Archive for the ‘Radical Islam’ Category
Rick Santorum’s op-ed totally demolishes Rand Paul’s credibility on national security:
In a radio interview in 2007, while helping his father, isolationist Rep. Ron Paul, run for president, Rand actually denied that Iran is a threat to the United States or Israel. He did so despite the fact that the U.S. government designated Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism” as far back as 1984. “Even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they [Iran] are not a threat,” Rand said. “Like my dad says, [the Iranians] don’t have an Air Force, they don’t have a Navy. You know, it’s ridiculous to think they’re a threat to our national security…. It’s not even that viable to say they’re a national threat to Israel.”
Simply put, Rand Paul, like his nutty father, couldn’t identify a state sponsor or terrorism if they launched a ship with a flag saying “State sponsor of terrorism.” People who can’t identify terrorists aren’t qualified to be commander-in-chief. It’s that simple.
It hasn’t dawned on either Paul that Iran’s funding of terrorists pose a mortal threat to western Europe and the United States. Neither has figured out that the nuclear bombs they’re working on creating will be used to destabilize Arab nations to the point that oil prices will spike and throw the world economy into a turmoil that will make the Great Recession look relatively mild in comparison.
This paragraph is mind-boggling:
In January 2014, Senator Paul sided with President Obama in opposing the passage of new economic sanctions on Iran, further evidence he would rather appease the mullahs in Tehran than ratchet up pressure on them to give up their illegal and dangerous nuclear program. “I think while they [the Iranians] are negotiating, and if we can see they’re negotiating in good faith, I don’t think it’s a good idea to pass sanctions,” Paul told CNN.
What idiot thinks that the Iranians will negotiate in good faith? It’s exceptionally and frighteningly naive to think that that’s a possibility.
As frightening as Paul’s beliefs are about Iran, they’re worse about ISIL. Here’s what he said in an interview:
When asked by CongressWatch if he views ISIL and the deteriorating situation in Iraq as a direct threat to the United States, Paul was characteristically candid in sticking to his worldview.
“The vast amount of Americans disagree with that assessment,” Paul said when asked if ISIL poses a direct threat to the US.
“I think that would be conjecture,” Paul said when asked about the view of ISIL put forth by Obama and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. “We know that there’s a civil war going on there. And we know that they want to claim a big chunk of Iraq — as much as they can get. But, I mean, anything else is complete conjecture.
“Are they a potential threat to the US? Sometime,” Paul said. “Maybe even at the present. But…is there a US interest in sending US troops into Iraq? Absolutely no.”
There most certainly is a US interest in obliterating ISIL. While they don’t pose a threat to the US homeland in the next couple of weeks, they’re consolidating the things they’ll need to conduct terrorist operations throughout the world. We can’t afford a commander-in-chief that reacts after a terrorist attack. We need a commander-in-chief who obliterates them before they can attack.
Paul’s dovishness is wrong for America because we need a commander-in-chief who will work with allies like the Kurdish Peshmerga to decimate threats like ISIL before they can kill Americans.
Now that ISIL has beheaded journalists and taken over a huge chunk of Iraq, Sen. Paul is suddenly hawkish:
Yet now, with American journalists being beheaded and even President Obama taking reluctant half-measures to slow ISIL through air strikes, Senator Paul is suddenly changing his tune. “If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress,” he now says. “I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek Congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.” (ISIS is another acronym used to refer to the Islamic State.)
It’s here that Sen. Santorum thrusts in the proverbial knife and gives it a sharp twist:
Did Senator Paul just hire John Kerry’s speechwriter?
At one point, I thought Rand Paul wouldn’t be the nujob that his father is. I still think he isn’t as nutty as his father. I just don’t think that there’s a big difference between him and his father as I first thought.
It’s obvious that Rick Santorum is gearing up for another presidential run. While I think he’s more qualified than Rand Paul, that doesn’t mean I think he’s a top tier candidate. Quite the contrary. I think he’s a niche candidate who appeals to a tiny slice of the GOP, nothing more.
Bill Burton’s op-ed about President Obama’s frequent golf outings is a nice attempt to distract from Americans’ chief complaint:
I thought that going on vacation with the president would be a real perk of serving as deputy press secretary in the Obama White House.
Don’t get me wrong: Some elements of it are amazing. When you do find some down time, you can find yourself in one of the most beautiful places on Earth enjoying its splendor with the leader of the free world and your buddies.
That is—when you can find some down time.
As Washington chews over yet another presidential “vacation,” and that most Washington of words—“optics”—let me take you behind the scenes of the last time President Obama took flack for supposedly being “disengaged” while world events marched on around him.
First, let’s dispatch with the word optics. It’s mostly used by liberal journalists who then ignore the problem. Yes, the optics are terrible when the supposed leader of the free world talks somberly about the beheading of an American journalist, then is seen joking and fist-pumping an hour later.
When those things happen, it’s natural for people to question President Obama’s sincerity and his commitment to ridding the Middle East of terrorists.
What actions did President Obama put into action from the sand trap on the 9th hole? Did he finally figure it out that ISIL is a real threat to the American homeland while putting on the 15th hole? If he didn’t figure that out on the 15th, did he get word of Gen. Dempsey’s statement that we’d need to take out ISIL’s command-and-control while driving up to the 18th green? By the time he got back to his compound, had he called Gen. Dempsey and told him to stop talking about ISIL as a threat more dangerous than al-Qa’ida?
It was Christmas Day 2009. Osama bin Laden was still at large. A 23-year-old Nigerian man was caught trying to bring down a passenger airliner headed for Detroit—which would have been the most devastating terrorist attack since 9/11. The day of, and the days that followed, the botched bombing saw the president and his staff, in Hawaii, at the White House and scattered across the country on their own family vacations – snap to attention and drop everything else to make sure we were doing all we could to keep Americans safe.
The president was not a passive bystander. He led America’s response to the apparent terrorist attack, soaking up new information as it came in, running meetings and issuing orders. As a regular matter of course, vacation or not, the president is briefed on intelligence every day. In this instance, he was receiving twice-daily updates on the situation in Detroit as well as three-times-daily updates on matters around the world from the Situation Room. As events developed, the president was directing his national security team—cabinet secretaries, intelligence officials and the military. He was awash in reports from the government and from the media.
Thank God for the Obama administration snapping to immediate attention. If only they hadn’t told law enforcement to read the failed bomber his Miranda rights.
While it’s true the optics have stunk all summer, the truth is that President Obama’s policies have been disastrous. That, Mr. Burton, is what Americans are most worried about. Russia annexes Crimea. President Obama proposes limited sanctions on a handful of Russian billionaires. When ISIL captured Fallujah, President Obama called ISIL a jayvee team. When ISIL threatened to capture Baghdad, President Obama talked about the need for Iraq to sing kumbayah.
When Hamas killed Israelis, President Obama criticized Israel for not being gentle enough on terrorists who then hid behind 5-year-old human shields otherwise known as children. When missiles were found in a UN-run school, he dispatched John Kerry to the region, where Kerry’s plan was immediately rejected by the responsible nations of the region.
Just once, it’d be nice if the administration would get a policy decision right.
Unfortunately for America, it’s more likely that President Obama will hit a hole-in-one on his next vacation than he’s likely to make a solid policy decision.
Minutes after President Obama said that it’s too early to tell who detonated the Boston Marathon bombs, David Axelrod suggested that the White House thought it was a white guy because of Tax Day. Barney Frank then used the terrorist attack as an opportunity to say that the terrorist attack was proof we needed to raise taxes. This morning, Salon’s David Sirota wrote this column to say that he hopes the terrorist is a white guy:
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing, the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity, the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are, and are not, collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings, even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats, the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
Let’s be clear about something important from the outset. The FBI’s investigation should go only where the forensic evidence takes them. If forensic scientists determine that the bombs’ markers suggest that the bombs were patterned after the Iranian-manufactured IEDs that were detonated against US troops in Iraq, then that’s where their investigation should take them.
If the bombs’ components suggest they were the work of a lone wolf domestic terrorist, that’s the direction the investigation should head in.
Next, in the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush made clear that his national security team would welcome US mosques’ help in tracking down terrorists. As the investigation into terrorist networks gathered information, he talked about specific Saudi, Pakistani and Egyptian madrassas as producing terrorists.
In other words, the accusations were based on the information that was gathered during their investigation, not because the Bush administration had it in for Muslims.
By contrast, the FBI hasn’t uncovered a system of white guy training grounds to kill abortionists and others they don’t agree with. For instance, the FBI didn’t find a string of militias started in Tim McVeigh’s honor. That means white guys who’ve committed acts of terror have acted without a network of support, thus fitting the description of acting as lone wolf terrorists.
Sirota then made this reference:
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite, according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating, the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)
The Crooks and Liars post refers to Jared Loughner, the man who attacked Gabby Giffords in Tuscon. The Loughner attack on Giffords was tragic but it wasn’t the act of a terrorist. It was an attack by a crazed madman who didn’t have control of his faculties. Comparing Loughner’s attack with the Boston Marathon terrorist attack is foolish.
First, there’s no proof that Laughner pre-planned his attack. There’s tons of proof that the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was pre-planned. Loughner bought ammunition for his gun, then went out and shot a bunch of innocent people. The Boston Marathon terrorist or terrorists bought the bombs’ components, put them together, deployed them to specific locations designed to create the most bloodshed and fear possible.
It’s right to say that the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was pre-planned while the Loughner attack, though tragic, didn’t require any planning.
Second, as to the point about then-Candidate Kerry being right, that’s laughable. Reading terrorists their rights isn’t being right. Passing a global test isn’t being right. Pretending that killing the Taliban in Afghanistan was all that was needed to end the war isn’t being right.
When a domestic terrorist is captured, like the Lackawanna Six, the Bush administration used law enforcement. They applied for and got search warrants through the FISA Courts. When the NSA picked up chatter about a terrorist network while they surveiled terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan, the Bush administration used the CIA or other special forces to roll up entire networks of terrorists.
In other words, the Bush administration policy towards terrorists was complex and multi-faceted whereas the Kerry plan wasn’t multi-faceted. It relied on reading all terrorists their Miranda rights, then hoping they could find out about the terrorists’ networks by having a conversation with the terrorists.
Treating Jared Loughner and Tim McVeigh differently than foreign terrorists makes sense because the specifics are dramatically different. Loughner didn’t pre-plan his attack. McVeigh pre-planned his attack but he wasn’t assisted by a vast network of like-minded terrorists. Only time will tell whether the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was supported by a network of like-minded terrorists.
Simply put, let’s hope the FBI captures the terrorist or terrorists before they can strike again.
Each Monday on America Live with Megyn Kelly, Brad Blakeman, an assistant to GWB, debates Dick Harpootlian, the chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party. For the most part, Harpootlian is an inoffensive buffoon. This afternoon, that changed during a debate about why the terrorist attack on the Benghazi Consulate succeeded. First, here’s a little background into what’s caused the latest stir:
Lt. Col. Andy Wood participated in this interview with CBS national security correspondent Cheryl Attkinson:
It’s stunning and disheartening to hear Lt. Col. Wood say that he felt like they were asking them “to play the piano with 2 fingers.”
That clip was the introduction to an explosive debate, including this exchange between Mr. Harpootlian and Mr. Blakeman:
BLAKEMAN: You guys don’t want the American people to know the truth. You just want to ride this out and hope that the American people will pay attention to something else when this administration was either grossly incompetent or willfully lying to the American people. And now it’s substantiated by an American military person…
HARPOOTLIAN: We don’t know what his (LT. Col. Wood) axe is to grind, Brad. All I’m saying is why scour this days before an election…
BLAKEMAN: Because the American people deserve answers…
HARPOOTLIAN: Oh, the American people. The American people don’t want an answer.
Remember that Harpootlian is the dirtbag that compared Gov. Nikki Haley to Hitler’s mistress.
It’s disgusting that Mr. Harpootlian would argue that “the American people don’t want” an explanation for why President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ repeated requests to beef up security before the anniversary of 9/11.
Arguing that the American people aren’t interested in this administration’s weakening the Benghazi Consulate’s security isn’t stupid. It’s their attempt to hide the fact that this administration’s decisions led directly to the deaths of 4 Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.
As the campaign heads into the home stretch, President Obama’s questionable decisions are coming home to roost. His decisions have needlessly gotten high-ranking officials killed, including the first American ambassador killed since 1979.
Tags: Investigation, Benghazi, Terrorist Attacks, Lt. Col. Andy Wood, Whistleblower, 60 Minutes, Media, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, National Security, Dick Harpootlian, Eva Braun, Democrats, Election 2012
It isn’t surprising that DFL political pundits like Buck Humphrey and Mike Hatch played into the ‘Mitt Romney’s out of touch’ meme started by Mary Lahammer. They don’t want to talk about President Obama’s disastrous economic policies. They definitely don’t want to talk about President Obama’s decision to leave U.S. embassies vulnerable on 9/11.
Mitt Romney made a foolish statement at that fundraiser. If the media wants to focus on Mitt’s statement, then it’s only fair that they admit, in writing, that they aren’t interested in President Obama’s decisions that got people killed or President Obama’s policies that have an unstable region of the world on the edge of regionwide conflict.
The media have allowed the Democrats to not say a thing about their performance in office, which should be the determining factor in this election.
This is proof that the broadcast and fossilized media don’t care about informing the people about important things that are happening. This part of the media is focused on getting President Obama re-elected and nothing else.
If they have to ignore this administration’s reckless decisions, that’s what they’ll do without hesitation. If it’s required to hide the truth about economic conditions, they’ll willingly sweep that information under the proverbial rug.
Still, despite the Democrats’ best efforts to hide this administration’s policies and decisions, this race is tight. Despite President Obama’s carpetbombing advertising campaign that attempted to paint Mitt Romney as the Devil’s right hand man, this race is still even.
The first thing from Humphrey’s mouth was a comment about Mitt Romney’s tax return. Specifically, he talked about Mitt’s tax returns being proof that Mitt’s out of touch with average people.
It’s incredible that a person can say that about a man who contributed 30% of his income to various charities. Those aren’t the actions of a man who doesn’t care about people. Those are the actions of a person who cares deeply about people going through difficult times.
If anything it’s proof that Mitt’s an exceptionally compassionate man, someone who doesn’t hesitate in putting his money where other people’s needs are. If that’s proof of anything, it’s proof that he does with his money what the Democrats do with everyone else’s money but their own.
The only thing more disgusting than having Humphrey make that statement is the fact that Craig Westover didn’t call him on it. Instead, he focused his statement on the fact that Mitt isn’t a movement conservative.
There’s no question that Mitt isn’t a movement conservative. Big deal.
If Mr. Westover thinks it isn’t important to highlight the media’s malpractice, then it’s time for him to not be a media personality for the GOP anymore.
But I digress.
Almanac’s roundtable didn’t discuss the fact that President Obama’s policies shoved people out of the middle class into the classification of the working poor.
Apparently, that wasn’t important.
They didn’t discuss President Obama’s reckless decision to leave an embassy without the security they needed on the anniversary of 9/11.
Apparently, they didn’t think that that was important either.
Intellectually honest people will quickly agree that it’s far more important to make smart national security decisions than making articulate statements about 47%. It’s time for a new project. It’s time to jettison ill-intentioned DFL pundits like Mike Hatch and Buck Humphrey. It’s time to jettison fossilized media personalities like Mary Lahammer, too.
If they won’t look at issues from both political persuasions’ perspective, they’re useless. At this point, it’s clear they don’t care about informing the people about the important things happening in our neighborhoods or half the way around the world.
It’s time conservatives and independents created an antidote for the irresponsible fossilized media. Blogs and talk radio are great but they don’t have the reach that the fossilized media has.
Tags: Media Bias, Buck Humphrey, Mike Hatch, Mary Lahammer, Political Hacks, President Obama, Benghazi, al-Qa’ida, Terrorist Attacks, Recession, Unemployment, National Security, Democrats, Mitt Romney, Tax Returns, Charity, 47 Percent, GOP, Election 2012
Liberals were outraged when Mitt Romney said that the Palestinians aren’t interested in peace. Thanks to this article, we now know that Mitt had it right:
Palestinian Authority head, Mahmoud Abbas, proposed cancelling the Oslo Accords with Israel at a weekend meeting of the PA leadership, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) told AFP on Tuesday.
PLO Executive Committee member Wassel Abu Yusef said Abbas raised the idea of “cancelling the Oslo agreement as well as the associated economic and security arrangements,” at the meeting on Saturday and Sunday.
Abu Yusef said that “members of the Palestinian leadership had mixed opinions on the issue, and it was decided to postpone any decision until their next meeting,” due to be held after Abbas’s return from the UN General Assembly later this month. “It was the first time the Palestinian leadership put the issue of the Oslo agreement on the table since it was signed in 1993,” Abu Yusef added.
Cancelling the Oslo Accords means Hamas/Fatah/the PA is free to resume their terrorist attacks. The Accords were political cover for their terrorist attacks. Nobody really thought that they’d lost their love of pushing the Jewish state into the Mediterranean.
Liberals touted the agreements as proof of the PLO’s seriousness about peace. We have an agreement, they said at the time.
Conservatives laughed at the notion that that leopard had changed its spots.
The most telling thing about the media’s going ballistic over Mitt Romney’s statement is that they think it’s wrong to state what’s painfully obvious. If the media thinks it’s wrong to state what’s painfully obvious, what other principles do they are important?
I know this administration won’t agree with this but it’s time to call terrorists terrorists. Mahmoud Abbas is the leader of a government of terrorists.
Rather than sticking the nation’s head in the sand and pretending like the Middle East isn’t one lit match away from erupting in violence, perhaps it’s time for the US to push aside this administration’s fantasies that Iran can be held in check by sanctions.
Perhaps, it’s time that the US government took a harder line stance with the Muslim Brotherhood.
President Obama’s belief that we should coddle state sponsors of terrorism while turning our backs on our greatest allies is repulsive.
Tags: Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority, PLO, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Correctness, Terrorism, Benghazi, Iran, President Obama, Democrats, Mitt Romney, Israel, National Security, GOP, Election 2012
Jimmy Carter would be pleased with President Obama’s foreign policy/national security record, mostly because it’s helping his foreign policy/national security record look almost respectable.
The reality is that both men ignored reality. President Carter’s policies are best described as appeasement. This letter to the Ayatollah Khomeini is proof of President Carter’s appeasement strategy:
Dear Ayatollah Khomeini:
Based on the willingness of the Revolutionary Council to receive them, I am asking two distinguished Americans, Mr. Ramsey Clark and Mr. William G. Miller, to carry this letter to you and to discuss with you and your designees the situation in Tehran and the full range of current issues between the U.S. and Iran.
In the name of the American people, I ask that you release unharmed all Americans presently detained in Iran and those held with them and allow them to leave your country safely and without delay. I ask you to recognize the compelling humanitarian reasons, firmly based in international law, for doing so.
I have asked both men to meet with you and to hear from you your perspective on events in Iran and the problems which have arisen between our two countries. The people of the United States desire to have relations with Iran based upon equality, mutual respect, and friendship.
They will report to me immediately upon their return.
(signed) Jimmy Carter
It isn’t difficult picturing President Obama writing that letter, especially considering his willingness to look the other way during the civilian riots after Iran’s rigged elections and treating Russia like a trusted ally. This administration’s apologies to a terrorist organization for the actions of a third party half a world away is what appeasement looks like.
This map of the Middle East shows 9 nations where violence has either broken out this week or where tensions are rising by the hour.
In 2008, Sen. McCain’s campaign sunk when he badly mishandled the credit crisis. This year, President Obama is badly mishandling the Middle East in a time of extreme panic.
If this administration made a mistake on an isolated incident, it’s possible the American people could overlook the mistake. It isn’t likely that they’ll ignore a president’s misstatements at a time when an entire region of the world simultaneously erupts in violence.
What’s happening now isn’t a misstep. It’s a crisis brought on by wrongheaded thinking over an entire presidential term. Any administration that thinks terrorist attacks are “man-caused disasters” and wars are “overseas contingency operations” is living in fantasyland.
An administration that reads terrorists their rights is woefully weak. An administration that refuses to call Maj. Nidal Hassan’s shooting spree at Ft. Hood a terrorist attack is woefully weak.
Presidential administrations can get through international situations. It’s difficult getting through international crises of their own making.
Tags: President Obama, Man-Caused Disasters, Overseas Contingency Operations, Ft. Hood Shooting, Major Nidal Hassan, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Libya, National Security, Foreign Policy, Muslim Spring, Democrats, Election 2012
This morning, President Obama made the type of mistake his campaign accused Mitt Romney of making when he said that Egypt wasn’t an ally or an enemy. Now they’re walking President Obama’s statement back:
In an interview with Telemundo Wednesday night, Obama said that the U.S. relationship with the new Egyptian government was a “work in progress,” and emphasized that the United States is counting on the government of Egypt to better protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which was attacked by protesters on Sept. 11.
“I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” Obama said. “They’re a new government that is trying to find its way. They were democratically elected. I think that we are going to have to see how they respond to this incident.”
It didn’t take long before the administration ‘clarified’ President Obama’s statement:
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Cable Thursday that the administration is not signaling a change in that status.
“I think folks are reading way too much into this,” Vietor said. “‘Ally’ is a legal term of art. We don’t have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt like we do with our NATO allies. But as the president has said, Egypt is longstanding and close partner of the United States, and we have built on that foundation by supporting Egypt’s transition to democracy and working with the new government.”
During a crisis, communications must be clear. There’s no room for creativity. What’s needed is surefootedness based on a strong grasp of the situation.
Clearly, President Obama isn’t surefooted. Clearly, he didn’t grasp the gravity of the situation. Clearly, his reckless statements happened because he didn’t discipline himself to be in crisis mode.
Four years into his administration, President Obama hasn’t proven that he’ll respond properly to crises. When riots broke out after the rigged elections in Iran, President Obama sided with Ahmedinejad, not the protesters.
This time, when violence erupted in Cairo, President Obama couldn’t figure out what the official position of his administration was towards a major nation in the Middle East. That’s proof that he didn’t think things through on Middle East policy. That’s inexcusable.
President Obama’s crisis management has been woefully inadequate. That’s what the media should be focused on, not on the things Mitt Romney said. If the media wants to critique Mitt Romney’s statements, that’s appropriate after the crisis is over.
First, I’ve met Jim Graves. He’s friendly enough but he isn’t the substantive candidate that’s needed to defeat Michele Bachmann. His latest statement on Michele’s Muslim Brotherhood flap isn’t substantive or accurate. Here’s the text of his statement:
Michele Bachmann just won’t stop.
Even after fellow Republicans have condemned her ruthless attacks, accurately comparing her to Sen. Joe McCarthy, she’s taking her dangerous witch-hunt to a new level.
She outrageously insists that people like Huma Abedin and Rep. Keith Ellison are part of a scheme to overthrow the government and institute Sharia law.
The evidence? Sixteen pages of Rep. Bachmann’s conjectures and wild conspiracy theories.
This isn’t the first time Rep. Bachmann has used these vicious and intolerant tactics to build her celebrity by appealing to the radical fringe. But let’s make it the last.
Sign up here to demand that Michele Bachmann end her McCarthy-style attacks and wild conspiracies.
First, Graves crossed the line when he said that Michele thinks “Huma Abedin and Rep. Keith Ellison are part of a scheme to overthrow the government and institute Sharia law.” That’s an outright lie. She’s never made that type of statement.
What Michele did, along with Reps. Tom Rooney, Lynn Westmoreland, Trent Franks and Louie Gohmert, was send “letters to the Inspectors General of the State Department, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence asking for investigations into the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in these agencies.”
Since sending out those letters, Michele’s said on radio that she’s worried about the influence the Muslim Brotherhood might have on US foreign policy. In this Examiner article, I quoted Andrew McCarthy’s article to show how substantive and accurate Michele’s information is. Here’s one of the things Mr. McCarthy said:
Ms. Abedin’s father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 “with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.” It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood.
That’s significant because of MWL’s connections with terrorist families:
MWL promotes Wahhabism, the extremist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, the League’s Pakistan office was run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden.
Is Mr. Graves suggesting that we shouldn’t investigate a person whose father had ties to bin Laden’s family? I wouldn’t presume that this automatically proves that Ms. Abedin is a Muslim Brotherhood plant but I’d expect the government to investigate Ms. Abedin thoroughly. In fact, according to Mr. McCarthy, that connection alone might disqualify Ms. Abedin from getting a security clearance:
No criminal behavior need be shown to deny a security clearance; access to classified information is not a right, and reasonable fear of “divided loyalties” is more than sufficient for a clearance to be denied.
That’s been the policy for security clearances for at least 25 years.
Mr. Graves titled this statement “Witch Hunt”, supposedly to add dramatic effect where it doesn’t exist. Mr. Graves, if Michele is on a witch hunt, how is it that there’s this much substance to her claims? It isn’t just Ms. Abedin’s late father who had ties to radical Islam:
Dr. Abedin has led the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), an Islamist organization that hews to the positions of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s leading sharia jurist. Like Brotherhood entities, the IICWC defends such practices as female genital mutilation and child marriage, which find support in Islamic law and scripture.
Huma Abedin’s father had connections with the bin Laden family. Her mother is a important part of an organization whose ideology would fit right in with the pre-9/11 Taliban in Afghanistan. Why would anyone think that she’d be worth investigating before giving a security clearance?
Seriously, if this is the witch hunt that Mr. Graves argues it is, why is Michele finding so many disturbing facts about a woman with a high level security clearance?
If this is the best attack Mr. Graves can muster against Michele, he’d best start writing his concession speech because that statement is crap that a lowly blogger like myself will blast to smithereens.
One last thing that’s worth noting. Andrew McCarthy isn’t some wet-behind-the-ears apprentice when it comes to terrorism. Mr. McCarthy was the lead prosecutor who convicted the Blind Sheikh of masterminding the first attack on the World Trade Center.
If Mr. Graves wants to attack Michele, he’ll have to prove Mr. McCarthy wrong. Frankly, I don’t see that happening.
The Sixth District needs a representative who isn’t an apprentice, someone who won’t need on-the-job-training in national security matters. That disqualifies Mr. Graves.
As usually happens when Michele Bachmann speaks uncomfortable truths, the DC pantywaits can’t wait to criticize her. That was certainly the case when Michele joined with other conservatives in calling for an investigation into Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization.
Thankfully, Andrew McCarthy, the man who led the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, has written this brilliant article highlighting the connections between Huma Abedin’s family and the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood:
Ms. Abedin’s father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 “with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.”
It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood. That ideology fuels the “Islamic extremism” that, only a year ago, had McCain so worried that he thought allowing the Brotherhood into the Egyptian-government mix “would be a mistake of historic proportions.”
Considering this administration’s drift from ally to Israel to meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood, it’s perfectly justified to ask what, if any, influence Ms. Abedin has had. It’s certainly worth noting this information:
MWL promotes Wahhabism, the extremist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, the League’s Pakistan office was run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden. Khalifa was the co-founder of the Benevolence International Foundation and he helped to finance Operation Bojinka, a foiled 1995 plot that would have simultaneously detonated bombs aboard eleven U.S.-bound airliners, blowing them up in mid-flight over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea.
It’s impossible to think that the Muslim World League, which promotes Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and helped finance Operation Bojinka, is anything but a terrorist organization.
At minimum, there’s justification to look into Ms. Abedin’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is what Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks and Tom Rooney asked the IG to do:
McCain blasted Representative Bachmann and the others, falsely accusing them of doing to his friend Huma what he had actually done to ElBaradei, namely, implicating her as “part of a nefarious conspiracy.”
To the contrary, the House members have drawn no such conclusions. Instead, they have pointed out the State Department’s dramatic, Brotherhood-friendly policy shifts during Ms. Abedin’s tenure as a top adviser to the State Department’s boss.
Sen. McCain’s temper might’ve clouded his judgment. That wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened. There’s much more to Ms. Abedin’s family:
And it is here that we get to Huma Abedin’s mother, the Pakistani-born academic Dr. Saleha Abedin.
Dr. Abedin, too, has been a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, “which is essentially nothing more than the female version of the Brotherhood,” according to Walid Shoebat, a former Brotherhood member who has renounced the organization.
One thing is inescapable: Michele Bachmann had more than ample justification for calling on the IGs to study these connections. While it’s true that she ruffled some feathers in saying what she said, it’s equally true that she said what the PC Establishment didn’t have the cajones to say.
Here’s a glimpse into what Dr. Abedin’s organization believes:
D / Sheikh Abdul Fattah
Confirmed that he personally rejected these amendments fully, especially the item on the rhythm of punishment including his daughter circumcised, either the father or the mother or the doctor; may not be criminalized or prohibition of origin is permissible in Islam.
International Islamic Committee for Women and Children
The criminalization of female genital mutilation (FGM), clashed and completely incompatible with Islamic law, which did not provide for the prohibition, as Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the drafters of the Charter, where he says:
“Juristic evidence and consensus on the inevitability of medical male circumcision only, while scholars differed in the female genital mutilation did not collect the mustahabb but they differed between being a duty or honor or desirable)
Apparently, Huma Abedin’s mother approves of practices associated with neanderthal living during the Stone Age. These aren’t the beliefs of people living in the 21st Century.
Rep. Bachmann’s statements have a substantive basis. The group’s request that the five departments’ IGs look into their request is more than reasonable. Meanwhile, Sen. McCain’s diatribe seems like one of his infamous temper tantrums, not the statement of an elder statesman.