpower. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War did much to enrage the Islamists, convincing them that their best chance of re-establishing an Islamic caliphate lay in provoking a war with the United States.



Friedman's book explores the Byzantine details of American and Islamist Realpolitik in a fairly balanced way. He argues that the invasion of Iraq was not about WMDs or connections to Al Qaeda or even about oil, but was intended to show the Islamic world (and particularly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) that the United States meant business and that those who didn't get with the program were going to be dealt with very harshly. The fact that the United States has substantial ground and air forces within easy striking distance of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others, has no doubt been noticed by the leaders of those countries, dampening their enthusiasm for tolerating Al Qaeda.



The details of this Realpolitik are not pretty. To facilitate the invasion of Afghanistan, the United States obtained Russia's permission to base troops in the Islamic states of the former Soviet Union--in exchange for which, America agreed to mute its criticism of Russia's excesses in Chechnya. After Islamist terrorists attacked the Indian parliament in New Delhi, America secured Pakistan's reluctant cooperation in the War on Terror by making it clear that the United States wouldn't mind very much if India launched a nuclear attack on Pakistan (if America didn't launch one first). The book contains numerous other examples of why America, Iran and other countries behave in ways that are portrayed in the newspapers as peculiar, but are actually quite understandable when taken in context.



Although I think it is fair to say that Friedman is sympathetic with the Bush Administration's approach, he is not an apologist. He documents numerous strategic, tactical and intelligence failures in Iraq, not the least of which was the Administration's failure to appreciate the control that Iran exercised over Iraq's Shi'ite population. He is properly critical of the separation between the American political leadership and the soldiers: "A ruling class that sends the children of others to fight, but not their own, cannot sustain its power for very long" (339). And he concludes that, although the United States has the upper hand in the War on Terror, "the war now hangs in the balance. It is not clear who will win the war. Neither side is defeated. Neither side can give up." This is a balanced and sobering book, a must-read for anyone interested in what is really going on in the War on Terror.

Considering a Sunni Regime in Syria

A very interesting post from http://www.stratfor.com/ about the fall of Syria's current regime. This follows this post about China's Naval Strategy.   This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!


Considering a Sunni Regime in Syria



Stratfor

By Reva Bhalla and Kamran Bokhari



Last week's publicized defection of the Tlass family marked a potential turning point for Syria's al Assad regime.



The Tlass family formed the main pillar of Sunni support for the minority Alawite regime. The patriarch of the family, former Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass, had a strategic, brotherly bond with late Syrian President Hafez al Assad. The two military men served as members of the ruling Baath Party in Cairo from 1958 to 1961 when Syria and Egypt existed under the Nasserite vision of the United Arab Republic. The failure of that project brought them back home, where together they helped bring the Baath Party to power in 1963 and sustained a violent period of coups, purges and countercoups through the 1960s.



With Tlass standing quietly by his side, Hafez mounted a bloodless coup and appointed Tlass as his defense minister in 1970. Since then, Tlass has been the symbol of Syria's old guard regime. Without Tlass' godfather-like backing, it is questionable whether Bashar al Assad, then a political novice, would have been able to consolidate his grip over the regime in 2000 when his father passed away. Through the Tlass family's extensive military and business connections, the Sunni-Alawite bond endured for decades at the highest echelons of the regime.



But blood still runs thick in clan politics, and as Sunni blood was spilling into Syria's streets in the current uprising, the Tlass family likely felt growing pressure to side with its fellow Sunnis. Perhaps more critical, the Tlass family assessed it was time to make a move before it paid a price for its allegiance to the regime. Whatever the primary motivation of the decision, the Tlass' choice to break a decadeslong pact with the al Assad family has now increased pressure on other elite members of the military and business communities to pick a side.



As one astute observer of the Syrian conflict explained, the al Assad regime is like a melting block of ice. The Alawite core of the block is frozen intact because the minorities fear the consequences of losing power to a Sunni majority. We have not yet seen the mass defections and breakdown in command and control within the military that would suggest that large chunks of this block are breaking off. But the Sunni patronage networks around that core that keep the state machinery running are slowly starting to melt. The more this block melts, the more fragile it becomes and the more likely we are to see cracks form closer and closer to the center. At that point, the al Assad regime will become highly prone to a palace coup scenario.



Syria's Eventual Return to Sunni Rule

The al Assad regime has not cracked yet, but this is a useful moment to step back and think seriously about the regional implications should Syria return to Sunni hands. In particular, we would like to examine what such a scenario would mean for Iran's position in the region.



Let's first recall why Syria is up for grabs. Human rights interests alone do not come close to explaining why this particular uprising has received a substantial amount of attention and foreign backing over the past year. The past decade enabled Iran to wrest Baghdad out of Sunni hands and bring Mesopotamia under Shiite control. There is little question now that Iraq, as fractured as it is, sits in the Iranian sphere of influence while Iraqi Sunnis have been pushed to the margins. Iran's gains in Baghdad shifted the regional balance of power, creating a Shiite crescent stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean coast.




This disturbance in the regional balance of power has aggravated a number of regional stakeholders. With U.S. backing, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar have banded together to lead a countercoalition to Iran. Iraq may have been reluctantly conceded to Iran, but the uprising in Syria offered a new opportunity to undercut Iran's Mediterranean outlet in the Levant. Saudi Arabia has been trying to manage simmering Shiite unrest on the Arabian Peninsula, while Turkey is looking to lay a Sunni foundation for its regional resurgence. As a result, increased amounts of money, supplies, weaponry, training and intelligence support have made their way to the Syrian rebels through covert channels. The hope was that a covert campaign would obviate the need for a costly foreign military intervention and lead to the collapse of the regime from within. In theory, the plan sounds reasonable. In practice, it's a lot more complicated.




A Complicated Transition

A transition to Sunni rule in Syria is bound to be messy. Syria's Alawites have become well established in Damascus and in other key urban centers across the country. The heterodox community has also dominated the most elite units of the military, security and intelligence apparatus and will be carrying those skills with it should it be sidelined from power. Even though the Alawites and fellow minorities are outnumbered, it is unlikely that they will be easily pushed back to the hilly coastal lands of their forefathers in the northwest.



Instead, the Alawites, with Iranian backing, could be expected to mount a militant resistance against Turkish- and Arab-backed Sunnis. The Alawites, who currently dominate Syria's ruling Baath Party, observed the rapidity with which the (Sunni-dominated) Iraqi Baathist military crumbled after the fall of Saddam Hussein and the now marginalized status of Iraq's former Baathists. The Alawites will be fighting an existential crisis to avoid a similar fate in the face of a proxy war, while Iran will be reinforcing the Alawites to try to maintain a foothold in the region. This conflict will inevitably spill over into Lebanon, a state whose existence has been defined by this broader sectarian struggle and that will continue to serve as a battleground for proxy interests.



Transnational jihadists would also play a large role in a post-al Assad Syria. The Syrian rebellion contains a growing assortment of Sunni Islamists, Salafist jihadists and transnational al Qaeda-style jihadists. Foreign fighters belonging to the latter two categories are believed to be making their way into Syria from Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.



For many years, Syrian intelligence ran an elaborate jihadist supply chain, funneling militants into both Lebanon and Iraq to serve its foreign policy purposes. Saudi Arabia is now believed to be using those very same channels against Damascus to funnel militants into the Syrian theater. From past experience, Riyadh is wary of transnational jihadists' gaining ground in Syria and causing more problems down the line. But Saudi Arabia's concerns over Iran and its Shiite supporters appear to be outweighing those reservations. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has been promoting what it has defined as legitimate jihad against the Syrian regime and its Iranian and Shiite supporters.



The Saudis cannot wage their jihad and stem jihadism at the same time. Inserting religiously motivated fighters into a theater is the easy part; controlling them will be difficult, especially once common interests against Iran and the Shia dissolve into an ideologically driven agenda of transnational jihadism.



A Revival of the Mesopotamian Battleground?

It is safe to assume that Syria, between the fall of the Alawite regime and the turbulent emergence of a new, Sunni-empowered regime, would experience an interregnum defined by considerable chaos. Amid the sectarian disorder, a generation would remain of battle-hardened and ideologically driven militants belonging to Sunni nationalist and transnational jihadist camps who in the past decade have fought against regimes in Baghdad and Damascus. These jihadists harbor expectations that they will be able to aid their struggling allies in Iraq if they gain enough operating space in Syria. Under these circumstances, it is easy to imagine a revived militant flow into Iraq, and this time under much looser control.



Thus, the regional campaign against Iran is unlikely to end in Syria. Should Sunnis gain the upper hand in Syria, the Shiite-led bloc in Lebanon (led by Hezbollah and its allies) will likely lose its dominant status. Turkish, Saudi and Qatari backing for Sunnis in the Levant and the rise of Islamists in the Arab states will be focused on creating a more formidable bulwark against Iran and its Arab Shiite allies.



The most important battleground to watch in this regard will be Iraq. There are a number of regional stakeholders who are not satisfied with Baghdad's Iranian-backed Shiite government. There also likely will be a healthy Sunni militant flow to draw from the Syrian crisis. These militants will not only need to be kept occupied so that they do not return home to cause trouble, but they can also serve a strategic purpose in reviving the campaign of marginalized Sunnis against Shiite domination. Iran may feel comfortable in Iraq now, but the domino effect from Syria could place Iran back on the defensive in Iraq, which has the potential to re-emerge as the main arena for the broader Arab Sunni versus Persian Shiite struggle for regional influence. These trends will take time to develop, and the pace of Sunni empowerment in Syria remains in question, especially as the Alawite core of the regime is so far enduring. That said, it doesn't hurt to look ahead.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.



Read more: Considering a Sunni Regime in Syria
Stratfor

Saddam, Hitler, and Stalin: Beyond Satan's Slaves

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ analyzing some of the worst people in the past hundred years. This follows this post analyzing a domestic terrorist's death. This follows this post about the American Revolution.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Saddam, Hitler, and Stalin: Beyond Satan's Slaves

A commentary by Jerold Aust

 

People today blithely stumble along in their lives, ignorant of the fact that there is a "god of this world", Satan the devil, who is in control behind the scenes and behind much of what happens on earth. Although most human beings either ignore or deny this truth, God doesn’t. He has a plan to resolve this greatest of problems...

"Until the myth dies, people are going to show unnatural fear of his (Saddam) return," advised Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell ( Time , 7/23/03), noting why some Iraqis seem nervous about Saddam's ultimate demise.

They know Saddam is wily as a coyote and unconscionably merciless. Some Iraqis have personally experienced the maiming and murder of close relatives by Saddam, his sons, and his henchman.

"Time to find Saddam," said a top Republican operative last week. "We get nothing if we do nothing," says Russell. "It's just a matter of waiting for Murphy's Law to kick in," says another official. "He needs money and trusted friends to move around and we're scooping up both." For instance, in the end of June, the brigade intercepted Saddam's nephew who just happened to be carrying $800,000 in a briefcase.



Saddam and a few trusted supporters are like ghosts, seldom staying longer than a few hours in any one house. The Saddam myth remains until this poster boy for Satan is caught, dead or alive!



Where do such obscene, heartless human butchers come from, and when will such tyrannies end? The Bible provides the answer to both questions. Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin rate at the top of a historical list of more recent cruel and heartless tyrants. So many books have been written about Hitler and Stalin, so much verifiable historical data has been recorded for posterity, that it's a foregone conclusion they rank at the top of the list of despicable demagogues. Both are responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Now Saddam has joined their infamous ranks.



Though the list of sickening, revolting tyrants is long, only one being is behind them all: Satan the devil.



"You're trying to tell me that the devil made them do it?," you might ask. Not entirely. They unwittingly cooperated with the god of this world in joining the ranks of the most heartless humans on earth. Understand this: God will not allow Satan the devil to directly take human lives (see Job 1:12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.



See All...; 2:6). But Satan can influence human beings to do his dirty work, and he does (Job 1:17While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.



See All...).



Jesus Christ, countering the ignorant accusations of self-righteous Pharisees, placed the blame squarely on Satan's head: "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it" (John 8:44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.



See All..., emphasis added throughout).



People today blithely stumble along in their lives, ignorant of the fact that there is a "god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.



See All...), Satan the devil, who is in control behind the scenes and behind much of what happens on earth (see Matthew 4:8-9 [8] Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

[9] And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

See All...). Although most human beings either ignore or deny this truth, God doesn't. He has a plan to resolve this greatest of problems.

God's plan is to send Christ Jesus to earth to remove and incarcerate the god of this world (Revelation 20:1-3 [1] And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

[2] And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

[3] And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

See All...). Early in the history of mankind, Satan hijacked humanity, beginning with Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) and since that time, he has held humankind captive through his counterfeit religious teachings (2 Corinthians 4:4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

See All...; 11:13-15).

Except for a tiny few, all men, women and children are, albeit unknown to them, constrained in a religious straightjacket of deception. But God has promised humanity freedom from the influence of Satan and the demons. That will happen only after they are removed and constrained. And they will be!

Both the prophet Isaiah and Jesus Christ clearly reveal that Satan will be incarcerated—prevented from continuing to deceive all of humanity—for 1,000 years when Christ establishes His Kingdom on earth (Isaiah 24:21-22 [21] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.

[22] And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

See All...; Revelation 20:1-3 [1] And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

[2] And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

[3] And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

See All...).

Saddam, like Hitler and Stalin, is an unwitting pawn of Satan the devil; all three human tyrants have ignorantly and slavishly obeyed him. When Satan is removed from power on earth and Christ sets up His sovereign rule, even the notion of tyrannical despots will disappear from our thinking.

As Micah 4:4But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.

See All... foretells, ". . . Everyone shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken."

(If you'd like to learn more about these subjects, request or download our free booklets Is There Really a Devil? and The Gospel of the Kingdom .)

.

Attacks in Iraq Kill at Least 60

A very interesting post from http://www.hughhewitt.com/ about problems in Iraq due to our pulling out of this country prematurely. This was a country that was threatening regional stability and hid WMDs from U.N. Inspectors such as Hans Blix. This follows this post about a bombing of Christians in Nigeria.   This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Attacks on Shiites in Iraq Kill at Least 60


Michael Kamber for The New York Times

Family members comforted Saif Abdulasada, whose leg was amputated after a motorcycle bomb explosion in Baghdad's Sadr City on Thursday.

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

Published: January 5, 2012

 BAGHDAD — Insurgents unleashed a fierce string of bombings against Iraq’s Shiites on Thursday, attacking pilgrims marching through the desert and neighborhoods in Baghdad, in an attempt to stir sectarian violence. The attacks come amid a political crisis that has brought the government to a halt less than three weeks after American troops withdrew.



Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.




Michael Kamber for The New York Times

Iraqis grieved in Baghdad on Thursday after a bomb attack claimed the life of a family member.

Enlarge This Image



Ahmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Iraqi soldiers stood guard at the site of a bomb attack in Sadr City on Thursday.




According to security officials, 68 people were killed in the attacks and more than 100 wounded, marking the second devastating and apparently coordinated attack in Iraq over the past month. The most lethal attack occurred near the southern city of Nasiriya where a suicide bomber detonated an explosive vest amid a crowd of pilgrims as they waited to pass through a check point, killing 44 and wounding dozens, including several Iraqi army officers, according to security officials.



The pilgrims were making a trip to the holy city of Karbala leading up to holiday of Arbaeen, which marks the end of the 40-day mourning period for the death of Imam Hussein ibn Ali, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.



Photographs of the bombing scene posted on the Web site of Dhi Qar Province, where the attack occurred, showed dozens of bloody bodies strewn across the ground. One photo was of a young boy with a charred shirt and pants laying face down covered in blood. Another photo was of just four fingers and what appeared to be the remnants of a hand.



No group claimed responsibility for the attacks but they appeared similar to ones conducted by Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgent group which has tried to plunge the country back to the brink of civil war by pitting the country’s sectarian groups against each other.



Al Qaeda in Iraq killed more than 63 people on Dec. 22 in a series of explosions across Baghdad, the deadliest day in the capital in more than a year. The attacks, however, did not reignite sectarian violence.



The violence began early on Thursday morning in Baghdad when explosives strapped to a motorcycle were detonated near a group of day laborers who had congregated by the side of the road in the slum of Sadr City, according to security officials.



Moments later, two improvised explosive devices were detonated near rescuers who were taking the wounded to a nearby hospital, the officials said. Nine people were killed in the explosions and 35 were wounded.



An hour after the Sadr City attack, two car bombs were detonated in bustling squares in the neighborhood of Kadhimiya, killing 15 people and wounding 31, according to security officials.The political crisis was set off a day after the United States withdrew its last combat troops, when the Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki accused the country’s Sunni vice president of running a death squad.



The vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, fled Baghdad for the country’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region where Mr. Maliki’s security forces have less authority. Meanwhile, in Baghdad Sunni and Kurdish politicians have accused Mr. Maliki of trying to use the episode to consolidate his power and have boycotted sessions of Parliament.



“When politicians have a problem, the citizens are usually the ones who pay,” said Abu Sajad, a minibus driver who was near the attack in Sadr City. “This has happened before and continues to happen.”



On Wednesday, eight people were killed in attacks across the country. In the restive province of Diyala, where the local government has expressed desires for more autonomy from the central government, insurgents blew up the home of a police officer, killing his six-year old daughter and two others.



A 22-year old laborer said that at the time of the Sadr City attack he was sitting on the side of the road with other laborers around a fire. “We were sitting waiting for a job,” said the laborer, Yasir Rasul. “I saw three people inside the bus who were killed instantly,” when the motorcycle bomb exploded near a minibus, he said.



Yasir Ghazi and Zaid Thaker contributed reporting.

Iraq: Jihadis murder 60 people in multiple bombings; former PM says US left job unfinished

A very interesting post from http://www.jihadwatch.org/ about the dangers that the United States left behind in Iraq, the war which began with Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with the U.N. and his threats across the region and was authorized by Congress. This follows this post about the danger that Iran can do due to the Strait of Hormuz, its strongest weapon.This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Iraq: Jihadis murder 60 people in multiple bombings; former PM says US left job unfinished


Just days ago I wrote in Human Events: "Nothing appears likelier in Iraq’s future than more jihadist persecution of Christians and other religious minorities, more Sunni-Shi’ite jihad, and more jockeying for power by Iran as it continues its jihad to become the leader of the Islamic world."



Meanwhile, Iyad Allawi apparently expected that the Americans would stay in Iraq indefinitely, cleaning up all the messes of sectarian and ethnic strife and political jockeying. But Sunni/Shi'ite and Arab/Kurd enmity are a lot older than the United States, and would never have been eradicated by the U.S., even if we stayed there 1000 years.



"Wave of bombings across Baghdad kills 60," by Qassim Abdul-Zahra for the Associated Press, December 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):



BAGHDAD (AP) — A wave of at least 14 bombings ripped across Baghdad Thursday morning, killing at least 60 people in the worst violence in Iraq for months. The apparently coordinated attacks struck days after the last American forces left the country and in the midst of a major government crisis between Shiite and Sunni politicians that has sent sectarian tensions soaring.

The bombings may be linked more to the U.S. withdrawal than the political crisis, but all together, the developments heighten fears of a new round of Shiite-Sunni sectarian bloodshed like the one a few years back that pushed Iraq to the brink of civil war.



There was no immediate claim of responsibility. But the bombings bore all the hallmarks of al Qaeda’s Sunni insurgents. Most appeared to hit Shiite neighborhoods, although some Sunni areas were also targeted. In all, 11 neighborhoods were hit by either car bombs, roadside blasts or sticky bombs attached to cars. There was at least one suicide bombing and the blasts went off over several hours.



The deadliest attack was in the Karrada neighborhood, where a suicide bomber driving an explosives-laden vehicle blew himself up outside the office of a government agency fighting corruption. Two police officers at the scene said the bomber was driving an ambulance and told guards that he needed to get to a nearby hospital. After the guards let him through, he drove to the building where he blew himself up, the officers said....



Because such a large-scale, coordinated attack likely took weeks to plan, and the political crisis erupted only few days ago, the violence was not likely a direct response to the tensions within the government. Also, al Qaeda opposed Sunni cooperation in the Shiite-dominated government in the first place and is not aligned with Sunni politicians.



The Sunni extremist group often attacks Shiites, who they believe are not true Muslims....





"Ex-Iraqi PM accuses US of leaving job unfinished," from MSNBC, December 22 (thanks to Pamela Geller):



A leading Iraqi politician has accused the country's prime minister of acting like Saddam Hussein in trying to silence opposition, saying he risks provoking a new fightback against dictatorship.

Iyad Allawi -- a former prime minister who leads the Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc -- also claimed the United States had pulled out its troops "without completing the job they should have finished."



Allawi said that the current premier, Nuri al-Maliki, had used fabricated confessions to demand the arrest of the country's Sunni Muslim vice president, Tareq al-Hashemi.



Al-Hashemi, who has taken refuge in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, denies allegations he ordered bombings and shootings against his opponents. The move against him, on the very day U.S. troops left the country, threatens to upset a balance among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.



Speaking to Reuters two days after the final departure of the U.S. forces that ended Saddam's Sunni-dominated rule, Allawi called for international efforts to prevent al-Maliki, who is a Shiite, from provoking renewed sectarian warfare of the kind that killed tens of thousands in the years after Saddam fell in 2003.



"This is terrifying, to bring fabricated confessions," Allawi said shortly before leaving the Jordanian capital Amman to return to Iraq. "It reminds me personally of what Saddam Hussein used to do where he would accuse his political opponents of being terrorists and conspirators."...



He said he would now try to unseat the prime minister in the legislature: "We have to make a move to bring about stability to the country by trying to find a substitute to Maliki through parliament," said Allawi, who repeated allegations that Shiite Iran is seeking control in Iraq now that U.S. forces have left....



Posted by Robert

Van Jones Should Not Get a Pass With an Apology. Barack Obama Should Not Get A Pass by Throwing Him Under the Bus

A timely tip from www.redstate.com about the Van Jones resignation!

Van Jones Should Not Get a Pass With an Apology. Barack Obama Should Not Get A Pass by Throwing Him Under the Bus

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

It is objectively clear that Van Jones is a 9/11 Truther.
I’m also hearing that many in D.C. expect Jones is on his way out and it might come as soon as 5:00 p.m. today — the start of a 3 day weekend with the President out of town so it can all blow over.
Despite Van Jones’ name appearing on a 9/11 Truther petition in 2004, Jones denies any knowledge of the events.
Even though Jones denies any knowledge of the events and failed to demand a retraction, he apologized for the same events.
However, the organization that put together the petition says this is nonsense. Van Jones gave permission to be the petition.
Mike Berger, a spokesman for 911Truth.org, told the Washington Times over the phone that all of the signers had been verified by their group. He said 9/11Truth.org board members “spoke with each person on the list by phone or through email to individually confirm they had added their name to that list.”
The White House, backing off, now says Jones did not “carefully review” the 9/11 truther petition. This is just like Jones not carefully reviewing the fact that he was giving prisoners green jobs with taxpayer dollars.
But there is more to it.
On January 8, 2002, Van Jones participated in a March to demand the truth about 9/11. The march was heavily connected with people who believe 9/11 was an inside job.
There is, however, a greater question: who signed off on a 9/11 truther to work in the White House? Given that he made office statements as recently as a month or two before he started his job, you’d think someone had to give him a pass despite what the vetters found out.

Who did that?

The Surge Worked: Victory In Iraq

A very interesting story from www.hughhewitt.com!! You should send this to all the people who said we were just fighting there for oil!

The Surge Worked: Victory In Iraq
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
President Bush must be watching today's celebrations in Iraq with great interest, though doubtless without any expectation that the MSM which was so wrong for so long about Iraq will pause to recall that in late 2006, Bush undertook a change in strategy in Iraq that led to today's celebrations in the country liberated from Saddam and now generally secure from terrorists.Many, many senior American political figures --including President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid-- pronounced the war in Iraq lost in 2006, and declared that the surge could not work and was not worth the effort.But today Iraq is a free country because of the surge, and though hardly a completely secure and stable democracy, Iraq is on the path that could make it the anchor of freedom in the Muslim world while its fascist neighbor Iran is convulsed with demonstrations and unmasked to the world as the most repressive regime in the region.The new Administration could still forfeit the hard won, extremely costly victory in Iraq through fecklessness or a desperate need to please the hard-left fringe in the United States that will forever understand victory in Iraq as a rebuke to their hatred of Bush and their blindness to the true stakes of the war. Every day of freedom the Iraqis enjoy is a day that MoveOn.org and the rest of the gang wanted to deny the Iraqi people. They helped President Obama win an election of course, but they are losing the battle with history every single day, and days like today must drive that home and drive them into a deserved gloom over their own failed plans to see America humbled.