She claimed she wasn't. But according to the CIA, she was among the first members of Congress to be briefed on the harsh interrogation tactics being used on Al-Qaeda prisoners, way back in September 2002.
Either Pelosi is a liar, or an idiot. Or both. (I vote for "both.") Nancy Pelosi is surely the most corrupt, disingenuous and craven politician in Congress today. Of course with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry and Dick Durban in the Senate and Charles Rangel and Barney Frank in the House its a pretty close contest.
Lets see how much scrutiny Pelosi's lies get in the media in the days ahead. My guess is: not much.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Jewish Delusion (Part I).
I found it curious that after the November election so many liberal Jews rationalized their vote for Barack Obama by touting his selection of the Jewish congressman from Illinois, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff. We were told that Emanuel’s pro-Israel credentials are impeccable. "Rep. Emanuel is…a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening [praying] at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools," said a top Jewish community spokesman, William Daroff, when Emanuel’s appointment was announced. (The Irgun was the right-wing military faction headed by the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin during Israel’s War of Independence). The clear implication was that Rahm Emanuel’s elevation to Obama’s chief aide proved that Jews had no reason to fear the new president’s policies towards Israel.
It seems rather odd to justify a vote for a political candidate based on an action taken by him after the vote is taken. No voter had the slightest idea who Obama would pick as his chief aide before pulling the lever for him, and frankly could care less. But obviously some Jews felt a wee bit defensive about suggestions that Obama would be hard on Israel and soft on its enemies, and thus played the “Rahmbo” card to convince others and perhaps themselves that the chief of staff would stand athwart any attempt by Obama to sell Israel to the Arab wolves. They and we had reason for nervousness well before the election, in light of the surfacing of audio recordings of the all-time greatest hits of Jew-hatred spewed from the pulpit of Obama’s (former) pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as well as revelations of Obama’s associations with radical Arabs like Rashid Khalidi, the anti-Israel professor and acolyte of the late Edward Said, the polemicist/apologist for Palestinian terror against Jews. None of this prevented liberal Jews from voting for Obama, but they must have had some qualms nonetheless. Emanuel’s rise to chief of staff no doubt settled them.
That a well-placed Jew in the White House could or would be able to change the policy of a determined president is laughable. History is replete with examples of well-positioned Jews who succumbed to the blandishments of title, honor and position and willingly did the bidding of their rulers regardless of the consequences to their co-religionists. As a result of this, Jews may be the only people on earth with mixed feelings when one of their own seeks and/or obtains high government position. (During the 2000 presidential contest even Jews who admired Joe Lieberman fretted over whether having him as the first Jewish vice president would be “good for the Jews.”)
On Sunday Mr. Emanuel, the putative guardian of Jewish interests in the Administration, weighed in on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear threat. The occasion is the AIPAC policy conference taking place this week in Washington, where thousands of pro-Israel activists are gathered to hear speeches by U.S. and Israeli leaders, lobby Congress to support efforts to stop Iran from going nuclear, and network with their fellow activists. According to The Jerusalem Post, Emanuel said in a closed-door meeting of 300 top AIPAC donors and board members that “it will be easier” to recruit Arab nations to oppose Iranian nukes if “progress” is made on the Israel-Palestinian track, meaning that Israel ought to first make concessions to the Palestinians before Arab countries will support sanctions against Iran. This echoed Hillary Clinton, who in April “warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”
Mr. Emanuel’s defenders in the press point out that some who attended the meeting with Emanuel said he didn’t actually “link” the two issues—i.e., Israeli concessions to Palestinians and American efforts to stop Iran-- as had been reported on Israeli TV. Perhaps he didn’t, but that’s not the point. Taken together with President Obama’s stated belief that the creation of a Palestinian state is the key to addressing Arab and Muslim grievances in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and south Asia, Emanuel’s remarks and Clinton’s warnings can be seen as a blunt threat to Israel: concede to the Palestinian Arabs’ demands for the West Bank, the Golan and Jerusalem first, then we’ll see if we can cajole the “moderate” Arabs to support sanctions against Iran.
This is obviously a dangerous and dastardly game for several reasons. First, it flies in the face of logic and history to suggest that Israel retreat to borders that are known to be indefensible. The so-called 1967 borders, in place for 19 years following the War of Independence, were unstable and constantly probed and breached by the Arabs. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s Jordanian and Egyptian gangs from the West Bank and Gaza plotted and staged terror attacks inside Israel proper, killing dozens of Jews. Syrian troops regularly rained rockets and artillery down on Israel from their perch on the Golan Heights. Jewish access to the Jewish holy sites like the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem or Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem was denied. And this was before the so-called "occupation;" before Palestinians had been fully radicalized by the likes of Yasser Arafat; and before they had access to sophisticated weapons like Kassam or Katyusha rockets.
Only a fantasist could believe that a retreat by Israel to the old borders would lead to a better result.
Second, the Administration makes no reference to the realities of Palestinian polity. George Bush wanted a Palestinian State, to be sure, but not at the expense of Israeli security needs and certainly not without reform of Palestinian institutions. Bush’s talk of two states “living side by side in peace” always implied the establishment of democratic institutions in Palestine as a prerequisite to peace. Bush may have been naïve in his belief that the Palestinians were capable of accomplishing this, but at least he understood that it was a sine qua non of Palestinian statehood. That’s why once the radical Hamas took over in Gaza Bush more or less turned his back on the whole enterprise.
Not so Obama. There is almost no talk by him or his emissaries of Palestinian institution-building as a predicate for peace. In fact it is quite the opposite. On her first visit to the region as State secretary, Hillary Clinton pledged $900 million dollars for Gaza reconstruction virtually without conditions, assuring that the money will be controlled by the Islamist terror group in charge of Gaza, Hamas. She then travelled to Jerusalem where she took Jerusalem’s mayor to task for demolishing illegal Arab buildings. She “urged” Israel to ease up on border closings and allow humanitarian aid to Gaza, as though Israel and not the Palestinians were responsible for the human crisis inside that fetid strip.
Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell have placed almost unrelenting pressure on Israel to curry favor with the Arabs on the Iran issue by caving in to their demands for an immediate commitment to give the Palestinians a state, no matter its character. Meanwhile the Administration and Europe hints at opening a “dialogue” with the Hamas, which rules Gaza with an iron fist and threatens Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas’ hold on the West Bank.
Third, Obama gives every indication of backing away from the bipartisan “special relationship” with Israel. According to unconfirmed reports, Israeli intelligence has warned Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu that Obama wishes to “incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation” with Israel. Even if this report is unfounded, Obama has given every indication that he favors closer relations with Syria and Iran. He has made no secret of his desire to engage Iran, and he has sent emissaries to Syria to feel them out about improved ties. In fact, Jimmy Carter proudly boasted to the Israeli daily Haaretz that he expects full ties between Syria and Washington to be established this year. Who can doubt that Syria’s price for full diplomatic relations with the U.S. is a total repudiation by Obama of the “special relationship” with Israel?
None of this is a surprise to staunch supporters of Israel who opposed Obama. They understood Obama’s world view because they understood those of the radicals he hung around with. What is surprising (and dismaying) is the continuing refusal of liberal Jews to see the danger posed to the Jewish State and therefore to worldwide Jewry by the reckless and frankly depraved anti-Israel policy being pursued by Obama, Clinton, and Mitchell (with the apparent full support of their guard-dog, Rahm Emanuel). Undoubtedly many well-intentioned Jews believe a “two-state” solution is in Israel’s ultimate best interests. But even they must have gotten the lesson from the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2008-09, to wit: territory surrendered by Israel to its enemies is soon converted into staging areas for rockets and missiles fired against its citizens.
The Jews who offered Rahm Emanuel’s elevation to Chief of Staff as proof that Barack Obama is committed to Israel’s security ought to take a second look at Obama’s Israel policy. In his first media interview after his inauguration (to Arab television), Barack Obama lauded the so-called “Saudi Peace Plan,” the terms of which demand that Israel retreat to borders cynically called the “Auschwitz” borders precisely because they are indefensible. Israel is now being pressured by the U.S. into accepting this “plan,” with some changes from the original, as the basis for negotiations with the Arabs, while the ticking time bomb of Iran’s nuclear program is held over its head like a sword of Damocles. Taking advantage of an ally’s existential fears in order to extract deadly concessions to an unrepentant enemy is not only audacious, it is immoral.
American Jews need to snap out of their Obama-induced delusion and see the world as it really is. Their lives depend on it.
It seems rather odd to justify a vote for a political candidate based on an action taken by him after the vote is taken. No voter had the slightest idea who Obama would pick as his chief aide before pulling the lever for him, and frankly could care less. But obviously some Jews felt a wee bit defensive about suggestions that Obama would be hard on Israel and soft on its enemies, and thus played the “Rahmbo” card to convince others and perhaps themselves that the chief of staff would stand athwart any attempt by Obama to sell Israel to the Arab wolves. They and we had reason for nervousness well before the election, in light of the surfacing of audio recordings of the all-time greatest hits of Jew-hatred spewed from the pulpit of Obama’s (former) pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as well as revelations of Obama’s associations with radical Arabs like Rashid Khalidi, the anti-Israel professor and acolyte of the late Edward Said, the polemicist/apologist for Palestinian terror against Jews. None of this prevented liberal Jews from voting for Obama, but they must have had some qualms nonetheless. Emanuel’s rise to chief of staff no doubt settled them.
That a well-placed Jew in the White House could or would be able to change the policy of a determined president is laughable. History is replete with examples of well-positioned Jews who succumbed to the blandishments of title, honor and position and willingly did the bidding of their rulers regardless of the consequences to their co-religionists. As a result of this, Jews may be the only people on earth with mixed feelings when one of their own seeks and/or obtains high government position. (During the 2000 presidential contest even Jews who admired Joe Lieberman fretted over whether having him as the first Jewish vice president would be “good for the Jews.”)
On Sunday Mr. Emanuel, the putative guardian of Jewish interests in the Administration, weighed in on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear threat. The occasion is the AIPAC policy conference taking place this week in Washington, where thousands of pro-Israel activists are gathered to hear speeches by U.S. and Israeli leaders, lobby Congress to support efforts to stop Iran from going nuclear, and network with their fellow activists. According to The Jerusalem Post, Emanuel said in a closed-door meeting of 300 top AIPAC donors and board members that “it will be easier” to recruit Arab nations to oppose Iranian nukes if “progress” is made on the Israel-Palestinian track, meaning that Israel ought to first make concessions to the Palestinians before Arab countries will support sanctions against Iran. This echoed Hillary Clinton, who in April “warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”
Mr. Emanuel’s defenders in the press point out that some who attended the meeting with Emanuel said he didn’t actually “link” the two issues—i.e., Israeli concessions to Palestinians and American efforts to stop Iran-- as had been reported on Israeli TV. Perhaps he didn’t, but that’s not the point. Taken together with President Obama’s stated belief that the creation of a Palestinian state is the key to addressing Arab and Muslim grievances in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and south Asia, Emanuel’s remarks and Clinton’s warnings can be seen as a blunt threat to Israel: concede to the Palestinian Arabs’ demands for the West Bank, the Golan and Jerusalem first, then we’ll see if we can cajole the “moderate” Arabs to support sanctions against Iran.
This is obviously a dangerous and dastardly game for several reasons. First, it flies in the face of logic and history to suggest that Israel retreat to borders that are known to be indefensible. The so-called 1967 borders, in place for 19 years following the War of Independence, were unstable and constantly probed and breached by the Arabs. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s Jordanian and Egyptian gangs from the West Bank and Gaza plotted and staged terror attacks inside Israel proper, killing dozens of Jews. Syrian troops regularly rained rockets and artillery down on Israel from their perch on the Golan Heights. Jewish access to the Jewish holy sites like the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem or Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem was denied. And this was before the so-called "occupation;" before Palestinians had been fully radicalized by the likes of Yasser Arafat; and before they had access to sophisticated weapons like Kassam or Katyusha rockets.
Only a fantasist could believe that a retreat by Israel to the old borders would lead to a better result.
Second, the Administration makes no reference to the realities of Palestinian polity. George Bush wanted a Palestinian State, to be sure, but not at the expense of Israeli security needs and certainly not without reform of Palestinian institutions. Bush’s talk of two states “living side by side in peace” always implied the establishment of democratic institutions in Palestine as a prerequisite to peace. Bush may have been naïve in his belief that the Palestinians were capable of accomplishing this, but at least he understood that it was a sine qua non of Palestinian statehood. That’s why once the radical Hamas took over in Gaza Bush more or less turned his back on the whole enterprise.
Not so Obama. There is almost no talk by him or his emissaries of Palestinian institution-building as a predicate for peace. In fact it is quite the opposite. On her first visit to the region as State secretary, Hillary Clinton pledged $900 million dollars for Gaza reconstruction virtually without conditions, assuring that the money will be controlled by the Islamist terror group in charge of Gaza, Hamas. She then travelled to Jerusalem where she took Jerusalem’s mayor to task for demolishing illegal Arab buildings. She “urged” Israel to ease up on border closings and allow humanitarian aid to Gaza, as though Israel and not the Palestinians were responsible for the human crisis inside that fetid strip.
Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell have placed almost unrelenting pressure on Israel to curry favor with the Arabs on the Iran issue by caving in to their demands for an immediate commitment to give the Palestinians a state, no matter its character. Meanwhile the Administration and Europe hints at opening a “dialogue” with the Hamas, which rules Gaza with an iron fist and threatens Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas’ hold on the West Bank.
Third, Obama gives every indication of backing away from the bipartisan “special relationship” with Israel. According to unconfirmed reports, Israeli intelligence has warned Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu that Obama wishes to “incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation” with Israel. Even if this report is unfounded, Obama has given every indication that he favors closer relations with Syria and Iran. He has made no secret of his desire to engage Iran, and he has sent emissaries to Syria to feel them out about improved ties. In fact, Jimmy Carter proudly boasted to the Israeli daily Haaretz that he expects full ties between Syria and Washington to be established this year. Who can doubt that Syria’s price for full diplomatic relations with the U.S. is a total repudiation by Obama of the “special relationship” with Israel?
None of this is a surprise to staunch supporters of Israel who opposed Obama. They understood Obama’s world view because they understood those of the radicals he hung around with. What is surprising (and dismaying) is the continuing refusal of liberal Jews to see the danger posed to the Jewish State and therefore to worldwide Jewry by the reckless and frankly depraved anti-Israel policy being pursued by Obama, Clinton, and Mitchell (with the apparent full support of their guard-dog, Rahm Emanuel). Undoubtedly many well-intentioned Jews believe a “two-state” solution is in Israel’s ultimate best interests. But even they must have gotten the lesson from the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2008-09, to wit: territory surrendered by Israel to its enemies is soon converted into staging areas for rockets and missiles fired against its citizens.
The Jews who offered Rahm Emanuel’s elevation to Chief of Staff as proof that Barack Obama is committed to Israel’s security ought to take a second look at Obama’s Israel policy. In his first media interview after his inauguration (to Arab television), Barack Obama lauded the so-called “Saudi Peace Plan,” the terms of which demand that Israel retreat to borders cynically called the “Auschwitz” borders precisely because they are indefensible. Israel is now being pressured by the U.S. into accepting this “plan,” with some changes from the original, as the basis for negotiations with the Arabs, while the ticking time bomb of Iran’s nuclear program is held over its head like a sword of Damocles. Taking advantage of an ally’s existential fears in order to extract deadly concessions to an unrepentant enemy is not only audacious, it is immoral.
American Jews need to snap out of their Obama-induced delusion and see the world as it really is. Their lives depend on it.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Mob Rule Coming to a Continent Near You?
“The time has come to address the entire robber banker culture. Investment banks have been run not for the benefit of society, customers, or even shareholders, but exclusively for the advantage of the bankers themselves…This is why we must stand outside their homes throwing rocks through the windows until they do.”
So says newspaper editorial Max Hastings in the U.K.'s Daily Mail. And he is not alone. College professors, union bosses and politicans in the U.K are stoking the fires of anarchy and mob rule, just in time for the G-20 summit in London next week. Some 2,000 protestors are set to descend on the meeting, causing trouble and hanging capitalist bankers in effigy.
Could it happen here? Consider: when AIG acting chairman Ed Liddy appeared before Congress last week he testified that many of his employees have received death threats in the wake of the AIG bonus "scandal" ginned up by our politicans. Barney Frank shrugged off his testimony, New York's attorney general Andrew Cuomo is suing to have the names of the bonus-receiving executives outed and a Republican U.S. Senator gently suggested that the executives might consider suicide. And then the U.S House of Representatives, including 85 shameless Republicans, voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses retroactively.
Never mind that the bonuses were specifically accounted for in the "stimulus" bill insisted upon by the President and passed by our dear members of Congress, none of whom read the final bill. Never mind that Connecticut Democrat Senator Dodd lied about his role in inserting the bonus waivers in the legislation (I am sure even liberal Connecticut voters would agree that Dodd is a walking advertisement for term limits, not that he is the only one). The politicians needed to divert attention away from their own reckless incompetence and who better to vilify than the very capitalists who they have showered with a gazillion dollars of bailouts, guarantees and the like.
When the New York Times published the resignation letter of AIG VP Jake deSantis, I thought for sure that average, hardworking Americans would applaud his ethic of hard work and duty to the company he served for many years. I felt that surely no one would begrudge him the right to the bonus that he was promised and deserved (especially since he took only a $1.00 salary).
Yet I saw nothing but scorn for Mr. deSantis in the press, including a column by Margaret Carlson pooh-pooing his plight. Is this what America has come to? Heaping scorn on a private citizen who was just doing his job, and then got stiffed on his way out the door?
So again, I ask: could the rule of the mob that threatens to storm the G20 summit happen here? I don't know. But Michelle Malkin thinks it can. It already has.
So says newspaper editorial Max Hastings in the U.K.'s Daily Mail. And he is not alone. College professors, union bosses and politicans in the U.K are stoking the fires of anarchy and mob rule, just in time for the G-20 summit in London next week. Some 2,000 protestors are set to descend on the meeting, causing trouble and hanging capitalist bankers in effigy.
Could it happen here? Consider: when AIG acting chairman Ed Liddy appeared before Congress last week he testified that many of his employees have received death threats in the wake of the AIG bonus "scandal" ginned up by our politicans. Barney Frank shrugged off his testimony, New York's attorney general Andrew Cuomo is suing to have the names of the bonus-receiving executives outed and a Republican U.S. Senator gently suggested that the executives might consider suicide. And then the U.S House of Representatives, including 85 shameless Republicans, voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses retroactively.
Never mind that the bonuses were specifically accounted for in the "stimulus" bill insisted upon by the President and passed by our dear members of Congress, none of whom read the final bill. Never mind that Connecticut Democrat Senator Dodd lied about his role in inserting the bonus waivers in the legislation (I am sure even liberal Connecticut voters would agree that Dodd is a walking advertisement for term limits, not that he is the only one). The politicians needed to divert attention away from their own reckless incompetence and who better to vilify than the very capitalists who they have showered with a gazillion dollars of bailouts, guarantees and the like.
When the New York Times published the resignation letter of AIG VP Jake deSantis, I thought for sure that average, hardworking Americans would applaud his ethic of hard work and duty to the company he served for many years. I felt that surely no one would begrudge him the right to the bonus that he was promised and deserved (especially since he took only a $1.00 salary).
Yet I saw nothing but scorn for Mr. deSantis in the press, including a column by Margaret Carlson pooh-pooing his plight. Is this what America has come to? Heaping scorn on a private citizen who was just doing his job, and then got stiffed on his way out the door?
So again, I ask: could the rule of the mob that threatens to storm the G20 summit happen here? I don't know. But Michelle Malkin thinks it can. It already has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)