Saturday, November 5, 2011

Being a Dictator: More Physically Destructive than a Crack Habit

Editor’s Note: PJ Lifestyle has recently agreed to a content sharing agreement with the progressive blog Sunny Points Memo, the journalism wing of Sunny TV. Each week we will be featuring various hard-hitting journalistic reports from Sunny’s team of 21st century Woodward and Bernsteins.
The great Oscar Wilde play Dorian Gray depicts an evil man whose sweet, innocent countenance remains untouched throughout his life while a painting of him hidden in his attic takes on all the marks of evil in his face due to his lecherous, wicked character. It does seem that in real life you can’t escape your character; one’s outsides eventually do match one’s insides. Never is that more apparent than with evil dictators (and methamphetamine or crack users, but that’s another article).
Case in point is the world’s most recent example. See this handsome man? Isn’t he charming looking? Can’t you see how a man with this much charisma took over a nation? Who is that handsome devil?

Don Draper's got nothin' on me!

Handsome is as handsome does!
Gah! Yes, it’s Gaddafi. Eventually, after 40 years of being a cruel and vicious dictator, Gaddafi went on to become one of the ugliest people on Planet Earth. His face looks like it’s melting. He looks like that Nazi inIndiana Jones when he opens the sacred arc and his face melts off. Or like that cockroach alien from Men in Black, except instead of wearing an Edgar Suit, he’s wearing a Gaddafi Suit that doesn’t quit fit.

Is my Michael Jackson wig on straight?
Apparently some of his last words were, “Don’t you know right from wrong?” Look in the mirror, Gaddafi, you surely didn’t.
Another guy who was recently captured in a hole was this guy:

When my MGM contract is up, I'm going to become an evil dictator.
Who is that? The handsome actor Errol Flynn?
Doh! No, it’s that crazy homeless lunatic looking guy, Saddam Hussein.

Down, Fang!!
I gotta be honest, I think Saddam came out better than Gaddafi, but still. After 24 years of torturing and murdering and launching chemical weapons, that once handsome youth turned into a Hagrid lookalike.
The good thing about writing this article is that it’s hard to run out of examples. There sure are a lot of dictators to choose from! Here is one that gives me a lot of personal satisfaction:
Okay, so Hugo Chavez never was very handsome. He kind of always looked like a petulant dictator. In fact, this is the youngest picture I could find of Chavez and he’s not really young in it. I guess he sprung fully formed as a bloated, baby-faced dictator. But now he looks like this:

I'll get you Han Solo!
His outsides are starting to match his insides, his body is starting to match his character. Oh s*it, am I making fun of someone with cancer? Yes, yes I am. Rot in hell, Chavez. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Next there’s this cutiepatootie! Look at his happy, delightful, chubby-cheeked expression! Don’t you just want to take him home and feed him milk and cookies?
Better not. If you did he just might bite your fingers off. Too bad this cute kid’s father was insane, and left him a dictatorship to boot, because he turned out like this:

"Gimmie milk and cookies now dammit!"
Kim Jong Il is simply the epitome of the baby faced, evil-eyed dictator. Okay, so this picture is really of a puppet Kim Jong Il from the movie Team America. I could have easily included a real picture of him and gotten the same effect.
Europeans have had their dictators too, but they don’t seem to live long enough for their evil ways to catch up to their visages. There is at least one example, however; there’s Enver Hoxha, communist dictator of Albania for 41 years and best buds with Joseph Stalin. So, all around great guy! What a handsome youth!
Enver Hoxha eventually looked like this:

Wait, what!? Is that Ralph Lauren?
Okay, I guess those suave Europeans are immune to the effects. Although upon his death in 1985 they did find a portrait painting in Hoxha’s attic that could have been of him, except that it looked so evil.

PA CHAIRMAN ABBAS: "Free homes for terrorists"

Abbas to Build Home for Freed Terrorists

PA Chairman Abbas announces that he plans to build homes for terrorists released by Israel in the Shalit deal.
By Elad Benari
First Publish: 11/6/2011, 4:12 AM

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas
Israel news photo: Flash 90
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has announced his decision to build new homes specifically meant for the terrorists who were released in the Shalit prisoner exchange deal.

Israel has already freed 477 terrorists in the first part of the deal, and an additional 550 are to be released in the second phase.

According to Saturday’s announcement, the construction of the homes will be financed by the Palestine Investment Fund.

“The issue of the prisoners is a top priority for the Palestinian leadership,” Abbas was quoted as saying at a recent meeting with some of the terrorists who were freed. He welcomed the terrorists and reiterated his previous demands that Israel release 1,000 additional prisoners.
Abbas recently claimed that former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised him that if Israel were to free Hamas terrorists in exchange for Shalit, it would also free Fatah terrorists, in order to avoid hurting Abbas’ political standing.

Abbas made the claims in a recent interview with TIME Magazine, in which he said the deal was kept secret so that it would not affect negotiations for Shalit’s freedom.

His move to build homes for the murderers comes after the Hamas government in Gaza recently decided to reward each terrorist that was freed to Gaza in the Shalitdeal with a sum of $2,000.

Delegitimizing the delegitimizers - by Caroline Glick


Caroline Glick
November 4, 2011
You have to hand it to the Palestinians.

They decided to abandon the peace process and seek international recognition of the "State of Palestine" - a state in a de facto state of war with Israel. And they are pursuing their goal relentlessly.

This week their efforts bore their first fruit with the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) vote to accept "Palestine" as a full state member.

It is not a coincidence that the PLO/PA decided to apply for membership for "Palestine" at UNESCO first. Since 1974, UNESCO has been an enthusiastic partner in the Palestinians' bid to erase Jewish history, heritage and culture in the Land of Israel from the historical record.

In 1974, UNESCO voted to boycott Israel and to "withhold assistance from Israel in the fields of education, science and culture because of Israel's persistent alteration of historic features in Jerusalem."

UNESCO's moves to deny Jewish ties to Jerusalem and the rest of historic Israel have continued unabated ever since. For instance, in 1989, UNESCO condemned "Israel's occupation of Jerusalem," claiming it was destroying the city through "acts of interference, destruction and transformation."

In 1996, UNESCO held a symposium on Jerusalem at its Paris headquarters. No Jewish or Israeli groups were invited to participate.

Beginning in 1996, the Arab Wakf on the Temple Mount began systematically destroying artifacts of the Second Temple. The destruction was undertaken during illegal excavations under the Temple Mount carried out to construct an illegal, unlicensed mosque at Solomon's Stables.

UNESCO never bothered to condemn this act. It was silent despite the fact that the Wakf's actions constituted a grave breach of the very international laws related to antiquities and sacred sites that UNESCO is charter bound to protect. Similarly, UNESCO never condemned Palestinian desecration of Rachel's Tomb, of Joesph's Tomb or of any of the ancient synagogues in Gaza and Jericho which they razed to the ground.

The reason for UNESCO's miscarriage of its responsibilities is clear. Far from fulfilling its mission of protecting world heritage sites, since 1974 UNESCO has been a partner in one of the greatest cultural crimes in human history - the Palestinian and pan-Arab attempt to wipe Jewish history in the Land of Israel off the historical record. 

And UNESCO's crimes in this area are unending. In 2009 it designated Jerusalem a "capital of Arab culture." In 2010, it designated Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron as "Muslim mosques." 

UNESCO's campaign against Jewish history is not limited to Israel. In 1995, it passed a resolution marking the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Despite requests from Israel, the resolution made no mention of the Holocaust.

In December 2010, UNESCO published a report on the history of science in the Arab world. Its report listed the great Jewish doctor and rabbinic scholar Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon - Maimonides - as a Muslim renamed "Moussa ben Maimoun."

In light of UNESCO's virulently anti-Jewish policies and actions, it is not surprising that it cooperated with the PLO/PA's bid to achieve recognition of a state that is in a state of war with Israel.

MORE SURPRISING than UNESCO's behavior was the behavior of all but five EU member states. Aside from the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden, all EU member states either voted in favor of the Palestinian membership application or abstained.

The reason this behavior is surprising is because the EU has made strengthening UN institutions and speeding up the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians to facilitate Palestinian independence the central aims of its foreign policy. And by supporting or failing to oppose the Palestinian membership bid, the Europeans undercut both aims.

UNESCO was weakened by the vote for two reasons. First, since US law bars the US administration from funding UN agencies that accept "Palestine" as a member nation outside the framework of a negotiated peace with Israel, in accepting "Palestine" UNESCO reduced its budget by the 22 percent covered by US contributions.

Second, by accepting the Palestinians as a member state, UNESCO undermined its legitimacy and organizational viability. Accepting "Palestine" represents a breach of the organization's charter. The charter stipulates that only states can be accepted as members.

Moreover, it represents a repudiation of the goals of UNESCO as laid out in its charter. Those goals involve among other things promoting cooperation in education and advancing the rule of law. As a recent report by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) showed, PA textbooks remain imbued with Jew-hatred at all education levels.

By enabling this breach of the UNESCO charter, the Europeans made a mockery of UN rules and so weakened not just UNESCO but the UN system as a whole.

The Europeans' claim to support the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians was rendered hollow by their behavior at UNESCO. The peace process between Israel and the PLO/PA is predicated on the latter's commitment that a Palestinian state can arise only as a consequence of a peace treaty with Israel. By supporting the Palestinians' breach of this fundamental commitment at UNESCO, the Europeans diminished the possibility of achieving a negotiated peace that will lead to Palestinian statehood.

The Europeans' behavior at UNESCO indicates that just as UNESCO is willing to undermine its mission to harm Israel, so the Europeans are willing to undermine the declared goals of their foreign policy for the sake of harming Israel.

This state of affairs has important consequences for Israel. To date, Israel has placed fostering good relations with EU member states high on its list of priorities. In light of the Europeans' behavior at UNESCO, this ranking should be revised. The Europeans do not merit such high consideration by Israel.

Finally, the UNESCO vote exposed disturbing truths about US President Barack Obama's position on Israel. Obama has been widely praised by American Jewish leaders as well as by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his announced commitment to veto the draft Security Council resolution recommending that the PLO/PA be granted full state membership at the UN. Obama's pledge - forced out of him by massive congressional pressure - is touted as proof of his commitment to the US alliance with Israel.

But Obama's response to the PLO/PA's bid for UNESCO membership tells a different story. In the lead up to the vote, the Obama administration went out of its way not to threaten UNESCO. It did not threaten to withdraw the US from the organization. Instead, just days before the vote, US Under Secretary of Education Martha Kanter addressed the body and praised the "great things [that] have happened at UNESCO," over the past year. Kanter then announced the US's bid for reelection to UNESCO's executive board.

The administration did not attack the move as one that undermines chances of peace. It did not note that by endorsing the PA/PLO's decision to act unilaterally, UNESCO was making it all the more difficult for Israel and the Palestinians to achieve a negotiated peace deal. Rather, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sufficed with claiming that the move was "regrettable," and "premature."

Administration officials did not make clear that in accordance with US law, all US funding to UNESCO would end if the Palestinian membership bid was approved. Rather administration officials joined forces with UN officials to lobby Congress to change the law.

As Claudia Rosett reported in Forbes on Tuesday, David Killion, the US ambassador to UNESCO, made what bordered on an apology for the US funding cut-off when he said, "We sincerely regret that the strenuous and well-intentioned efforts of many delegations to avoid this result fell short."

Killion added, "We pledge to continue our efforts to find ways to support and strengthen the important work of this vital organization."

So after UNESCO thumbed its nose at the US, after undermined its own mission, breached its own charter and seriously diminished chances of Palestinian peace with Israel by accepting "Palestine" as a member state, the Obama administration reacted with near groveling apologetics.

TO UNDERSTAND the full significance of the administration's behavior, it is important to contrast it with the administration's response to the Israeli government's decision in the aftermath of the UNESCO vote to approve the construction of housing for Jews in Jerusalem, Ma'aleh Adumim and Efrat. All of the housing units will be built in areas that will remain part of Israel even after a peace deal. And the administration knows this.

But speaking of the government's decision, a US official told Reuters that the administration is "deeply disappointed by the announcement."

"We continue to make clear to the [Israeli] government [that] unilateral actions such as these work against efforts to resume direct negotiations and do not advance the goal of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties."

So on the one hand, the Palestinians' move to abandon the peace process and UNESCO's support for their move is merely "regrettable" and "premature." But on the other hand, Israel's decision not to discriminate against Jewish property rights undermines efforts to resume peace talks and harms prospects for an agreement.

Since entering office, Netanyahu has repeatedly characterized Arab and leftist efforts to delegitimize Israel as "a strategic threat" to the state. In truth, he overstates the danger. Delegitimization is a political threat, not a strategic threat. Israel will not be destroyed by the UN or by professors at Oxford and Columbia or by trade unions in Norway.

But still it is a threat that Israel cannot ignore.

Since September 2009, citing the need to demonstrate the dishonesty of the delegitimizers' accusations against Israel, Netanyahu abandoned his lifelong opposition to a Palestinian state. He believed that Israel had to embrace the PLO/PA as a legitimate partner for peace in order to prove to the likes of Obama and his supporters that Israel has a right to exist. In the meantime, and in the face of Netanyahu's staggering concession, the PLO/PA abandoned the peace talks and escalated its political war to criminalize Israel and delegitimate it.

UNESCO's acceptance of "Palestine" demonstrates that Netanyahu's chosen policy is misguided.

By accepting the legitimacy of the Palestinian demand for statehood, Netanyahu indirectly conceded Israel's rights to Judea and Samaria and at a minimum placed its right to sole sovereignty over Jerusalem in question. In so doing, Israel gave the Palestinians' supporters at the UN, in Europe and at the White House no reason to reconsider their anti-Israel bias.

After all, with the Palestinians relentlessly asserting their rights, and Israel conceding its rights, why should anyone side with Israel? 

In the end, the only way to defeat those who delegitimize Israel and deny our rights to our land, our nationhood and our history is to expose their corruption, and their malevolent, dishonest and hateful intentions towards the Jewish people and the Jewish state. That is, the only way to defeat the delegitimizers is to delegitimize them by proudly and consistently asserting Israel's historic and legal rights and the justice of our cause.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

Does America Deserve Obama?

November 4, 2011


By David Deming

President Obama is a socialist and a vapid demagogue who has been educated beyond the level of his intelligence.  He is the choice of a puerile and spoiled electorate who want to be taken care of and obtain handouts from a parental figurehead.
I can't believe the West won the Cold War.  The Cold War was a competition of economic ideologies.  In the 1960s, we used to have sincere debates about which economic system was better -- a socialist, centrally-planned economy, or a capitalist, free-market economy.  The debate is over.  By 1990, even the Russians and Chinese were forced to implicitly admit the superiority of market economies.  But while our former enemies were busy converting their socialist systems to market economies, we were happily rushing headlong into socialism.
People have been discussing economic systems for more than two thousand years.  As described in my books, Science and Technology in World History, Vols. 1 & 2, communism was advocated by Plato as early as the fourth century BC.  But Plato's student, Aristotle, disparaged communism by observing "that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.  Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual."  Aristotle concluded that the ills which are supposed to arise from private property in fact originated in human nature.
We have been aware of the superiority of market economies since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776.  When a person is left free to pursue his own interest unimpeded, he is "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention ... [and thus] by pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
In Principles of Political Economy (1848), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) gave three reasons to severely limit government interference in a nation's economy and markets.  First, any increase in government power is a threat to human individuality, freedom, and originality, qualities necessary for the progress of the human race.  Second, market economies function more efficiently and produce more prosperity.  Third, laissez-faire economies inculcate moral virtues in citizens by making them more self-reliant, virtuous and intelligent.  "A people," Mill explained, "who expect to have everything done for them ... have their faculties only half developed."
The test of any theory is experiment, but it is virtually impossible to conduct large-scale controlled experiments in economics.  It is difficult to even make meaningful and unambiguous comparisons between countries.  Nations differ -- not only in economic systems, but in cultures, languages, traditions, geographies, and natural resources.  To test socialism versus capitalism, we would have to take one or more countries with similar social and physical characteristics and divide them in half.  After assigning a different economic system to each country, we would then sit back for fifty years and observe what happens.
But this experiment has already been performed through an accident of history.  We know the answer.  At the close of World War II, Germany and Korea were divided into socialist and market economies.  Socialism failed dramatically.  East Germany had to build the Berlin Wall just to keep people from fleeing.  North Korea is still in the stone age.  A satellite photo taken at night shows South Korea ablaze with the light of civilization.  But North Korea is dark, both literally and metaphorically.
In the U.S., we exist in a curious state of denial.  We acknowledge the inferiority of socialism but continue to become more and more socialistic.  Every attempt to shrink the size of government or repeal a regulation brings about a shriek, like a bottle being pulled out of the mouth of an infant.  I cannot recall a Republican president or Congress who reduced the size of the federal government.  No one wants to surrender a special privilege or entitlement.  We know what the best system is, but we lack the discipline to return to it.
Ronald Reagan used to say that liberals know only how to tax and spend.  If there was ever a man who embodies that aphorism, it is Barack Obama.  He has no clue as to how a free-market economy works or why it produces economic prosperity.  Obama continues to insist that government should determine what energy technologies we're going to have.  Thus the debacle of Solyndra.  Five hundred million dollars went down the drain needlessly.  Government can't pick winners because it doesn't know how to do so.  If a centrally planned socialist system worked, it would have produced prosperity in China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea.  It didn't.  Only a free-market system knows how to efficiently distribute resources.
Since the inception of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society," we have had at least forty years of welfare programs designed to reduce poverty.  These programs have not worked.  The current U.S. poverty rate is the same as it was in the late 1960s.  So what do we do about it?  Instead of reversing course, we continue on the same path.  If the "Occupy Wall St." protestors have no jobs, it is because they are reaping the rewards of their own success.  Socialism has killed the prosperity produced by our formerly great system.  The U.S. is now ninth on the index of economic freedom and heading downward.
Yes, we have a clueless poseur for president.  But we have no one but ourselves to blame.  Obama was chosen by the people of the U.S.  He was elected democratically, and therefore is nothing more than an iconic representation of our own ignorance, greed, and infantile sense of entitlement.  Obama is not the problem, and his electoral defeat in 2012 will not magically heal the country or return us to prosperity and freedom.
 Elections change nothing, because they are not causes, but results.  The U.S. Congress now has an all-time low approval rating of nine percent.  This is nothing more than an indication that we have lost the ability to govern ourselves.  After all, we elect our congressional representatives.  We have the government we deserve.  Prosperity and freedom will return only if and when the American people again become educated, virtuous, and intelligent.
David Deming is associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma and author of the books Science and Technology in World History, Vols. 1 & 2.

Read more:

The Ballad of Oslo's Children and Obama's adviser celebrates the Arab Spring

The Ugly Truth About Afghanistan

By Mike Baker

Published November 03, 2011
Gen. McChrystal "Thank you for being politically "incorrect".  I feel really bad that it cost you your job.

Ten years on and not halfway there. That was the assessment of the war in Afghanistan that was delivered last month by retired four star General Stanley McChrystal. 

In a speech, our "former top U.S. military commander in the war said the United States and its allies are only '50 percent of the way' toward achieving their goals," Yahoo News reported.

If it seems at odds with what our active duty senior officers and administration officials are saying, at least publicly, it’s because it is.

With a drawdown slowly beginning and plans for a complete handover in 2014, the general line of the generals has been “’s a tough road still but we’re making headway and things are improving.” That of course would be the appropriate spin for public consumption.

You want to know what our active duty leadership and folks in the White House are saying in private? I’ll bet it sounds a lot like McChrystal’s review. 

I don’t know about you, but I’d like to think that our politicians and senior military wouldn’t be operating off of two different scripts…one for general release, and one for private moments when reporters aren’t within earshot.

It’s refreshing to hear someone like McChrystal, with tremendous experience and understanding of the Afghan theater, actually speak his mind. Frankly it would’ve been more refreshing if he had done that while still in uniform and dealing with Afghanistan on a daily basis. However, stating your honest opinion when it runs counter to the desired spin is not something you see often, whether in the military or serving in a White House administration.

At least the general is alluding to what many have suspected or felt since roughly Spring 2002… this is a major goat rope with no real likelihood of leaving behind anything resembling a pseudo-stable democratic Taliban-free society.

We arrived in late 2001 with a clear mission, defined targets and a strategy. We should’ve made our point and moved on once we scattered Al Qaeda and overthrew the Taliban. But for the last nine and a half years we have failed to have an honest debate about exactly how our continued involvement in Afghanistan addresses our critical national security interests.

Enough with the usual line about “denying Al Qaeda a permanent base of operations”… Al Qaeda has long since moved on from Afghanistan and taken up residence in a variety of other unstable locales. 
Stop already with the nonsense about leaving behind a government, military and police capable of preventing the Taliban’s return to power… you think the Taliban has someplace else to go? You think they’re less patient than we are? The ten years we’ve slogged it out there equals about half a year in Taliban time. Not only do they have no place else to go, they’ve got all the time in the world to get there.
We honestly didn’t care about the Taliban ruling Afghanistan until they provided a permanent base of operations to Al Qaeda. Some argue that a Taliban led Afghanistan threatens the stability of Pakistan. Are you kidding? Pakistan has been playing with the Taliban ever since the days the Soviets dropped into Kabul. They’ll figure it out.

We seem to be the only ones at the table not acting in our own best interests. Karzai, the guy we’ve been backing all these years, has spent years hedging his bets for the day we walk out. 

The other day, during an interview on Pakistani television, Karzai said that in a conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghanistan would side with Pakistan. That sort of craven pandering to the Pakistanis may be disheartening, but it’s certainly understandable when put in the context of the real world.

The Pakistanis likewise have been doing exactly what you would expect…calculating what is in their best national interests and then acting accordingly. Karzai and the Pakistan government, military and intelligence service are like the Taliban…they have nowhere else to go. When we’re gone, they all have to continue dealing with each other. You think the Pakistan intelligence service wants a hostile Afghanistan as a neighbor? How likely is it that Karzai thinks he can hold on to power without cutting a deal with the Taliban?
Everyone is making pragmatic calculations except for us…we keep marching along, admittedly trying to do the right thing, while publicly talking about how things are slowly improving.

It’s only in private, or in retirement, when reality overpowers the spin. Ten years? Hell, we could stay in Afghanistan another decade and still be only halfway there.

Mike Baker is a former CIA covert operations officer. He is president of Diligence LLC, a global intelligence and security firm.

Read more:


by Pamela Geller
Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller
The President of Afghanistan spits on the vast blood and treasure the US spent on security, training, schools, infrastructure for the Afghans. Afghanistan would side with Pakistan in war with US, says Hamid ... but a top US General comments on such betrayal and he gets fired. The Afghans and our avowed mortal enemy, the Taliban, get respect, money and arms.
No matter how much blood and treasure America expended for Afghanistan or how aggressively Pakistan wages war against Afghanistan, Islam trumps all.
America, wake up. I stand with Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller, deputy commander of the NATO training mission. If our military is being run by such spineless, gutless wonders, the weak and pathetic Gen John Allen did Fuller a favor. It sounds to me like this firing came from the Taliban toady in the White House.
Pentagon - POLITICS A top U.S. general in Afghanistan was fired Friday for making disparaging remarks about Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government.

Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller, deputy commander of the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, made the remarks in an interview with Politico that was published Thursday.

Fuller told Politico that major players in the Afghan government are "isolated from reality." Fuller reacted angrily to claims from Karzai that Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if it were to go to war with the United States. 

Fuller called Karzai's statements "erratic," adding, "Why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You've got to be kidding me … I'm sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you're telling me, 'I don't really care'?"

Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), released a statement Friday saying Fuller was to be relieved of his duties, "effective immediately."

"These unfortunate comments are neither indicative of our current solid relationship with the government of Afghanistan, its leadership, or our joint commitment to prevail here in Afghanistan", Allen said.
What a dhimmi stooge. I am ashamed of our military leader.
"The Afghan people are an honorable people, and comments such as these will not keep us from accomplishing our most critical and shared mission-bringing about a stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan."

Pentagon officials who spoke to Fox News on the condition of anonymity agree that Fuller seemed to go off the rails in the Politico interview, admitting he showed extremely poor judgment. The fish line didn't help his cause:

"You can teach a man how to fish, or you can give them a fish," Fuller said. "We're giving them fish while they're learning, and they want more fish! [They say,] 'I like swordfish, how come you're giving me cod?' Guess what? Cod's on the menu today."

Fuller is not the only loose-lipped general to sink his own ship. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, once the commander of ISAF, was fired by President Obama himself after the Rolling Stone published disparaging remarks he and his staff made about members of the administration.