Saturday, October 27, 2012
Fox News Reports That CIA Command Refused To Provide Protection As Ambassador Was Being Killed In Benghazi: "Stand Down"
Fox News reports:
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”
Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.Tweet
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The Case Against The United Nations: Get The U.S. Out Of The U.N. And The U.N. Out Of The U.S.
Originally written in January 18, 2005The United Nations was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War, the greatest conflagration in world history. It was founded after six million Jews had been slaughtered (along with millions of other innocents) by Hitler's Germany, the grandest genocide in world history. The United Nations' stated purpose was to promote peace and stability around the world, and work to prevent tyrants from oppressing the innocent again. To put it bluntly, the U.N. has failed miserably. If one glances at the U.N.'s own Charter it would not take a genius to figure out that the words written there are meaningless. Since its inception the United Nations has not only proven its uselessness, but also has exhibited an extraordinary gift to side with the forces of evil.
Even in its origins, there were warning signs that some key supporters of a United Nations harbored a soft spot for totalitarianism. Alger Hiss was executive secretary for the international conference that created the United Nations and served temporarily as its first Secretary-General in San Francisco in April, 1945. Yes, Alger Hiss, the Soviet spy, his role proven beyond all doubt in the 1990's with the release of Soviet archives and Soviet cables decrypted by the FBI. Nor is this some new revelation. In 1950 Hiss was convicted of perjury and imprisoned for denying under oath that he was a spy for Stalin (incredibly, the statute of limitations on espionage had expired). The first Secretary-General of the United Nations proved to be a herald of things to come.
The InHuman Rights CommissionJust a few years ago the U.N. Commission on Human Rights was headed by the United States of America. But the U.S. was replaced with a terror-sponsoring, human rights-violating nation called Syria. If that alone does not make you sick then you must be on Syria's or the U.N.'s payroll. Syria, which hosts numerous terrorist organizations whose offices can be found in Damascus, is now working to foil the future for the people of Iraq. More recently Libya was elected to chair the commission. The same Libya, the one and only Libya, which blew up a U.S. commercial jet over Lockerbie killing 270 people in 1988. And the same Libya which, like Syria, crushes political dissent and is a gross violator of human rights. Opposition to Libya chairing the Commission came only from the United States, Canada, and Guatemala. Our pussyfooted European "friends," such as the French, decided to abstain. The U.N. Human Rights Commission has included other notorious human rights-violating governments such as Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. The U.N.'s own commission on human rights is a joke, and let's not confine this just to this one commission. Let's look at the U.N.'s "support for democracy" in its cynical abuse of Israel.
Anti-Israel or Anti-Semitic?In 1948 the U.N. passed the "Partition Plan" which set up a Jewish State alongside an Arab State. The Arab countries rejected this plan and instead decided to attack and attempt to destroy the newborn country. Fortunately they failed. But not for lack of effort. The Arab countries tried again in 1967, and again in 1973. Since 1964 there have been at least 88 Security Council resolutions against the state of Israel, and over 400 resolutions from the General Assembly. Not a single resolution has been passed condemning neighboring Arab countries for their violation of the 1948 Partition Plan. The General Assembly in particular cannot be taken seriously. It is a forum for dictators and despots to be put on a level playing field as democrats. The whole concept is antithetical to the promotion of peace. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, while leaving as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. in 1976 referred to it as a "theater of the absurd." This point was illustrated when a few years ago the U.N. had a World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa. The Durban Conference turned into a free-for-all against Israel and equated "Zionism with Racism." The Bush Administration was so disgusted that Secretary of State Colin Powell did not even attend the conference. Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold recently wrote that the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the prestigious commission mentioned above, "not only blasted Israel's 2002 Operation Defensive Shield but implicitly justified suicide bombing by referencing a 1982 U.N. resolution recognizing the right of peoples to use 'armed struggle' to resist 'foreign occupation.'"
Unfortunately, this is not shocking in any way. In 1974 the United Nations had known terrorist Yasser Arafat address the General assembly with a pistol on his hip. This literally put a terrorist responsible for killing schoolchildren as well as athletes at the Olympics on the international stage. A man who should have been an outlaw, who should have been on the run, was turned into a statesman overnight thanks to the U.N.. The U.N. formed, under U.N. auspices and funding, The Division for Palestinian Rights, The Committee for the Inalienable Rights of Palestinians, and The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting Palestinian People after Arafat's address to the General Assembly. Where is The Committee to Investigate Palestinian Human Rights Abuses Against Israelis and Palestinians? Where is the Committee to Investigate Palestinian Authority Ties to Terrorism? Where is the Committee to Eradicate Hamas?
Oh, and don't forget the scandal of Hamas terrorists working with UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency]. Peter Hansen, the U.N. Commissioner-General for Gaza and the West Bank, stated that "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime . . . we do not do political vetting and exclude people of one persuasion as against another." Peter Hanson is living in a dangerous land of moral relativism, along with all of the U.N., where those working for terrorist groups are merely "people of one persuasion." The salaries of UNRWA employees are paid by 38 contributing countries. The United States funds 30% of the UNRWA budget, or 100 million dollars of the American taxpayer's money per year. In September 2003 an Israeli Military court convicted three UNRWA members for terrorist activity. There is a history of UNRWA aiding and abetting terror, as terrorists have taken advantage of Hansen's refusal to "do political vetting."
The U.N. continuously acts against the only democracy in the Middle East. The International Court of Justice, the legal branch of the United Nations, recently ruled that Israel was prohibited from passively defending itself by putting up a barrier to stop the onslaught of suicide bombers (the lone dissenting Judge was an American). According to U.N. logic Israel is the only country that has no right to defend itself even in the face of ruthless attacks from primitive thugs craving for sexual satisfaction in the afterlife.
When Israel defends itself the U.N. will start crying about nonexistent massacres, as happened in Jenin. The same Peter Hansen lyingly told interviewers about "the wholesale obliteration" and "Jenin Camp residents living through a human catastrophe that has few parallels in recent history." He spoke of "mass graves" and claimed to have seen some of this nonexistent carnage "with my own eyes." These claims were proven to be totally false.
Anyone with a half a brain who could follow a logical beginning to a logical conclusion would be forced to say that at the very least the integrity of the United Nations is compromised, and anyone with a full brain would realize that the U.N. is very good at siding with terrorists and tyrants against the sole democracy in the Middle East. The U.N. is a propaganda arm for Arab countries and the haters of Israel. Israel has learned to ignore meaningless U.N. resolutions. It should not have to.
Remember Rwanda and Don't Forget BosniaThe Rwandan genocide in 1994 was a massive tragedy. Not only was it a tragedy in the sense that so many innocent people were brutally murdered, but also because everybody who had the power to stop the genocide sat by idly and watched. The Hutu militias killed 800,000 Tutsis in the span of 100 days, a faster rate of extermination than the Holocaust. Kenneth L. Cain served in U.N. peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti. He is a self proclaimed "liberal multilateralist on the left." But he wrote devastating words about his own organization. He wrote:
"This is not a genocide in which the U.N. failed to intervene; most of the U.N.'s armed troops evacuated after the first two weeks of massacres, abandoning vulnerable civilians to their fate, which included, literally, the worst things in the world a human being can do to a another human being. It did not have to happen. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the U.N.'s force commander in Rwanda, sent Mr. Annan a series of desperate faxes including one warning that Hutu militias 'could kill up to 1,000' in '20 minutes' and others pleading for authority to protect vulnerable civilians. But at the crucial moment, Mr. Annan ordered his general to stand down and to vigorously protect, not genocide victims, assembled in their numbers waiting to die, but the U.N.'s image of 'impartiality.' The outline of the story is well known, but its most important detail is not: Tutsis often gathered in compounds . . . where they had implicit, and sometimes explicit, promises of protection by Blue Helmeted peacekeepers. The U.N.'s withdrawal was, therefore, not a passive failure to protect but an active, lethal one."The U.N. failed the innocent victims of Bosnia as well. It took U.S. military action, without U.N. approval, to end the horrors taking place in Bosnia. Cain relates the account of how the U.N. failed to protect the people of Srebrenica even in U.N. declared "safe areas." As Cain himself put it:
"Ten years ago, thousands of Muslim civilians concentrated here [Srebrenica] seeking shelter at a U.N. base. Serb Militias separated men and boys from their women and put them on buses. Armed Blue Helmet U.N. Peacekeepers- tasked under Mr. Annan's leadership to protect Srebrenica's civilians in this U.N.-Declared 'Safe Area'- watched passively . . . Across the street lies a new cemetery and memorial for the 8,000 men of Srebrenica."Kenneth L. Cain believes that for these reasons Kofi Annan should resign. No one should shed a tear if Kofi Annan resigns. But Mr. Cain should realize that placing the blame for the actions of the entire organization on one man is merely an excuse to exempt the United Nations itself from responsibility. The problem does not start and end with Kofi Annan. Kofi's brand of impartiality impugns the entire United Nations. The U.N.'s history of impotence makes "U.N. Peacekeeper" an oxymoron. When genocides take place under the U.N.'s nose, when the U.N. is close enough to smell the stench of death, and does nothing, in violation of its founding principles, the problem goes well beyond Kofi Annan. The problem is the corrupt culture of the United Nations. Cain revisited Rwanda and met a famous Tutsi survivor by the name of Charles Kagena, a man who hid in the bell tower of a church which was bulldozed to the ground burying the Tutsis inside alive. Upon telling the survivor he worked for the U.N., Charles looked Cain "straight in the eye, with his one good eye, and shot back, 'What are you doing here? You had the ability to save us but you abandoned us.' "
The U.N. Oil-for-Fraud ScandalThe U.N. Oil-for-Food program was responsible for providing relief to the people of Iraq between 1996 and 2003. The purpose of this program was for the U.N. to approve oil contracts with Saddam in exchange for humanitarian supplies. It is now known that there was massive corruption going on within the program as Saddam Hussein bribed U.N. officials while making a handsome profit off of the program. Congressional investigators have come to the horrifying but yet not so shocking conclusion that Saddam Hussein stole over 20 billion dollars from the Iraqi people.
What is most disturbing is that Saddam got away with his scheme due to U.N. complicity. Evidence from the Iraqi Oil Ministry suggests that the Executive Director of the U.N. Oil-for-Food office, Benon Sevan, received 11.5 million barrels worth of oil vouchers (which could be used in exchange for commissions between 5 and 30 cents), enough to make anywhere between $575,000 and $3,500,000. Evidence has mounted to discredit those who believed that the United States ignored our "friends" on the Security Council and that the United States could and should have gotten French and Russian support for toppling Saddam's regime. Our "allies" on the Council were very much involved in the corruption taking place within Oil-for-Food. French and Russian companies, according to the Times of London, yielded an estimated profit of $11 billion. The beneficiary list found in the Iraqi Oil Ministry included former French Interior Minister Charles Pasque, former French Ambassador to the U.N. Jean-Bernard Merimee, and Patrick Maugein, the CEO of oil company Soco International, a financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac.
Showing an audacity bordering on insanity, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has refused to cooperate with U.S. Congressional Investigators, laying the claim that the U.N. reigns supreme and is accountable to no one. If you do not understand how huge this scandal is, I will spell it out for you. Iraq invades Kuwait, the U.S. repels Iraq's army, and leads the U.N. Security Council to smack Iraq with sanctions. Aside from Hussein's war of economic plunder and territorial conquest, Saddam used Weapons of Mass Destruction against his own people, put hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis into mass graves, mutilated, and tortured Iraqis, used torture chambers, and even used poisons in human experiments. With all this in mind, was the U.N. doing everything in its power to keep Saddam's hands tied behind his back and to help the Iraqi people? Unfortunately, the evidence has mounted to the contrary. Saddam got twenty billion, some of which were used to support terror including suicide bombers in Israel.
Adding injury to injury, Saddam was actively working to undermine and end the sanctions against him so he could rebuild his WMD program, according to the findings of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Duelfer Report). The U.N., through Oil-for-Food, was giving Saddam the means to do just that. Had the U.S. not taken action against Saddam, and the sanctions had unraveled, we would be living in a far more dangerous world. And just in case you were curious, Kofi's son Kojo has been tied to the scandal for connections to the Switzerland-based firm, Cotecna, which worked on contract for the U.N. monitoring shipments to Iraq for Oil-for-Food from 1999 onward. Like father, like son. Kojo claimed "the whole issue has been a witch hunt from day one as part of a broader Republican political agenda." Great tactic, Kojo. Blame Republicans, "the evil McCarthyite witch hunters," and see if that shakes the fleas off your back. Over fifty years ago the likes of Alger Hiss also claimed to be the victims of a witch hunt as part of a broader Republican political agenda, but of course Hiss and many others were later proven beyond any doubt to be Soviet spies. This investigation of U.N. corruption is no witch hunt, Kojo. It is the exposé of the truth.
The "Illegal" Invasion of IraqTo make things worse, "The Dishonorable Judge" Kofi Annan had the audacity to refer to the U.S. led liberation of Iraq as "illegal." So according to the U.N.'s own Secretary-General, deposing a despot responsible for numerous crimes against humanity was an act which violates some international law. Even if the U.N. itself did not have the means to topple Saddam, it stands to reason that when a freedom-loving nation wants to bestow the gift of liberty upon an oppressed people, the U.N. should be its loudest cheerleader. Another point that the U.N.'s chief ignores is that Saddam Hussein kicked out U.N. inspectors in 1998 and only allowed them back in because the U.S. military was mounted on his doorstep. There was a decade of U.N. resolutions against Saddam's Iraq including Resolution 1441 which called on Hussein to disclose what happened to his WMD's, disarm, or face "serious consequences." If enforcing U.N. resolutions is against the law then Annan caught us red-handed. If anything the U.S. kept the U.N. from condemning itself to irrelevancy by not allowing Saddam to continue to stand up to the international community.
But the United Nations would rather focus on the so called "preemptive war" of George W. Bush than actually have to deal with real law-breakers like Saddam Hussein. Kofi Annan himself stated in his Nobel lecture: "The Sovereignty of Nations must no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights." Annan even turned himself into a pseudo military expert when he sent a letter to President Bush two days before the presidential elections which asked that the United States not attack the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah. So not only was the liberation of Iraq "illegal" to begin with, but now that Saddam's regime had been toppled it was inadvisable to root out those trying to destroy the prospects of a free Iraq in what was then the main base of insurgent operations. Despite Kofi's objections, the assault on Fallujah ended with the killing of 1,200 insurgents and capturing of over 1,000, without the element of surprise. Kofi seemed to conveniently forget that it was Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi who gave the green light for the assault on Fallujah. Allawi is in stark contrast to Annan. Allawi came to the United States to address Congress. He said he had a message that he "would like to deliver directly from my people to yours: Thank you America." Allawi is grateful for the sacrifices made by America to liberate Iraq and build a democracy. Allawi says "Thank you" while Kofi cries "Illegal."
Be a Realist, Not a MultilateralistThe purpose of multilateralism is to lessen the price, burden, and sacrifice that any one country should have to pay when confronting evil. But multilateralism is always a means to an end. The United States must never worry about passing what Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry called "the global test." Just so you understand, unilateralism for the sake of unilateralism is stupid and will cause us to bear an unnecessary burden. That being said, it is also true that if the United States feels that there are threats to its security the U.S.A. should attempt to garner international support but should never make action conditional upon it. The security of the American People should always be placed above the concerns of our so-called "Allies." Nobody should have veto power when it comes to protecting America.
Multilateralism also has its pitfalls. Just look at Sudan. The whole world is speaking of genocide and mass murder in Darfur but yet everyone sits on their laurels. If no one country is willing to bear the burden alone, or lead the way toward action and hope others follow suit, we all end up doing nothing. Many countries had the ability to unilaterally save the Tutsis in Rwanda but did not. The U.S. unilaterally saved Muslims in Bosnia. The U.S. led a "coalition of the willing" to liberate the people of Iraq. To ignore abuses abroad while waiting for the "oh so holy Multilateralism" is futile and dangerous. America should never forfeit moral superiority to the likes of the United Nations. The United Nations is a corrupt and morally bankrupt organization.
Far too many seem to believe that the U.N. is the sole arbiter of moral truth, justice, and law. That's pure poppycock. The U.N. is deserving of shame and disgrace. It deserves to be shipped out of the United States. It especially does not deserve to be placed on some special pedestal. The U.N. is treated completely differently than the U.S. The U.N. is always given a free pass and little attention is paid to its faults. The slightest mishap by U.S. forces, on the other hand, causes complete upheaval and media scrutiny. Just recently, the so called U.N. "Peacekeepers" in the Democratic Republic of Congo exchanged eggs, bread, and a few dollars for sex with girls, some as young as 13, that they were meant to protect. If there were even a hint that U.S. soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan were committing these egregious acts, all hell would break loose, politicians and the media would jump on the scandal, and no doubt people would be calling for Donald Rumsfeld's head (as happened with the Abu Graib prison scandal). U.N. peacekeepers sexually abuse little girls, and it makes not a dime's worth of difference. The U.N. is always given the "get out of jail free card" while the U.S. is always told to "go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars."
The time has come for the U.S. to lead the world in forming a new Coalition of Democracies in which every member country must provide its citizens with freedom to vote, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Without the U.S. as a member, and without U.S. funding, the United Nations will deteriorate, just as the League of Nations was doomed to failure without U.S. participation. The U.N. has had its try. It has failed. The United States is the greatest country in all of world history and should not be sitting in the mud pool known as the U.N. which is filled with those who are rooting for the U.S. to fail, and where our "friends" are trying to provide a "global balance" to the United States. We will never surrender. Even though the U.N. would like us to. Tweet
Obama Tells Rolling Stone Mitt Romney Is A "Bullshitter"
From Rolling Stone:
We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview … on the morning of October 11th. … As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. … [S]he said, ‘Tell him: You can do it.’ Obama grinned. … ‘You know, kids have good instincts,’ Obama offered. ‘They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.”’Tweet
U.N. Human Rights Council, Which Bush Had Refused To Be A Part Of But Obama Joined, Calls For American Companies Doing Business With Israel To Be Boycotted
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
The Washington Free Beacon has obtained a report soon to be released by the United Nations that calls for an international campaign of legal attacks and economic warfare on a group of American companies that do business in Israel, including Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar Inc., and Motorola Solutions Inc. The Human Rights Council (HRC), a body dominated by Islamic countries and known for its hostility to, and heavy focus on, the Jewish State, issued the report. The George W. Bush administration refused to participate in the HRC, but President Barack Obama joined it soon after taking office. Members of the HRC include infamous human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Libya, China, and Cuba. The Obama-approved body maintains a “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories [sic].” The current rapporteur is American college professor Richard Falk, a 9/11 “truther” who once posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his personal blog. In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman blasted the report and the HRC’s special rapporteur: “We believe you should have prevented the Secretariat from being a party to Mr. Falk’s anti-Israel agenda. Mr. Falk’s entire tenure as Special Rapporteur has served to undermine the credibility of the institution of the United Nations.”Tweet
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Princeton Economist Harvey Rosen: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study On Romney's Tax Plan
The Obama campaign shot out an e-mail declaring in part that "[P]rinceton economist Harvey Rosen...concede[s] that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000." The only problem is that's not true. Professor Rosen responded to the e-mail blasting the Obama campaign for misrepresenting his views of Romney's tax plan:
"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.Tweet
Democrat Jewish NY Assemblyman Heads To Florida To Stump For Romney
Hikind is convinced that the election is of huge importance for America and Israel, saying:
“This is one of the most important
elections I have ever been a part of. I hope to convince my fellow
democrats that the choice this year should be a Republican. Looking at
the last four years, I can’t think of a single area where we have been
successful. People in Florida have asked me to come down and speak to
Democratic voters. I am more than happy to do my part to help and, in
fact, I made that offer on national television when I appeared with Neil
Cavuto on Fox News. I am going down there, as a Democrat, to speak to
Democrats about my concerns.”
Hikind likened the 2012 election to 2000:
“Remember the Gore/Bush election not too
long ago and how close it was? This election is very important to me and
my community and I am doing my part as an individual to get across my
very strong feelings. I really believe that we need a change.”
In September, Hikind was quoted as saying:
"Israel is under the gun. Israel is the
target of Iran. Israel's existence is being threatened. And Obama
doesn't have time to meet with the Israeli PM? It's insulting. It's
degrading. This president scares me. I'm a Democrat, but not a knee-jerk
Democrat. I'm only loyal to America and the survival of Israel."
Tweet
Iraqi Vice President: Iran Supplying Syria's Assad Through Ground Convoys Coming In From Iraq
Foreign Policy reports:
For several months, the U.S. government has been urging the Iraqi government to stop Iran from supplying arms to the Syrian regime through commercial flights over Iraqi airspace, but a larger amount of supplies is now crossing Iraq via convoys on the ground, Iraq's exiled Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi told The Cable.
Hashimi has been living in Turkey following his indictment and subsequent conviction in absentia by Iraqi government courts that he says are working with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Central Criminal Court of Iraq sentenced him to death last month for allegedly participating in acts of terrorism against his own political opponents,, charges widely seen as political in nature.
But Hashimi is still technically the vice president and he is fighting for what he calls a "fair trial." He argues that Maliki has hijacked the Iraqi political system and become beholden to Iranian interests, which include supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Hashimi said he has evidence and reports from politicians, from officers in the Interior Ministry, and from Iraqi intelligence officials, all pointing to a growing and active ground transport route from Iran to Syria. The route crosses through the Zarbatia checkpoint on the Iran-Iraq border, west of the Iranian town of Mehran, flows through the city of Karbala, and crosses over to Syria via the al-Qaim border crossing, he said.
"The transit is not only aerial using Iraqi airspace, but the ground transit is becoming a phenomenon. Munitions, heavy arms, and even militias are passing checkpoints without any sort of obstruction," Hashimi said in a telephone interview. "I am very afraid the U.S. and the international community is only focused on the aerial transit and leaving behind the ground transit. Everything should be checked now."
Tweet
Bob Woodward: Obama Was Not Telling The Truth, "Mistaken," "Not Correct," On Defense Sequestration Budget Cuts
Bob Woodward says President Barack Obama got some of his facts wrong on sequester at Monday night’s debate. Woodward’s book, “The Price of Politics,” has been the go-to fact check source for the president’s answer, in which he claimed the idea of using deep, automatic, across-the-board domestic and defense spending cuts to force Congress to address the nation’s burgeoning federal deficit originated from Congress, not from the White House. “What the president said is not correct,” Woodward told POLITICO Tuesday. “He’s mistaken. And it’s refuted by the people who work for him.” Woodward, a Washington Post journalist who was a key reporter on the initial coverage of the Watergate scandal, said he stands behind his reporting in the book, which drew upon sources involved in last year’s deficit talks and detailed notes taken in the meetings. Woodward reports in his book that White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew and Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors took the proposal for sequestration to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and then it was presented to congressional Republicans. During the debate, however, Obama said the idea originated on Capitol Hill. “First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed,” Obama said, adding his strongest pronouncement to date on its future: “It will not happen.”Tweet
Analysis Of Third Presidential Debate On Foreign Policy: Explaining Romney's Strategy
There was not a lot of foreign policy disagreement during the debate, with a couple notable exceptions, though I have a feeling this was planned by Romney. The Romney camp's strategy being to not appear combative on national security, to not seem trigger happy, to not seem like a warmonger, to not seem "reckless," and to move the debate back to the economy tomorrow, just making sure you skate by t
he debates seeming like a credible Commander-in-Chief.
The evidence of this being actual strategy, for better or worse, is Mitt not even getting into the Libya controversy. There had to be a conscious decision of the campaign after last week's exchange over Libya deciding how to respond to it in this next debate, counter-punch even harder or ignore. Romney went with the latter, with the goal of seeming presidential when discussing foreign affairs and then moving back to the economy for the home stretch. And the whole debate was reflective of that strategy.
I would have responded very differently on much of the substance, but we'll have to see whether Mitt chose the right approach in terms of how it plays out over the next couple weeks until voting time with swing voters. In fact, he may have predicted the underlying attack Obama would levy against him, because Obama's closing statement about Romney being "reckless" seemed rehearsed, not at all taking the context of the actual debate into account in which there appeared to be overall general agreement on a number of issues.
Tweet
Monday, October 22, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)