Mosab Hassan Yousef, a Palestinian, takes the floor at the UN to tell tyrants that their support for Palestinian “leadership” betrays the people.
I don’t have anything to add. Just watch this amazing video:
Mosab Hassan Yousef, a Palestinian, takes the floor at the UN to tell tyrants that their support for Palestinian “leadership” betrays the people.
I don’t have anything to add. Just watch this amazing video:
The expression that “when it rains, it pours” has taken on a bit of significance in my life. As you know, after a hiatus from working, brought about in part by the recession hitting my clients and in part by the demands of an elderly parent and a household, I took a break from legal work. I went back to work last month when my oldest and favorite client needed my help. Then, on Saturday, two clients from whom I haven’t heard in years (2008 and before) both called me looking for help. Since I have the self-employed person’s ethos of never saying “no” when work comes calling, I said yes.
Before I dive in mountains of rather dull legal work, here are some interesting links:
The bar is set very high for being called an Islamic radical
In a biting post, Sultan Knish points out that it takes a lot to be called an Islamic radical. And when I say it takes a lot, I mean an awful, awful lot — because, for the most part, the radicals engage in precisely the same behavior one sees in Islamic nations around the world that aren’t considered “radical” at all. And then, when a group such as ISIS pushes the envelope, going beyond even what UN member states would do, Obama and Kerry insist that these groups aren’t Islamic at all. As Humpty Dumpty understood, whoever controls the definitions of words wins.
This goes to my earlier point about the degradation of black culture at white elitist hands: Towson University’s all-black Team won a national debating championship using incoherent babble sprinkled with obscenities (including the “n” word) and rap. What they did wasn’t debating, it was performance art, since it’s apparent that the participants actually speak very good English. The judges manifestly rewarded them, not for their debating skills (there were none), but for the art of ghetto culture. The brilliant and uplifting contributors to the Harlem Renaissance would be appalled.
If you want to know about a culture, look at how it treats its dogs. The DiploMad remembers his time in Pakistan, and it’s not pretty.
Millennials have bought into Leftist thinking hook, line, and sinker — and small wonder, because their political view basically boils down to “free things,” for you, for me, for everyone. None of them seems to have given a thought to the fact that someone has to pay for those “free” things.
I wrote earlier about the Democrats’ push to position the mayor of San Antonio to be the next vice president, never mind that, in 2016, his political experience will have been a decorative stint in meaningless “political” job, followed by a couple of years at HUD. Seth Mandel thinks there’s a logic behind this, and it’s not just identity politics. Instead, its bureaucrat politics: The Democrats envision a bureaucratic state, with the White House a mere figurehead. Read his post. It explains the idea very well.
Thirty-four years later, I’m still embarrassed that I voted for the antisemitic Jimmy Carter. Now I’ve got something new to be embarrassed about: A little over a year ago, I included in one of my “just because” music posts Macklemore’s “Thrift Shop.” I noted that it was vulgar and obscene, but I still liked a song that seemed to tell teenagers to get over their designer labels and obsession with products as part of social status. It turns out that Macklemore makes Carter look philosemitic. He chose to perform that song in a costume that was a dead ringer for the worst Nazi propaganda. Even more despicable was the fact that this man who claims exquisite sensitivity towards the oppressed (if they’re gay) and towards all faiths (apparently except for Jews) asserted that he was just pretending to be a witch with a beard.
To no one’s surprise, all the usual shriekers about racism (those savaging Sterling’s senile maunderings, for example) have been remarkably quiet. The only push back came from Seth Rogen, who did it brilliantly. I fear, though, that Seth Rogen alone is not enough. It just goes to show (again), that those on the side of true tolerance are bad at screaming loudly when offended.
Despite Macklemore’s despicable behavior and the strange hush that followed it, I am getting the feeling that people of good will are starting to realize that, if they don’t push back, America’s decline will be swift and final. The movement at UCLA to delegitimize Israel through the BDS movement, rather than being met with mere hand-wringing, is instead facing growing opposition.
One of the worst things about fighting an ideologically-driven enemy seeking totalitarian dominance is that, to a certain extent, to defeat that enemy, you must become like that enemy. You cannot ever rest, and you must fight on every front, both clean fights and dirty ones.
And just so you know, no matter the topic, Obama’s really angry. He’s not actually going to do anything, but he will emote for you:
I’m juggling family and work right now, so cannot blog at length (something that plagued me yesterday as well). Still, I have four articles I think you might like to read.
One: I’ve ruminated often here about the nature of heroism. I’m not talking about the Leftist version of heroism, which is to stand up in a room full of Leftists and say “George Bush is stupid.” I’m talking about real heroism, of the type displayed on the battlefield by Medal of Honor winners (and many who aren’t so honored), or in daily life, when one hears about the incredible risks people take to rescue strangers. I’m physically cowardly, and I’m plagued by chronic analysis paralysis. The Anchoress, who is not a coward, nevertheless writes about her moment with analysis paralysis. I think she’s too hard on herself, since she was analyzing a possible threat, rather than dealing with a real one. Even more interestingly, the Anchoress writes from a Christian perspective, which adds another layer to her ruminations.
Two: All I can say is that this is one woman who must have a very peculiar sex life if her mind works this way. (H/t: Sadie)
Three: It’s shocking that Dakota Meyer’s translator at the Battle of Ganjgal, in Afghanistan, cannot get a visa to the U.S. Here’s a view from a Military Times blog, and here’s the write-up I did at Mr. Conservative. As you read about this, you’ll probably think of the Pakistani doctor who helped us catch bin Laden, but who is languishing in a Pakistani prison. The rule in America under Obama is that the American government (especially the State Department) will abandon you if you serve us with your life: we’ll abandon you in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan, and in Benghazi. There are no limits to how badly we will treat our friends.
Four: I mentioned in an earlier post Dennis Prager’s article about the fact that several self-righteous Leftist publications have announced that, regardless of what the Redskins’ management, players, and fans want, these magazines will never again sully their paper or electronic pages with the evil “R” word. I was especially struck by the way Prager, attacking The Atlantic’s explanation for supporting this stand, honed in on the perverse moralizing that characterizes the Left:
Argument Four is the key argument, offered by The Atlantic, in its support of Slate:
“Whether people ‘should’ be offended by it or not doesn’t matter; the fact that some people are offended by it does.”
Response: This is classic modern liberalism. It is why I have dubbed our age “The Age of Feelings.”
In a fashion typical of progressives, the Atlantic writer commits two important errors.
First, it does matter “whether people ‘should’ feel offended.” If we ceased using all arguments or descriptions because “some people” feel offended, we would cease using any arguments or descriptions. We should use the “reasonable person” test to determine what is offensive, not the “some people are offended” criterion.
Teaching people to take offense is one of the Left’s black arts. Outside of sex and drugs, the Left is pretty much joyless and it kills joy constantly. The war on the “Redskins” name is just the latest example.
Second, it is the Left that specializes in offending: labeling the Tea Party racist, public cursing, displaying crucifixes in urine, and regularly calling Republicans evil (Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column last month, wrote that the Republican mindset “takes positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable.”) For such people to find the name “Redskins” offensive is a hoot. (Emphasis mine.)
Please read the whole thing.
There’s been a lot of upset in the conservative blogosphere about Obama’s drone strike policy. The way the administration phrased it, as “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise,” got a lot of hackles up, especially when Michael Isikoff let slip how little oversight there is — including oversight over decisions to kill American citizens.
A lot of people are very worried about this, because they see a government that feels unfettered by the protections accorded citizens under the Bill of Rights. The problem, as conservatives see it, isn’t so much what the administration does, but the attitude it has when it does it. Thus, the administration manifestly refuses to acknowledge that the rights stated in the Bill of Rights are inherent in all citizens and that the government has the burden of proving good cause to implicate or limit those rights in any way.
Instead, in every instance, the Obama administration takes the position that government has the inherent power to impinge upon and limit citizen’s freedoms, or even take their lives, leaving citizens with the burden of proving that the government has overreached. To the extent that the attitude inverts both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, people who care about those documents and the unalienable rights they establish and protect are going to view anything the administration does with a jaundiced eye.
Rusty Shackleford, however, who knows as much about Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremists as anyone else on this earth, tells conservatives not to get too uptight about those American citizens that the Obama administration targets for drone killing. These people aren’t just any old Americans. Instead, they are citizens who have deliberately thrown their lot in with al Qaeda, thereby taking upon themselves enemy status:
If you think it’s unconstitutional or immoral to kill a member of a terrorist organization living abroad then you and I have very different readings of the Constitution and very different sets of moral standards.
Moreover, it’s just basic common sense that in warfare you don’t stop to ask the person you’re about to shoot for a copy of their passport. Who gives a rat’s ass if bin Laden was Saudi or if he was born in Colorado?
Please, go read the report. Nowhere in it is there even a smidgen of a hint that drones could be used against Americans … in America.
The memo in question sets up a three tiered test for when it’s okay to kill an American living — and this is a direct quote from the memo — “in a foreign country“.
1) He must be an immanent threat. By immanent, we don’t mean the threat is immediate. What we mean is that the person is involved in operations that will go forward unless he is killed. In other words, we don’t have to wait for a suicide bomber to get on the airplane before we kill him.
2) Capture is infeasible. This means that a terrorist living in France will be treated differently than a terrorist living in Mali. The major difference being that the French police are perfectly capable (assuming they have the backbone) of arresting a suspected terrorist. In the hinterlands of Mali, not so much.
Please read the rest of Rusty’s post here. It will assuage some of your worries about the administration’s acts.
Having said all that, I still think Obama is a rotten stinker for what he’s doing. I’m not saying that it’s bad to kill al Qaeda operatives wherever and whenever we find them in a foreign country, and regardless of whether they are American or non-American. Rather, my view arises because Obama is a hypocrite who hasn’t had the decency to come before the American people and say that he was wrong to malign George Bush and our troops as rabid killers.
Nick Gillespie, who has the true libertarian’s disdain for these killings (and I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I do admire his consistency), perfectly sums up Obama’s disgusting double standards:
There is a darkly comic aspect to this, I suppose: Here’s a president who once taught classes in constitutional law and swore up and down that America doesn’t torture, that he was against “dumb wars” waged by his predecessors, that he was more transparent than a glass of triple-filtered water, and who won a goddamned Nobel Peace Prize! And he turns out to be not just a little iffy when it comes to being constrained in his willingness to break all sorts of rules but downright godawful.
And his main mouthpiece is a former MSM drone whose babyface is quickly turning into a map of wrinkles brought on by working for an administration which has manifestly failed to live up to even the mediocre standards of the previous occupant of the White House.
The same president who sounded all high and mighty about Gitmo and the fact that American troops are “air raiding villages and killing civilians” seems to have no problem with going into Pakistan, a country with which we’re not at war, and, once there, drone raiding villages and killing civilians.
Unlike Gillespie, I believe that the Bush people were doing the right thing in their battle against an amorphous enemy that transcends borders and draws fellow travelers from myriad nations. In that regard, it’s telling that the Bush administration had so many good things going there that Obama, in one of the few wise acts of his presidency, built upon their original programs.
What’s sickening is that Obama has never retracted his attacks against those Americans who spent so much time during the Bush years defending us and, when he does the same thing (only more so), he has his flunkies announce that, because it’s The Won who’s killing and torturing, it’s suddenly legal, ethical, and wise. Along these lines, don’t forget that Eric Holder spent almost four years wrecking havoc in the lives of CIA agents who used techniques less bad than those Obama now countenances, and only let them off the hook this past August.
Bottom line: there are few things more loathsome than someone who yells at you and humiliates you for doing something, then does the same thing himself, and, if you call him upon it, says that the mere fact that it is he who’s doing it, not you, makes it all right.
Back in 2004, when George Bush was president, Michael Moore compared al Qaeda terrorists to American Minutemen:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.
Moore’s shallow brain and inadequate education left him incapable of distinguishing between people who fight for individual liberty and people who fight for world domination and mass slavery. He’ll root for sadistic murderers as long as they’re anti-capitalists. He has no sympathy for people like Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Wesley Batalona, Scott Helvenston, Jerry Zovko, or Michael Teague.
Back then, Moore was not alone. You’ll recall that he spoke for a vociferous, angry, and large percentage of Americans who vigorously opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — wars that Bush began with both Congressional and NATO approval — because we were a big mean bully harming innocent Iraqi women and children as part of our sadistic and delusional war against some amorphous “terror” thangy. Buoyed up by a tide of anti-War righteousness, Britain’s left-wing Lancet, once a respectable medical publication, posited that Americans had killed 650,000 Iraqi civilians, a report that was quickly debunked.
The debunking, of course, didn’t stop the antiwar uproar that had Americans taking to the streets with great regularity denouncing Bush as a Hitler-esque war criminal, and calling American troops baby killers. Underpinning all of this antiwar fervor was the Lefts’ contention that terrorists were not a problem, that we just needed to show them a little understanding, and that Bush was grossly overreacting by taking the battle to the terrorists themselves.
Fast forward to 2012. Stories are starting to appear in the U.S. press saying that Obama’s drone attacks — each of which he allegedly approves personally, after carefully selecting the target he wants dead — are killing and wounding thousands of civilians, including women and children, in Pakistan:
U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low — about 2%.
“TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 – 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 – 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 – 1,362 individuals,” according to the Stanford/NYU study.
Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of “double-striking” a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.
Did I mention that we’re not at war with Pakistan? Indeed, it’s nominally still an ally of ours in the war against Islamic terrorists. That hasn’t stopped Obama. What’s worse is, that aside from a few Leftists who are unwilling to tolerate any sort of American actions against terrorists (which is a principled stand, even if often a foolish one), Progressives, Democrats, and other people on the Left are not only quiet about this, they think it’s a good thing.
On my Facebook page, I did I quick post drawing people’s attention to these drone strikes, and highlighting the huge number of collateral deaths occurring, not just on Obama’s watch, but under his direct orders. The responses I received from my liberal friends surprised me. Really surprised me. I will not quote them verbatim, because I haven’t asked for permission to do so (and won’t ask), but I can accurately summarize them as follows, simply by rephrasing people’s actual words:
What can we do? We can’t negotiate with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. If they’re hiding among civilians, innocent people are going to get killed, but that fact alone can’t stop us from going after the bad guys. I hate that this killing is happening, but better that their kids die from drone strikes, than that our American children die in terrorist attacks. I’m totally liberal, but I’m a pragmatist when it comes to the fact that Obama is doing a job that needs to be done, and everyone who criticizes him is a whiner who hates him.
So, to recap: Al Qaeda kills 2,996 Americans, and boasts about it. George Bush gets credible information that Saddam Hussein is seeking to build a nuclear weapon, and that he is funding, sponsoring, training, etc., Al Qaeda terrorists. Bush also gets credible information that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is doing the same, except for the nuclear weapon part. Only much later do we learn that Hussein’s nuclear weapons program may not have been as advanced as originally thought, with the misinformation in large part originating with Hussein himself, as he tried to portray himself as a regional strong man. Armed with this information, Bush is able to create a coalition of many nations and to get Congressional approval to wage war against nations that host and aid Al Qaeda.
The argument from conservatives was and is that (1) al Qaeda declared war on us; (2) because it has no nation of its own, the only thing we can do is attack it in those countries that willingly and generously support it; and (3) if al Qaeda chooses to use innocents as shields that proves how depraved al Qaeda is, but cannot stop us in our righteous fights against true evil doers. Incidentally, this is also the same argument that Israel and her supporters make: Israel has repeatedly made concessions in order to get peace; Palestinians have made it plain that their sole goal is Israel’s destruction; and the high numbers of fatalities amongst women and children occur because Palestinians are evil enough to use innocents as their shields.
Throughout the Bush years, that argument was unpersuasive to the Left. Now that we have a Leftist president, though, one who personally picks the day’s target in an allied country, and who supports a policy that inevitably kills innocents who are not even in a combat zone, everything is suddenly hunky-dorey. It’s all good because Obama is doing it.
I find this sickening. It bespeaks a moral vacuum that has no boundaries. Leftists are incapable of clearing away the ideological brush and focusing on core moral issues. The only core moral issue is Leftism. You’re either for it or you’re against it. If a conservative does things, they’re bad; if a Leftist does things that are infinitely worse, and illegal, they’re fully justified. Just sickening.
For years at this blog (and others) when we’ve written about Europe’s problems, we’ve focused primarily, not on the economy, but on those Muslim immigrants. One of the things that we talked about a lot was the fact that these same Muslim immigrants subsisted largely on public benefits.
This little tidbit emerged with force during the riots in France, when we first learned that the banlieues that housed the rioters were welfare cities. The European paradigm was for Muslims to show up, from Pakistan, from Turkey, from North Africa, and to be showered with the European’s post-colonial guilt payments.
So I have a question for you: What’s going to happen with all those Muslim immigrants now that Europe is broke? Riots? Civil War? Quiet retreats back to their home countries?
It seems we’ve propped up Pakistan long enough. It’s no longer a duplicitous ally. Instead, as Islamists have penetrated further and further into its political and military ranks, it’s now becoming an active enemy:
On Thursday, Adm. Mike Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistan was using ‘violent extremism as an instrument of policy’ and said the Haqqani network, Af-Pak’s deadliest militant outfit, ‘acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Internal Services Intelligence Agency.’ Mullen further explained that Pakistan was using militant proxies to ‘hedge their bets’ in Afghanistan, adding, ‘in reality, they have already lost that bet.’ To be sure, independent analysts and former government officials have been airing such complaints for years. But never in the long, dark history of the Afghan war have serving officials so unequivocally called Pakistan to account for its double game.
You can see the rest here.
This rupture was inevitable. If the U.S.-Pakistan had been bride and groom, they would long ago have been featured in a “Can this marriage be saved” column, along with sage advice that, no, it cannot. An open rift will, of course, impose significant tactical and strategic changes on our military, but I have great faith in our military’s adaptability. And indeed, with Obama at the helm for another 15 or so months, the Pakistan situation may be the least of our military’s problems.
He’s not in a uniform, but Raymond A. Davis, former Special Forces soldier, and current CIA operator and prisoner in Pakistan is a soldier for American interests. Our own government has admitted that he “was part of a covert, C.I.A.-led team collecting intelligence and conducting surveillance on militant groups deep inside the country.” When he was attacked as part of a robbery, he fired on the robbers, killing both.
The New York Times also reports that this may not have been a straight forward robbery. The implication is that Davis blatantly committed a crime. My suspicion, if it wasn’t a garden-variety robbery, is that Davis was attacked as part of his line of work.
When help finally came Davis’ way, the driver of the rescue vehicle managed to run over another Pakistani. Davis, who theoretically has diplomatic immunity, found himself arrested, thrown into a Pakistani prison, and made a cause celebre to the radicals and credulous street in Pakistan.
The Pakistani government, which has known all along about his CIA affiliation, is now hamstrung by the radicals on the street. They want Davis dead, and Pakistan is afraid of those radicals. However, given that Davis has diplomatic immunity, killing him is a problem.
Davis, of course, is in an even worse situation than the Pakistani government. He’s in a Pakistani prison, and has to hope that the government, to make its own life easier, doesn’t simply turn its back and allow a lynch mob in.
In a spy movie, the Americans and Pakistanis would arrange for Davis to be snuck out of the country, with no one the wiser. This isn’t a spy movie, though, and I don’t think there’s enough competence between the two countries right now to arrange for a “no one the wiser” scenario. It seems, right now, as if Davis’ best hope is prayer — which he certainly deserves for repeatedly putting himself on the line in the service of this country.
As I write this, Obama hasn’t spoken yet, but he has released excerpts from his speech. These are my first thoughts on his words:
“The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.” [This is good. This is what Obama needed to do. It’s one thing as a candidate to demand that the sitting president lose the war. It’s another thing entirely for the former-candidate, now-president to preside over another 1975. Having spent ten, agonizing, demoralizing months trying to figure this one out, Obama is finally doing the right thing.]
“Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.” [Is it just me, or did Obama completely avoid that old-fashioned word “victory” or that nice little phrase “win the war”? Obama is such a Leftist he really cannot contemplate the possibility of a “we win, you lose” scenario. To him, success is manifestly a way out, victory or not (and see the next paragraph to get what I mean). Also, unless Obama expands upon it in his speech tonight, he’s said nothing about the nature of the threat against us. To say that “security” is “at stake” is meaningless without explaining who the enemy is, and what an enemy victory means. Given the Islamists’ willingness to spell out in words of one syllable their plans regarding the West, Obama should be able to articulate the danger they pose. Again, he simply can’t seem to make himself say certain words: “The Taliban, a fundamentalist branch of Islam that sheltered and trained the terrorists who killed more than 3,000 Americans on 9/11, is resurgent and spreading. It must be cut out, root and branch, in order to ensure that its members’ willingness to attack us directly, and indirectly (by taking over our allies, such as Pakistan), is destroyed.” See? It’s simple — but not for Obama.]
“Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.” [Here’s the kicker to the two preceding paragraphs. Obama is not in this for victory against a determined and violent enemy that has already attacked America and Europe and that continues to threaten to West’s security. Instead, he’s adding troops as a predicate to an orderly retreat. He doesn’t want to win. He wants to escape. Obama has also done something incredibly stupid by announcing his date of departure. If I were the Taliban, I’d simply retreat into caves for a couple of years, wait for Americans to withdraw, and then return to the field. Obama should announce that U.S. and allied forces will depart when the war against the Taliban has achieved certain milestones, not when a specific date hits on the calendar.]
Bottom line: Obama’s doing the right thing (thank God), but for the wrong reasons. The question is whether our strong and determined American military can achieve victory when the Commander in Chief (a) refuses to name the enemy and is afraid of the “V” word and (b) has given the enemy a specific time line, after which they are free to pursue their theocratic totalitarian goals?
UPDATE: Well, the speech is over and done now. I gather that Obama did spell out more clearly what the threat actually is, but for the most part that he tracked along the excerpts I discussed above. I also gather that I, although unversed in military strategy, pretty much caught onto the myriad flaws in the approach. Otherwise, how could I have tracked so closely with Steve Schippert’s informed analysis?
I realize that, with readers all over the world, speaking about “morning” is a bit silly, but I can only function according to the rules of my own time zone. I’m up, but so are the kids, and the “getting ready for school” drill is in full swing. It’s definitely morning for me, and will be for another hour. Fortunately, friends emailed me two fascinating articles for those of you who are already well into your day and have the luxury of a bit of reading time right now.
The first is an American Spectator article by Patrick O’Hannigan, in which he focuses on the direct line between Obama’s background as a community organizer and his failures as a president. I always enjoy Patrick’s writing, but I have to say that I think this is one of his best, filled with truly deep thoughts, carried along on a river of elegant writing.
The second article, which intelligence analyst extraordinaire Steve Schippert recommended to me, is a very worrying analysis of the situation in Pakistan. You won’t feel better after reading this article, but you’ll definitely feel more informed. It goes without saying that our community organizer in chief hasn’t yet figured out a way to deal with this situation. (And I very much doubt that his upcoming Afghanistan speech will change that fact.)
I promised you two, but I’ll give you three: Is it any surprise that the UN is completely ignoring, not only the fact that a major CRU committed fraud, but the even more significant fact that this same group felt compelled to commit fraud? You don’t commit fraud when the truth is on your side. You commit it when you have to sell people on a lie or, at the very least, when you don’t believe in what you’re selling.