Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Useless Leftist Idiot to Give Useless Medal to Slightly Less Useless Leftist Idiot

February 19, 2013 By  

Presidential medals of X, Y and Z tend not to matter very much. They’re awards that governments give out at photo ops.
That’s not even the case with the Israeli Presidential Medal of Distinction which is chosen by an advisory committee to the President of Israel. The President of Israel, unlike the President of the United States, occupies a primarily ceremonial position. He’s the equivalent of Joe Biden and Shimon Peres who currently holds that position makes Joe Biden look like a genius. Peres is a brain-dead leftist running on his last brain cell and blathering endlessly about nanotechnology.
The Presidential Medal of Distinction is supposed to be given to a honoree who
1. Made a distinctive contribution to the world
2. Contributed uniquely to society
3. Is a model for entrepreneurship, creativity, innovation and vision
The award, which looks like the patch for the Israeli space program or some grape juice soda being spilled on a menorah, was established last year to give Peres something to do with his time.
Since 2012, it has already been awarded six times, which tells you how selective it is. Awardees include Henry Kissinger, a man who hated Israel more than Obama, Hagel and Hamas put together, and got more Israelis killed, which also tells you something about the selectivity.
The actual choice comes from a committee which cited Obama for his “constant practice to promote equality regardless of religion, race, gender and sexual orientation, to strengthen the poor in the U.S. and the empowerment of democratic values, unity and peace in the world.” That should tell you something about whoever put that ridiculous collection of words together.
The award committee is co-headed by Yitzhak Navon, another former Israeli president who leans well to the left. The committee also includes, Muhammad Essawi, head of the Al-Qasemi College, which was founded to teach a “moderate” Sufi version of Islamic Sharia law, and a few others.
Obama gave Peres the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Now Peres is giving Obama the Israeli Presidential Medal of Distinction.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

Breaking News: Five Months After Benghazi Murders: Killers Frolic Untouched There



By Barry Rubin

Five months ago, radical Islamists in Libya murdered four American officials. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the Obama Administration would not rest until those responsible were caught.

Yet it seems as if nothing has been done. Indeed, just as the White House did nothing on September 11, 2012, when the U.S. consulate was under attack it has done nothing serious since and is doing nothing now.

Want proof?

Consider this report:

“Just days after President Barack Obama vowed to hunt down and bring to justice those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound here, Ahmed Abu Khattala — one of those considered a ringleader — spent two leisurely hours Thursday evening at a luxury hotel full of journalists, relaxed in a red fez and sandals, sipping mango juice on a patio overlooking the Mediterranean and scoffing at the threats coming from both the American and Libyan governments.

“Libya’s fledgling national army was a "national chicken," Abu Khattala said, using an Arabic rhyme. Asked who should take responsibility for apprehending the mission’s attackers, he chuckled at the weakness of the Libyan authorities. And he accused U.S. leaders of "playing with the emotions of the American people" and "using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections."

Or this:

“Ali Harzi, a 26-year-old Tunisian extradited from Turkey in October, was one of the only people actually detained over the attack and at the time Tunisian authorities said they "strongly suspected" he was involved.
“On Tuesday, however, his lawyer Anwar Oued-Ali said the presiding judge had "conditionally freed" Harzi the night before for lack of evidence. He must remain in the Tunis area to be available for any further questioning.

“U.S. officials in December lamented the lack of cooperation with the governments of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt in their ongoing investigation into the attack, saying most of the suspects remain free.

“In Libya especially, investigating the attack is difficult because authorities rely on the numerous militias made up of tens of thousands of young Libyans who took up arms against former leader Muammar Qaddafi. It is often difficult to draw clear lines between those providing security and those causing instability.

The first article was published in the New York Times last October. The second was a CBS item in January. So these things can be found in the American mass media—congratulations to those I so often criticize—but do not find their way into the policy debate.

Yet at least, the militia that all witnesses identified as being responsible had to cease activities in Benghazi for a while though leaders still hung out at cafes there with no one bothering them.

At least, the militia that all witnesses identified as being responsible had to cease activities in Benghazi for a while though leaders still hung out at cafes there with no one bothering them.

Well, now they’re back to business as normal. The lesson taught is this one: Kill four American officials and there is absolutely no cost for you. Obama can be said to have killed Osama. Americans are impressed but that event has no strategic implications for the Middle East or even for, in practical terms, al-Qaida's affiliates. 

The Ansar al-Sharia (Helpers of the Sharia) now control Benghazi’s western entrance, a southern checkpoint, and security at a hospital. One passing car honks to greet the Ansar al-Sharia guards and waves the al-Qaida flag out the window at them.

As Reuters puts it, this and other such radical Islamist groups “are also held up as heroes of the Libyan uprising by some locals who say they are doing a better job of the protecting them than the government in distant Tripoli.”

"These men are also people who fought on the front lines, care about their city and provide services. We can't shun them," said Benghazi University professor Iman Bugaighis, referring to several  militias. "We had to ask them to come back and protect our hospital and streets."

Yes, they fought on the front lines with courage—Islamists often speak of sacrificing their lives in jihad and martyrdom—but the victory was handed to them by NATO, a NATO led by the United States, and a United States whose officials the Ansar al-Sharia killed perhaps because they were trying to get some of the weapons back.

But wait a minute! The current Libyan government is a client of the United States. Can’t the White House pressure the Libyan government to push forward the investigation? To detain those identified by witnesses as the attackers?
Or isn’t it trying? Perhaps it isn’t trying because it knows the Libyan government isn’t eager or isn’t able to confront the terrorists.
And the U.S. government doesn’t want to take direct action since that would presumably be too bullying and unilateral.

At the Ansar al-Sharia's western checkpoint one of the cars honks at the men in greeting and a passenger waves the black and white flag of al Qaeda.

"The [Libyan] government lost a very good opportunity after our 'Rescue Benghazi' event [which pushed the militias out of town following the attack on the consulate] to control these militias, break them apart and absorb them into legitimate bodies," said Younes Najim, an organizer of the campaign to push Ansar al-Sharia out. Note that Najim's solution is to have the Ansar al-Sharia join the army and police.

"It will take time, but the longer the government takes to organize its security here, the stronger some groups will make themselves to become parallel forces to the government."

Right. But why didn't the U.S. government follow up on the momentum built by the Rescue Benghazi  movement? As for the Libyan government, it cannot and will not control them for a very good reason. The government is relatively weak—especially in Benghazi—and its “regular” military forces are made up of ex-militiamen who might be very sympathetic to Ansar al-Sharia.

As  result, the radical Islamist militias may some day overthrow the Libyan government just as such smaller Salafist forces will help the Muslim Brotherhood suppress opposition and install a Sharia state in Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria.

In other words, the U.S. government has poured in weapons and money and diplomatic support to create and sustain a regime which may be made up of relatively decent people but cannot lift a finger to catch, punish, or outlaw al-Qaida supporters and those who have murdered Americans in cold blood. Again, remember this is not a hostile country which provides a safe haven to anti-American terrorists, like Iran or Lebanon, but a U.S. client state established largely with U.S. military aid and direct assistance. They're not hiding out in caves or in the depths of jungles but strolling the streets in a country that is supposedly a U.S. ally.

Today, Libya; tomorrow, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria, not necessarily in terms of al-Qaida itself (except in Syria) but in terms of anti-American Islamist groups that are quite willing to attack U.S. targets in the Middle East.

Here’s what Obama said in his State of the Union message—which didn’t mention his alleged pursuit of the Benghazi terrorists:

“Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged – from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving.”

In other words, al-Qaida is weakened to the point of collapse but then again…it isn’t.

“But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations. Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security….And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.”

Now that is a perfect model of what should be done: cooperation with American allies when possible; direct action when necessary. But that hasn’t happened. The allies are too weak or are even in bed with the terrorists themselves. The “ally” that the U.S. government is depending on to take care of the terrorists for it is the Muslim Brotherhood.  Incidentally, the Libyan government is also the biggest single financial donor--presumably with behind-the-scenes U.S. encouragement or even pressure--to the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated group in Syria.

That’s why Obama didn’t mention Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, or Syria in his speech about counter-terrorism. CIA director John Brennan is directing such a policy but it isn’t good to say that too publicly or in front of a joint session of Congress.

And elsewhere—here’s where Yemen, Libya, and Somalia come in--regimes cannot provide for their own security. Or, to reframe the issue, what if they can only provide for their own security by ignoring or even undermining U.S. interests?

Yes, it's much easier to throw some California-based video-maker into prison than to do anything effective.

The night of September 11, 2012, was the perfect time to “continue to take direct action against those terrorists.” Instead, Obama went to sleep and he has yet to wake up. And there's graphic proof for that assertion in the streets of Benghazi today.

Notes, advanced course: The Scoreboard
Libya is far from the worst situation. A mere description of what’s going on is shocking enough.
Egypt: The Muslim Brotherhood rules and leaders of “former” terrorist organizations now hold high offices. Christian churches and institutions are regularly attacked; women who demonstrate against the regime are regularly raped and brutalized while the government takes no action.
Gaza Strip: Ruled by the still openly terrorist Hamas.
Lebanon: Ruled by the still openly terrorist Hizballah which has defeated the United States regarding American promises to stop it from smuggling in arms and to keep it from refortifying southern Lebanon.
Pakistan: A government which had received billions of dollars in U.S. aid but helps the Afghan Taliban and hides out al-Qaeda leaders.
Syria: Moving from the Arab nationalist skillet into the Islamist fire.
Tunisia: It is now clear after the assassination of the leading anti-Islamist politician that his murder was freely discussed as desirable beforehand at the highest levels of the “moderate” Islamist ruling party.
Turkey: Secular military officers are resigning in droves, in part because they are being forced to take back officers thrown out of the army in the past for radical Islamist activity. Dozens of officers are being arrested, imprisoned, and tried for alleged subversion though no real proof has been offered that a single such plot existed. The Turkish regime cooperates with the terrorist IHH which tried to launch at least one operation on U.S. soil.
All of the above countries have or will soon have regimes that hate America, and all except Turkey and Tunisia have at their highest levels people who openly advocated or engaged in anti-American terrorism and the killing of Americans. 


Please be subscriber 31,227 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

 We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write us here.

Obama’s War on American Generals

February 19, 2013 By  
During the Bush administration there were only two American commanders of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Under Obama there have so far been five. There has been a new ISAF commander nearly every single year that Obama has been in office. The only exception is 2012 when Obama was too busy trying to win an election to bother further sabotaging a losing war.
The parade of musical chair generals began when Obama demanded the resignation of General McKiernan. The Washington Post called the firing of a wartime commander a “rare decision.” It was the first time since the days of General Douglas MacArthur that a four-star commanding general had been purged during a war.
The decision may have been rare, but it was not unexpected. General McKiernan was fired for the same offense that General McArthur had been targeted during the Korean War: He had demanded competency from an incompetent Democrat.
McKiernan had embarrassed Obama by demanding more troops to fight the war. The situation came to a head as General McKiernan pressed an indecisive Obama to make a decision. It was a devastating scene for an administration which had covered its pivot away from Iraq with concern trolling about winning in Afghanistan. The troops would be delivered, but McKiernan would pay the price.
General McKiernan’s firing was put down to the need for fresh ideas. McKiernan was deemed too “old school” because he wanted to fight an old-fashioned war against the Taliban while Obama Inc. believed that the war couldn’t be won by beating the Taliban, but by winning the hearts and minds of Afghans. It was a fashionable and doomed strategy that required sacrificing the lives and limbs of thousands of American soldiers to political correctness.
The old-school general who had once said, “I don’t understand ever putting your men and women in harm’s way, without their having the full ability to protect themselves. That also means operating on actionable intelligence to defeat insurgents, and protect your forces. That’s how you keep your soldiers alive,” was clearly not the man for that job.
Replacing him as ISAF commander was General McChrystal. McChrystal was everything that McKiernan wasn’t. He was hip fresh blood. He voted for Obama, listened to the right music and was a big fan of counterinsurgency. He hooked up with Greg Mortenson and handed out copies of Three Cups of Tea to his staff. The book proved to be a fraud and so did the COIN strategy for winning over the Afghans.
American soldiers were prevented from defending themselves to avoid offending the Afghans and the war was not moving forward. McChrystal claimed that he had presented a plan to Washington for defeating the Taliban, but Washington only wanted their capabilities degraded. The relationship between McChrystal and Obama also degraded, and McChrystal was fired over a negative Rolling Stone article that revealed that the ISAF commander held Obama and his cronies in contempt.
Urgently, Obama swapped out General McChrystal for General Petraeus, a former enemy now turned wartime ally. In only two years, Obama had gone through three generals and fired two wartime four-star generals, setting a new record for mismanaging a war.
Petraeus’s move from Central Command to commanding the ISAF was unprecedented and did not last long. With the Taliban undefeated and the conflict shifting from a military war to a campaign of drone strikes and targeted assassinations, General Petraeus shifted over to the CIA to command the new fallback position of the war effort as Director Petraeus. But a year later, Petraeus met the same fate as McKiernan and McChrystal after alienating the CIA top brass which enmeshed him in a scandal.  It did not help matters any that Republicans were salivating over the idea of a Petraeus candidacy in 2016.
Petraeus had been replaced by General Allen, who became enmeshed in the same scandal, and the confirmation hearings of his replacement, General Dunford, were sped up. This month, Dunford has taken command of an ISAF in retreat as Afghanistan has become the new Iraq. And Dunford has become the fifth ISAF commander under Obama. Of his four predecessors, all have ended their careers under a cloud.
The War in Afghanistan has been lost and so have the careers of most of its commanders. Obama has constantly swapped out generals, and unlike the rotating allied ISAF commanders during the Bush era, many of them were fired because they threatened Obama politically in some way.
The record is an ugly one, but it is not limited to the war theater in Afghanistan. After the Benghazi disaster, General Carter Ham of AFRICOM was reportedly edged out after telling a Republican Congressman that he had not received any requests for support. His replacement, General Rodriguez, had earlier taken over part of McKiernan’s job after Obama had forced him out.
More recently General Mattis, the commander of United States Central Command, Petraeus’s old job, was booted out without even a personal phone call for being too hawkish about Iran. The insult was unprecedented and the reason was the same. Like McKiernan and McChrystal, Mattis had offended important people in the Obama administration. And for that he paid the price.
General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, exemplifies the costs of career survival in the age of Obama. Dempsey echoes everything that the civilians tell him. He never disagrees with them in public and likely not in private. Whatever new gimmick comes out of the White House, whether it’s Green Energy or homosexuality, he’s right there behind it and out in front of it.
Dempsey has no ideas of his own and he doesn’t need any. He has nothing to bring to the table except a willingness to act as Obama’s pet parrot in a uniform. When McChrystal first met Obama, he recalled thinking that Obama was “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the room full of military brass. That observation helped get McChrystal fired and these days it’s the military brass that feels uncomfortable and intimidated by Obama Inc.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

note: click on Front Page Magazine to read comments to this article.

Would Shimon Peres voted for Obama?

US President Barack Obama presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom to President Shimon Peres in the White House, June 13, 2012 (photo credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/Flash90)

US President Barack Obama presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom to President Shimon Peres in the White House, June 13, 2012 (photo credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/Flash90)

I have tried understanding the reason behind Obama receiving an award/medal from Israel's President and now, it is clearer .... the Iron Dome missile defense system (funded by the U.S.) ... !  And, perhaps because last year Obama awarded President Peres the "Presidential Medal of Freedom" ... (?)

The same President Obama who said, "The Future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" at last fall's UN meeting, (while ignoring the world leaders who deny the Holocaust, and the Christian persecutions among Islamic countries) and who just gave Egypt F-16's and tanks, will gloat over this prize for the rest of his term as president. The man who has embarrassed and insulted PM Netanyahu these past 4 plus years, and used the liberal media to slam Israel for building homes and refuses to accept the City of David, Jerusalem, as Israel's capital, is now receiving an award from Israel - this appears to be a slap in the face to Bibi, along with all who truly support Israel.

Lastly, because I love and support Israel, I understand that Israel's friendship with the United States has nothing to do with one man - Obama, but this event to be held in March when Obama visits Israel will make it far more difficult to defend Israel's position, knowing she has awarded Obama a prize that will hold no meaning to him when he next betrays our ally and friend, Israel. 

Would Shimon Peres voted for Obama if he were an American citizen?

Bee Sting/Americans Stand with Israel

Israeli President Shimon Peres has announced that he will award U.S. President Barack Obama the Presidential Medal of Distinction during his upcoming visit, the Associated Press reported.
Peres’s office said it intends to honor Obama for his “unique and significant contribution to strengthening the State of Israel and the security of its citizens.”
Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have sparred over important issues such as negotiations with the Palestinians, Iran, and Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. But Peres, a former two-time prime minister himself from the left-wing Labor party, intends to highlight Obama’s overall friendship with Israel and growing U.S.-Israel security cooperation, including American funding for the highly successful Iron Dome missile defense system that saved countless Israeli lives during last year’s Operation Pillar of Defense.
Obama, who last year awarded Peres with the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, is scheduled to visit Israel during March, his first trip to the Jewish state as president.