It’s the timing Mr President, when you come out with the Iranian Amateur Hour version of a terror attack within hours of your Attorney General being served with a subpoena, it’s no wonder people are a little, no, make that a lot, skeptical. Was the attack so imminent or so dangerous that it was imperative that it be released at precisely that instant or was it an effort to show how diligent your Attorney General is, the same one who sells advanced military grade weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels for no apparent or logical reason, weapons that have so far been instrumental in the killing of two federal agents and probably used in the commission of hundreds of deaths of Mexican nationals in Mexico. The same weapons that will probably be used in countless attacks and murders on both sides of the border for decades in the future. Are we supposed to believe that this same Attorney General is instrumental in rounding up an Iranian American, who was recruiting Mexican henchmen from the drug cartels to act as terrorists for the Iranians.

Yes, it’s no wonder people are looking a little fish eyed at your accusations and doubt your ability and that of your Attorney General, the one who neglected to notice multiple briefs on Fast and Furious, briefs that were addressed to him, the same one that is beginning to look like an accessory to murder.

Is it no wonder that you don’t even have the true believers hanging on every word in worshipful praise and thanks as you pronounce “toughest sanctions” against Iran for the imminent threat of a used car salesman planning an attack on the Saudi ambassador to the US.

Iran scoffs at the accusation and many in the US are more than a little doubtful Mr President, timing is important and your timing was a little too obvious; otherwise, you would not need to justify your claims, like this one explaining how American officials knew:

“know that he had direct links, was paid by, and directed by individuals in the Iranian government.”

“Now those facts are there for all to see. We would not be bringing forward a case unless we knew exactly how to support all the allegations that are contained in the indictment.”

You are a little too obvious in your defense when you say, “We would not be bringing forward a case, unless we knew exactly how to support the allegations…”, it’s integrity Mr president, you have lost your integrity. The American public and the world no longer trusts you or your Attorney General.

Susan Rice will obviously strike fear into the heart of Iran, but your State Department spokesperson, Ms Victoria Nuland confirms many American doubts when she roars like a lioness with this line:

“When you look at these details, it seems like something out of a movie. But as you begin to give more detail on what we knew and when we knew it and how we knew it, it has credibility.”

So it has credibility! You can’t get more authentic than that Mr President. Unfortunately, like the pregnant teenager in junior high school, you might be all alone in the international community in your condemnation of Iran.

So you have laid out all the facts of a deranged used car salesmen acting as international terror brokers for international leaders and so far, you have yourself convinced:

“We’ve laid the facts before them, and we believe that after people have analyzed them, there will not be a dispute that this is in fact what happened.”

Our ally Britain, whom you have ignored and insulted in the past, offered this bit of anemic support from the British foreign secretary, William Hague by saying on record that the incident:

“would appear to constitute a major escalation in Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism outside its borders. He added that the British government was “in close touch with the U.S. authorities and will work to agree an international response, along with the U.S., the rest of the E.U. and Saudi Arabia.”

We can see that the British have expressed their outrage, to be expressed further if it turns out that anyone else believes the accusations. Of course it is pretty serious if a rogue nation is sponsoring terrorism outside its borders with a covert used car salesmen.

From the Saudi foreign minister:

“this dastardly act reflects the policies of Iran.” The Saudi government has not yet decided whether to withdraw its ambassador from Tehran in protest, he said.

Oh my, how serious does it get if the Saudis can’t decide whether to withdraw their ambassador from Tehran.

You have brought this upon yourself Mr President. You have indirectly brought about feelings of indifference and apathy from Americans and the international community. You have essentially made yourself into a lame duck president and people are only counting the days until a new president can be sworn in. A year of campaigning and cheap theatrics like this will only deepen the public’s distrust in you and your administration. It is probably best if you try to tread water while trying not to make waves. In that way you may improve your image slightly, rather than creating more animosity in this country and the world.

The US has almost no business dealings with Iran, other countries make massive amounts of money by trading with Iran. Is it no wonder that the rest of the world will be looking at your latest B-Movie plot with skepticism. They don’t believe you Mr President, the Amateur Hour is almost over.

Who is this Obama, who asks us to accept both his ethnocentric Narcissism and his anti-Semitic vision, a vision tempered by hatred and honed with prejudice. He stands invincible, a knight in silk suits; a legend in his own mind who knows no defeat or wrong decisions.

“There is a wisdom that is woe; but there is a woe that is madness. And there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he for ever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they soar.”

- Moby Dick, Herman Melville

On an international stage, our President manipulates the truth with such audacity and imprecision, without challenge or ridicule, that even rational literate men can begin to question their own logic.

While the world tries to decipher and separate the dubious metaphor with lofty expression from concrete policy reflecting reality from within Obama’s latest speech, a speech that was primarily meant to bolster sagging polls and his image as a sage and distinguished diplomat of the world, the damage from his message will inevitably cause more bloodshed and turmoil in the Middle East and compromise the position of the United States.

Obama was self-ingratiating as he described his accomplishments in facilitating the stage for Democratic reform in the Middle East. Accomplishments that seem bizarre when viewed in light of recent history; especially, when anti-theocracy marchers were slaughtered, arrested, and tortured in Iran. Obama’s commitment to Democracy was not to meddle in the affairs Islamic states that are committing atrocities against their own citizenry. While Bashar Assad was killing his own people by the hundreds if not thousands with automatic rifles and machine guns, Obama hailed him as a reformer. In Obama’s convoluted logic, Iraq has become an example of success due to his diplomacy; yet, within recent history, he called for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq by 2008 and wrote off the Surge and the war itself as dismal failures. Unfortunately, history and the truth follow relentlessly and closely on the coattails of a prevaricator; especially, one who wallows in hypocrisy to avail himself of fleeting glory from actions he had previously condemned.

Middle East authoritarian governments blame the US and Israel for their problems and failures as contributing nations of the modern world. Sponsoring terror has become a convenient conduit for striking back at their straw men or scapegoats to show progress on the sources of Middle East problems and to appease the semi-literate mind, thus the tribal barbarian vents his rage over celebrations of senseless bloodshed and misery, that defines the method of the terrorist, rather than looking at the root causes of their malfunctioning societies: tribalism, religious intolerance and fundamentalism, statism, totalitarian government, the virtual slavery of women, and perpetuating ideas and hatreds from the Dark Ages. Obama excuses these problems and refuses to even mention the word Islam in his speech; instead, he gallantly carried the Middle Eastern banners of hatred and blame toward the US and Israel.

Is it a coincidence, other than the rather bizarre attack on Libya, a former enemy that had been neutralized as a terror threat, but steadfastly refused to tolerate the radical Islamic fundamentalists, that the only dictatorships Obama has turned on, have been allies of the US and could be considered marginal Islamic theocracies that were semi-tolerant of other religions. He neglected to explain why Qadaffi received our wrath for threatening his people, but a homicidal maniac like Assad, who actually kills thousands of unarmed marchers is without blame.

Our most notable Arab ally in the ME, Saudi Arabia, was ignored except for an indirect plea to pump more oil; presumably, to help with the pump price at home; although, he promised skyrocketing energy prices in his initial election campaign, the reality of the situation is that he wanted to raise the price with restrictive taxes not higher crude prices. Thus he faces the negativity of skyrocketing energy prices with no confiscatory tax gain for a federal government that is anxiously awaiting to expand and encompass an ever growing share of the economy.

Again we are faced with the illogical logic of Obama: the ME can relieve oil prices by pumping more oil and Brazil can relieve the cost of energy by drilling in the Atlantic, so it is necessary to give them billions so that they can sell us oil, but it is foolish to think that Americans drilling in America and off our coasts can affect the cost of oil or decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Now, President Obama is proposing that the US give billions to ME governments and indirectly to Hamas for some obscure reasons that we as Americans are compelled to accept, for we often equate lunacy as sound foreign policy and we ignore the obvious fact that these oil rich nations who relish greed as a way of life, could much more easily afford to promote terrorism against the US than expecting the US to pay for the terror that will be unleashed against the US and Israel. The president assumes by enriching Hamas, an organization that is about to become part of the Palestinian government and is unashamedly sworn to the annihilation of Israel, will see the error of their ways and come to love Obama and decide not to cut the throat of every Jew in the world.

The president assumes that by instructing Israel to reform the pre ’67 borders, Palestinians will lose their hatred of Israel and the Jew: the problem is not the boundaries or the humiliating defeat of the Arab world in the Six Day War, it is the failure of the Palestinian people to establish a workable constitutional government in the modern sense of a governing body in the modern world of nations. While the Palestinians and Jew haters salivate at the thought of pre ’67 borders, we who have normal cerebral function, trust it is hardly a prelude to peace and love for the Jew; not at all, it is merely seen as a way to stage an attack, to weaken Israel and to deliver the killing blow to the Jew. Do any of us in our wildest imaginations believe president Obama would stop the second Holocaust? Hell no, he would dither and wait to see how it played out, while his beloved Muslim Brotherhood governments and Palestinians obliterate the Jewish people. And are our American Progressive Socialists naive or stupid enough to think after the destruction of Israel, the homicidal maniacs would rest content and stop their blood lust? If they are that stupid they deserve the knife of the Islamic Fundamentalist, but the rest of us don’t.

The president is free with US dollars to Muslim nations who hate America, but ignores the disasters like unemployment, flooding, exorbitant energy prices, and fires at home; again, we are expected to accept the illogic logic of Obama by some convoluted process that is hard even for his state directed media to justify. Perhaps Obama should remember the old paradox, “you can’t buy friends or the friends that you buy, you don’t want”.

Unfortunately, this paradox of friends and money defines the thugocracy that is the precept of Obama philosophy: you buy loyalty and you buy friends, and the best way to accomplish it, is with other people’s money.

The president promoted the concept of Democracy in the ME and without exception, he will be promoted as an outstanding orator and statesman by the state directed media and the emptiness and naiveté of his blathering will be hailed with awe and wonder; only to be forgotten after the absurdity and irrelevance of Obama’s illogical logic is used for as much advantage and leverage as possible by his propaganda bureau.

Rather than believing his own press like the proverbial empty headed fool, Obama would be well served to read the old Polish proverb: “Watch the faces of those who bow the lowest.” The homicidal maniac of the ME is cunning and recognizes weakness; he will faun over Obama until it is time to strike.

The epitasis (denouement or climax, just before catastrophe in Greek theatre) is building in the ME. We may regard Obama’s speech as a faux Ciceronian effort to be pitied for it’s circumlocution and naive pandering, but for the semi-literate mind, caught up in the Middle Ages, it indicates weakness and capitulation that serves to embolden and strengthen their resolve. Thus the speech isn’t inconsequential in the sense of anemic posturing; no not at all, it is seen as a great morale builder for the disaffected of the Muslim World, a confirmation of their hatred and prejudices. Thus Obama perhaps gains a self-serving, but false standing in the ME, literally at the expense of the American taxpayer and by compromising the Jewish state and eventually America itself.

Obama Subjugates The US Presidency To King Abdullah

Obama can sing and dance and guess who pulls his strings.

Oh, there he is our Great Reader
Strutting like a proud world leader
See how he controls bold dictators
Treats them as little more than waiters

Oh listen Brave New World Obama has spoken
and countless lilies shake their dew
But, there is one to whom Obama is beholden
The big cheese Saudi, King Abdullah

He says, whoa there little Barak!
You won’ be doin’ that to Mubarak
He’s a friend of mine, so don’t be a fool
He stays, don’t forget you are only a tool

Now quit your nonsense and don’t be an asse
Remember who calls the shots, forget the sass
These are serious matters of the Middle East
You should concentrate on what the kids eat

You should worry over windmills and high speed trains
Leave matters of world power to those with brains

People of the world have been confused as to why Obama has been pontificating on Egypt like a man running around in a silo looking for a corner to piss in; Mubarak must see to a gradual transition, Mubarak must step down now, Mubarak can stick around for a long time. Americans are confused and the rest of the word is confused: the Muslim Brotherhood is especially confused. They thought they had pulled off a successful coupe and now the great and uncompromising Fearless Reader of the United States has changed his mind once again. Now the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators are wondering if they might be in deep doo doo. Now that their hooliganism didn’t sway the world and Fearless Reader.

What brought about this monumental change of heart by the leader of the free world? King Abdullah told Obama to back off or he would be backing Mubarak. (Heh! Obama here is your chance to save the US 1.2 billion.)

Saudi Arabia has threatened to prop up President Mubarak if the White House tries to force a swift change of regime in Egypt. In a testy personal telephone call on January 29, King Abdullah told President Obama not to humiliate Mr Mubarak and warned that he would step in to bankroll Egypt if the US withdrew its aid programme, worth $1.5 billion annually. America’s closest ally in the Gulf made clear that the Egyptian President must be allowed to stay on to oversee the transition towards peaceful democracy and then leave with dignity. “Mubarak and King Abdullah are not just allies, they are close friends, and the King is not about to see his friend cast aside and humiliated,” a senior source in the Saudi capital told The Times.

When the Big Cheese talks, Obama listens!

Have we become a proxy for Saudi Arabia? Just how many of our policies are being directed by the Saudi King?

Yes, this is the way Ronald Reagan would have directed the country, yea right!

Interesting to watch the changes coming in the middle east and to think….President Bush was behind much of this.

We have seen our vulnerability – and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny – prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder – violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
- President George W. Bush (Second Inaugural Address)

Egyptian President Mubarek’s days are numbered it appears, under strong pressure from the Egyptian people and the U.S. to make an orderly transition to democracy.

The Bush Doctrine….that doctrine which was his justification for toppling the Taliban and Saddam. It wasn’t enough to destroy al-Qaeda and the Iraqi WMD’s but to turn those countries into strong democracies so that they could be a beacon for the rest of the middle east.

President Bush (2003) –

“Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?”

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have had free elections and are on their way to democracy, albeit slowly and with a few bumps in the road….as our country had. But look towards Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen….

Can you tell me that President Bush’s doctrine didn’t play any part in moving towards this point? The same doctrine that was sneered at by the left as unrealistic and naive.

Rory Steele – 2004:

The fragile balance of race and religion, managed by rulers of Mesopotamia for centuries by repression, has been destroyed. The invaders did this in the name of democracy, a concept unaccepted to date in the Arab world and one that is totally unrealistic for Iraq.

Totally unrealistic that human beings would want to live free?

Well maybe it wasn’t until Obama gave his speech that the Middle East then decided that “hey…maybe freedom isn’t unrealistic!”

Yeaaaaah.

Several big cities feel the results of their sanctimonious stand against Arizona. In an unprecedented move, either at Obama’s direction or to show solidarity with the Democrat’s push for new voters, several large cities, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle have decided to boycott Arizona in a symbolic action that is nearly meaningless since the same cities trade with China, a country that buys and sells illegal women immigrants from Korea as Quasi-wives and as sex slaves.

Thousands of North Korean fugitives living and hiding in China are forced to become slave labourers or prostitutes, or are sold and resold to Chinese men as “sex toys”, campaigners said yesterday.

Thousands of North Korean fugitives living and hiding in China are forced to become slave labourers or prostitutes, or are sold and resold to Chinese men as “sex toys”, campaigners said yesterday.

There are between 10,000 and 300,000 Korean refugees hiding in China and monitors for Human Rights Watch (HRW) found those they spoke to were resigned to a sub-human existence in China. Many fear they will be captured and sent home to serve a life sentence in one of North Korea’s notorious prison camps, where inmates are reportedly experimented on with chemicals, starved or shot.

Of course selling women as sexual slaves is no reason for our President not to bow and grovel to their leaders, since Saudia Arabia and China both approve of slavery for women as long as it is only for sexual purposes. Here is an account of an American nurse who worked for a Saudi Prince and observed the sexual slavery o both women and children in Saudi Arabia.

While living and working as a registered nurse at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Mary Doreen had the unique opportunity, along with a colleague, to be the first Westerners to cross the threshold of a high-ranking, royal household.

In her new book, Surreal in Saudi, Mary documents how Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan, a famous and revered religious authority in Saudi Arabia, professes: “Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long as there is Islam.”(World Net Daily, 2003).

Mary shares how the endorsement of slavery from religious authorities allows for broad interpretation so, understandably, pressure from the Western World to abolish slavery is considered a ‘thorn in the side’ for most Saudis.

In pursuit to pacify the West, the ruling members of Saudi Arabia vehemently deny the existence of slaves, and in their arrogance, redefine it.

In actuality, Women from Third World countries are purchased to serve in aristocratic households throughout the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They come from the Sudan, Thailand, Ethiopia, India and the Philippines and are frequently bought and sold, their families and extended family are given cash in exchange for one of their children. They are eager to sell a daughter to benefit the family, believing their child will live in luxury with a Saudi prince.

For the vulnerable, this is a dream come true, but in reality, is a farce. A Saudi prince who purchases a slave girl believes he committed a charitable act by rescuing a family from abject poverty while delivering his slave into a fate worse that death. He brings young girls into his palace, dumps them in damp basements without so much as a blanket for cover at night. She is lucky to have food, is often raped, tortured and persecuted by her owners and members of the royal household, both male and female.

In the Human Rights News, 2004: “In 1962, then-King Faisal abolished slavery in Saudi Arabia by royal decree. Over forty years later, migrant workers in the purportedly modern society that the kingdom has become continue to suffer extreme forms of labor exploitation that sometimes rise to slavery-like conditions. Their lives are further complicated by deeply rooted gender, religious, and racial discrimination. This provides the foundation for prejudicial public policy and government regulations, shameful practices of private employers, and unfair legal proceedings that yield judicial sentences of the death penalty. The overwhelming majority of the men and women who face these realities in Saudi Arabia are low-paid workers from Asia, Africa, and countries in the Middle East.”

Unfortunately, for these cities that are so anxious to impose their hypocritical views on Arizona, they are feeling the economic reaction to their condemnation of Arizona and its effort of preventing the loss of their state to an alien invasion by implementing federal law at the state level.

Arizona tourists are biting back against San Diego for its city council’s decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State over its immigration law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last month.

Would-be tourists have notified the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and some hotels that they are canceling their scheduled travel to the coastal vacation destination, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

According to the newspaper, the convention bureau has received about 25-30 emails from Arizona residents, with some saying they are canceling their reservations and taking their money elsewhere.

That has tourism officials urging Arizonans to consider the resolutions as merely symbolic and local politics at work.

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” ConVis President Joe Terzi told the Union-Tribune. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”

It is ironic that trying to impose your will on someone else, through economic hardship, suddenly becomes unfair when it bites you in the ass.

Reuters

President Obama’s idea of waging “aggressive personal diplomacy“? Attacking President Bush for blustering belligerence:

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Yup. That explains Iranian aggression for the last 30 years against the United States.

Meanwhile, Israel seizes 500 tons of Iranian weapons on Wednesday:

Israel displayed on Wednesday the contents of the ship it seized off Cyprus – crates filled with rockets, missiles, mortars, anti-tank weapons and munitions – the largest such haul in the country’s history. Israel’s claim that the weapons came from Iran were bolstered by Iranian markings on the sides of the containers and what it said was a document proving the ship had set off from an Iranian port.

Israel has not publicly shown the document, however, nor offered evidence to back its assertion that the weapons were headed for Lebanon’s Hezbollah fighters.
ad_icon

“Hezbollah categorically denies it has any connection with the weapons which the Zionist enemy claims it seized,” the group said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press in Beirut on Thursday.

There was no comment from Lebanese officials.

Israeli defense officials said the arms cache would have given Hezbollah, which fought a monthlong war against the Jewish state in 2006, enough firepower to sustain a full month of fighting on the scale of that war.

However, the officials also said the weapons would not have significantly enhanced Hezbollah rockets’ ability to reach deeper into Israel, as the haul consisted of weapons already in Hezbollah’s possession.

The defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the military has yet to formally comment on the potential value of the shipment’s contents to militants.

Iran has never acknowledged giving weapons to Hezbollah. Proof of large-scale Iranian weapons shipments to its proxy forces on Israel’s borders could reinforce Israeli demands for tough action – possibly even a pre-emptive strike – against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israel sees Iran as its biggest threat because of what it believes to be Tehran’s ambitions to acquire atomic weapons. Iran says its nuclear program seeks only to generate energy.

Anyone believe that?

Apparently, President Obama’s allure is losing its luster from Iranian dissidents themselves. Pro-Democracy protesters are echoing the “you’re either with us, or with the terrorists” language of President Bush:

Today, the fundamentalist government in Tehran held protests to commemorate the event, as usual burning the American flag and encouraging shouts of “Death to America.”

This time, pro-democracy protesters — many wearing the movement’s signature green — were heard to shout, “Death to dictators.”

But the demonstrators, who risked beatings, imprisonment and even death to stage their rebellion, also had a message for the White House.

Witnesses said the protesters could be heard chanting: “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us.”

The Obama administration has so far been reluctant to convey American support for the demonstrators, fearful it would undercut the protest movement and allow President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (who some claim can be seen in the 1979 photo above as a young revolutionary) to brand the pro-democracy movement as the work of foreign agitators.

So the White House has so far kept its distance from the movement as the West attempts to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear facilities.

Is it too much to ask of our president that he promote peace by showing support for freedom and democracy across the globe? That he take the time out of his busy schedule to recognize historic significance and symbolism in the advancement of democracy?

Munitions seized by Israeli authorities on a ship near Cyprus, are presented in the port of the Israeli city of Ashdod, Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009. Israeli commandos seized a ship Wednesday that defense officials said was carrying hundreds of tons of weapons from Iran bound for Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrillas, the largest arms shipment Israel has ever commandeered.(AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov ) (Tsafrir Abayov – AP)

History-like hindsight-is supposed to be 20:20, but the deliberate partisan, political divide regarding the invasion of Iraq makes that hard.

It’s not a new phenomenon. Long ago it was said that the true story of a war can’t be told until the last of its veterans has passed away, and only a few months ago did the last World War One veteran go to his great reward. For decades after the Civil War (and some would argue even today) the debate raged on, and the healing of Southern Reconstruction didn’t really start culturally until the unity of the Spanish-American War turned foes into brothers-in-arms.

Conspiracy theories-often fueled by politics-still rage over the 911 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen, whether or not the U.S. Navy knew the U.S.S. Maine had a boiler explosion and wasn’t sunk by a mine. People still think that the Lusitania was set on a suicide mission to get the United States into World War One. These myths will always remain, and it’s good that they do because they spark investigation and a search for understanding of these world changing events. The relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is interesting in that both have a long list of conspiracy theories attacked to each, and yet the abstract, more indirect relationship between the two events is dismissed out of hand. To that end, even if one believes the relationship between Iraq War and 911 attacks is a conspiracy theory, it’s worthwhile to examine if for no other reason than harvesting a better understanding.

Opponents of President Bush and of the invasion of Iraq often claim, “Iraq did not attack the United States on Sept 11, 2001,” but Germany, Italy, and the rest of the Axis didn’t attack Pearl Harbor either and yet the U.S. went to war with them as well as the Japanese. Why? Because those Axis powers had an alliance, an agreement to help the Japanese. It was a paper only agreement (history shows us that there were no battles with uber-racist NAZI S.S. troops fighting alongside Japanese troops), but it was an agreement none-the-less. Additionally, the Axis nations declared war on the United States after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Similarly, we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

Why?

Why did Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda go to war with the United States in 1992? According to the 911 Commission’s final report, the reason that the Al Queda network went to war with the United States, and ultimately the reason for the September 11, 2001 attacks was 4 different things (pg48-49)

He [Osama Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.
He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and
he protested U.S. support of Israel.

Why were American forces in Saudi Arabia from 1992-2001? They were there for one reason: to enforce no-fly-zones over Iraq which were there to protect Iraqis from Saddam. If the United States had removed Saddam in 1991, then the U.S. forces wouldn’t have been needed in Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden’s first casus belli wouldn’t exist.

Why was Osama concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people? He was concerned-like many around the globe-because the U.S. led sanctions were starving tens of millions of people as a failed means of influencing Saddam. Again, had the United States removed Saddam in 1991, Osama Bin Laden’s second casus belli against the United States-his second reason for the 911 attacks-wouldn’t have existed.

Why was Osama Bin Laden so concerned about the United States support for Israel in the 1992-2001 period when Al Queda went to war with the United States? What was unique about that period in America’s support for Israel? In much of the Arab World (and in anti-Semitic circles around the world as well), America’s continued pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime was viewed as an American shield for Israel; as the United States protecting Israel from Saddam and other aggressive Arab regimes.

The historical lesson and inescapable fact is that if the United States had chosen to remove Saddam from power in 1991, OR if the United States had simply walked away from Iraq in 1991 and washed their hands of Saddam’s regime without trying to compel compliance with United Nations resolutions, then Saddam’s regime would have remained in power, BUT the reasons for Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda terrorist networks’ war on the United States simply would not exist; i.e. the reasons for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks wouldn’t have existed.

Would Osama Bin Laden and his network still have found other reasons to wage war on the United States? One cannot tell for certain, but it does seem that their nature and their destiny has been to fight superpowers, and with the United States as the sole superpower in the 1990′s, it seems more than likely other excuses for casus belli would have been claimed.

Would Saddam Hussein have still been a threat to the United States if he had been left in power in 1991, and if the United States didn’t pursue compliance with U.N. Resolutions? Absolutely. In 1992 U.N. inspectors found that Saddam’s regime had actually built a nuclear bomb, but lacked enriched uranium for it. From 1992-1995 U.N. inspectors found vast amounts of WMD. Saddam had invaded or attacked every single one of his neighbors during his reign, he’d used WMD in the past, had ordered them used against U.S. troops in the 1991 Gulf War (Iraq Survey Group Report, transcript of recording, vol II). Few reasonable leaders would argue that Saddam was not a threat, and no one would argue that a Saddam Hussein who still had ballistic missiles, WMD, and more in 1992 was not a regional or even global threat. Determined that he was a threat, Saddam either had to be removed in 1991 by the United States, in the 1991-2003 period by internal forces (multiple attempts at which all failed with increasing futlity), or by the United States in 2003.

The abstract, and more indirect relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is simple: the war with Al Queda and their attacks on the United States (including the 911 attacks) were blowback, consequences, fragmentary effects of the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

The DIRECT relationship between the 911 attacks and Saddam’s regime is far more debated. To be clear, the hijackers were no more Iraqi than the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were German and Italian. However, the question of direct Iraqi ties to the 911 attacks go back to that very day when-as the attacks were happening-Iraq shot down an unarmed Predator drone over Iraq that was searching for WMD etc. On that day, after getting sparse, scattered, and chaotic information about the attacks-while they were happening, and while getting 2-3x as many false reports and rumors of attacks, members of the Bush Administration were not at all culpable or irresponsible for asking if Saddam’s regime was behind the attacks.

In fact, at the time it had become a common cultural expectation. During the 1990′s the Clinton Administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network worked together. Mass media reports of the time carried this theme fully and without question. It was even showing up in movies where characters would claim anything-even meteor showers on New York City were the result of Saddam (Armaggeddon ffwd to 1:40).

Unfortunately, on Sept 11, 2001 there was no way to tell if the attacks were directly or just indirectly related to the on-going American war against Saddam (a war that was so poorly reported that most Americans even today fail to realize it even happened, but conversely was so burned into the minds of the Arab Street at the time that it still conjures up bitter memories in the region).

The question of direct Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks was investigated first by the Bush Administration, and they found no evidence to make a conclusion. Subsequent investigations by the CIA, FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees, the entire intelligence community, the 911 Commission and more all ran into the same problem: there was no evidence. For political partisans opposed to President Bush and/or the invasion of Iraq that was enough to support their argument that the invasion was somehow not necessary. The conclusion they promoted-that there was “no evidence” of a direct involvement was but 1/3 of the truth. Another 1/3 was the reason that there was “no evidence’ was because almost none had been collected or analyzed, and the reason for that (almost always ignored by political opponents of the Iraq invasion) was that from December 1998-December 2002 the United States had not a single spy inside Iraq. For four years there was no evidence collected, and thus there was “no evidence.”

Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target.
- Senator Pat Roberts 070904 SIC Release of WMD investigation report
Press Conference transcript

The last 1/3 is the most obvious, and the most deliberately ignored for political purposes: every single investigation that looked at the question of direct regime ties to the 911 attacks and/or the Al Queda network of terrorist groups ALWAYS pointed out that because so little evidence had been collected, the issue was to remain open-not closed or concluded.

After the invasion, innumerable direct ties between the Al Queda network of terrorist groups and Saddam’s regime have been uncovered. These ties are shown in captured and authenticated documents, in the interrogation of former regime leaders, and in the capture of Al Queda operatives. In fact, the relationship between the regime and the network was far far more involved than any relationship between Germany and Japan or Mussolini and Tojo.

Yet it remains a political issue more than a historical one today. six years after the second invasion of Iraq, eight years after the 911 attacks, 17 years after Osama and the Al Queda network declared war on the United States, and 18 years after the United States and Saddam’s regime went to war over Kuwait.

Perhaps, now that President Bush is gone, and there is no more need to use the invasion of Iraq as a draw issue for his opposition…perhaps now people can be mentally brave enough to recognize the undeniable blowback/more-indirect relationship between the Ignored War on Saddam’s regime (1991-2001) and the 911 attacks. There certainly is no more reason to deny this fact, and there’s no more reason to avoid a conclusive investigation into the depth of regime ties to the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

Good grief:

“if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”.

So says President Barack Obama. Or I should say: Barack Hussein Obama.

That’s right: Barack Hussein Obama. Say it proud. Say it out loud. The middle moniker that dared not speak its name during the election campaign is now front and centre of the US president’s attempt to woo the Muslim world, the theme of his visits to Riyadh on Wednesday and Cairo on Thursday.

Mike posted yesterday on how it wasn’t ok to point out Senator Obama’s Muslim roots when he was campaigning for president; but now that he is president, and when it suits him politically, it’s now ok to embrace his connection to Muslims?

Melanie Phillips substantiates President Obama’s claim that “if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” :

Indonesia: 207,105,000 (88.2%);

Pakistan: 167,430,801 (95%);

India: 156,254,615 (13.4%);

Turkey: 70,800,000 (99%);

Egypt: 70,530,237 (90%);

Nigeria: 64,385,994 (45%);

Iran: 64,089,571 (98%);

Algeria: 32,999,883 (99%);

Morocco: 32,300,410 (99%);

Afghanistan: 31,571,023 (99%)

Saudi Arabia: 26,417,599 (100%)

USA: 4,558,068 (1.5%)

Just what planet is this US President on? Or is this not a statement but an aspiration?

200+ Years ago, a man was elected our first President after successfully fighting the first democratic revolution against the world’s greatest superpower at the time. President George Washington, the first American soldiers, sailors, Marines, Rangers, and people….
refused to bow down before the one they were told to serve. Once President, Washington never bowed or asked anyone to bow.

What was the point of the revolution if not to say,
‘no man needs to bow before another-especially a King’

UPDATE:
Rather than admit a simple mistake of protocol, or an err in judgement, the White House tells us that we did not see what we saw.

WOW! Great idea: spend your entire life posturing to run for President, then spend your Senate career being a professional Presidential candidate instead of a senator, and when you finally get the job…

THEN READ UP ON IT

Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled that Senator Obama is finally getting national security briefings, reading up on the dangers in the world by reading 4yr old books about 20yr old subjects. I’m really thrilled. I’d of course prefer he read MY BOOKS, but maybe he’ll get around to it. More than anything, I really would have loved-I MEAN LOVED(!!!!) to have been a fly on the wall at the first NatSec briefing of his cabinet appointees. Oh MAN that had to be a conundrum!

“We have to leave Iraq 18 months from now per the campaign pledge, but the DoD says they can’t do it logistically. Hillary Clinton at State says it’d ’cause chaos and force a third invasion of Iraq (OUCH, tough sell to the DNC base!). Intel guys are saying that 1) AQ was in Iraq before the invasion, 2) AQ chose to make Iraq the central front in the gwot (not Bush), 3) AQ is being decimated by Bush’s Surge so leaving now let’s AQ revive in an oil-rich/money rich country. They also tell me that Iran’s gonna be making 40+nukes a month starting in January, India is moving troops to border w Pakistan & both sides are on their bi-annual brink-of-nuclear-war escapade. Oh, and despite the speech in Germany…ain’t nobody in the world gonna stop the anarchy in Africa or SE Asia.”

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!

Suggestion: Appoint Dennis Kucinich to form a Dept of Peace and abolish the DoD. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Poor Obama. He honestly had no clue & actually believed the leftist rhetoric. He followed Kos and Huffpo instead of the Milblogs and Flopping Aces. If he HAD been reading FA, then he wouldn’t need to be such a “voracious” reader of dated books. I’m only shocked he’s not skipping to the Cliff’s Notes.