Martha Coakley Is Not Just Wrong on Terror War – She's Dangerous (Must-See Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 4:52 AM
There are no terrorists in Afghanistan?
On Wednesday December 30 Jordanian doctor and Al-Qaeda blogger Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi killed 7 CIA officers in a suicide bomb attack at an outpost in southeastern Afghanistan. Before he murdered the Americans in Afghanistan he recorded a tape with the local Taliban leader. The Taliban released the tape after his death.
On Monday Senate Candidate Martha Coakley told Massachusetts voters that it was time to pull out of Afghanistan. Coakley said she was not sure there was a way to succeed.
“I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”
She’s not just wrong- She’s dangerous.
In his “martyrdom” tape Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi warned that the Al-Qaeda attacks would spread outside of the Pakistan-Afghanistan borders.
And Martha Coakley says, “I’m not sure there is a way to succeed.”
More… The Weekly Standard also captured Coakley’s horrible gaffe.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Yikes! Dem Presidential Candidate John Wolfe Closes in On Barack Obama in Arkansas (Video)
Published May 15, 2012 at 8:05 pm - 33 Comments
BigAlSouth commented:
Let’s just hope that Massachusetts voters recognize that the time for automatic elevation of a party hack is no longer in the nation’s best interest when matters of national security are a priority.
nadadhimmi commented:
This Coakley person is a deluded, dangerous fool. Her stupidity and gullibility is just exactly what the terrorists depend upon to survive and continue their world wide campaign of cultist murder. She is a PERFECT match for the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts. Liberal, crooked as a dogs hind leg, and above all STUPID.
Fuzzy commented:
Exactly right, she’s wrong and dangerous. Please help us elect Scott Brown to the U. S. Senate to stop this coddling of terrorists madness!
http://www.brownforussenate.com/
Redwine commented:
Coakley also has no understanding of who the Taliban are. She refers to them as if they were some kind of national entity that allowed terrorists to operate: “If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists”. The Taliban doesn’t “harbor” terrorists. They ARE the terrorists, just as the Hizballah, Fatah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorists. In this light, she’s probably one of those naive, befuddled leftarded infidels who think that the Taliban, Hizballah, Fatah, ad nauseam, have political and military “wings”.
syn commented:
Personally; I think Roman Catholic Mass, largest single denominations 3,092,296 in the state, because of deeply devout Roman Catholics Mass Abortionists Senators Kerry and Kennedy were quite active in sabotaging America’s efforts in defeating Islamic Jihad.
Stupid Catholic trick aside at the end of the day I will say that:
In the cause of aborting Obamacare, it’s a good thing that Scott Brown is pro-choice otherwise deeply devout Catholic Mass would vote for Pope Pelosi’s Holy Priests of Kennedy candidate.
I do not care what hell Catholic Mass brings upon its own soul however in the name of all that is Godly just keep those Catholic Mass hands off my private health care and out of the business of getting Americans killed.
Dear Mass-you have some strange Catholicism supporting abortion, looting and pillaging children, government death-care, while sabotaging America’s right to defend herself.
Catholic Mass, bypass purgatory-you are hell.
syn commented:
That should say ‘Roman Catholic Mass is more dangerous than the Taliban’
Robb76 commented:
Damn. It is tough being part of a church that causes all the ills in the world.
syn commented:
“It is tough being part of a church that causes all the ills in the world.”
It must be even harder being part of a church which consistently betrays its own faith; how do you commune with such rotting corrupted body and not feel like you slime God?
squeaky commented:
this is probably what she meant – 100 al qaeda
of course that could change in a nano-second [if in fact true] since what maybe inhospitable to us is home sweet home to them. it seems just like yesterday we were taking lumps for leaving afghanistan [support wise] which allowed the taliban to take power.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861
Hedgehog commented:
Martha Coakley is just another empty headed tool of the Progressive movement. She is dangerous on so many levels. The good people of Massachusetts are about to speak. And they will be heard. This election will be the next shot heard round the world. Pretty soon the Progs will be looking for cover. First to go will be Cadillac Deval, next will be Swiftboat Kerry.
Dante commented:
She should know. I mean she has all that military experience.
syn commented:
I am serious about my question; how do Catholics live inside such a dirty cups yet never take in account how much they blaspheme God.
I believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost however I have no faith in religious organizations.
Seriously, what is the Catholic Church teaching which created Mass Hell?
Torture is knowing that Catholic Church teaches ‘sanctity of life’ yet consistently empowers the political party of aborting babies and euthanize elderly.
Boogy commented:
Don’t worry Coakley, ZeroBummer has it all worked out. Destroy the U.S economy, shoot small children with drone strikes in Pakistan and bow to Abdullah again, while sending him some hefty U.S. tax payer stimulus packages to Saudi Arabia. Just thankin’ Mass achussetts is like the term Massiah — the White House leader who cannot get enough T.V. exposure of his golf-game. ZeroBummer apologized to the Taliban before, he will do it again. When the taliban use Children as human shields, The Zero gets all Wee-wee’ed up.
bill-tb commented:
Proving you can’t fix stupid.
OCBill commented:
If I understand her correctly, according to Coakley, there is no way to succeed in getting rid of the Taliban because we already succeeded in getting rid of the Taliban?
Lockandload commented:
I am surprised that the issue of her not prosecuting the infamous priest Geoghan in the ninties has not come up. She gave him a pass.
http://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/coakley-refused-to-press-charges-against-creepo-priest/
LeBron Steinman commented:
Unfortunately , none of this makes a difference. In Kennedychussettes ,they could run a dead weasel and as long as it has a (D) after it’s name, it’s in.
Nahanni commented:
If the brain dead fools of Massachusetts “elect” Coakley then they will richly deserve everything they get. When a “man made disaster” hits Boston I don’t want to hear any complaining out of them-they should be enjoying the event as a work of “performance art”.
Irish commented:
Syn
I thought I would let you in on a little secret. Not all Catholics support Democrats, abortion, Obummercare, etc. My LARGE Irish Catholic family has not voted Democrat for ages. Nor do we support abortion. In fact, many of my friends who are Evangelical Christian, Jews and non-believers voted for Obama. I debated for many hours how Obama was Muslim, worst pro-abortionist, a Marxist. I read both of his books, Obama told everyone what he was about in them. In fact, one person told me she would vote for Obama because Pat Robertson(700 club) was going to. Mr. Robertson did support Obama on his show. Does this mean that the 700 club should be lumped in with all your hatered toward the Catholic Church. Does this mean all Evangilical Christians are evil, too? You will continue to hate the church and spew anti-Catholic rants but you have that right. A right by the way that my Catholic military family gave you!
Slappy commented:
LeBron Steinman
January 12th, 2010 | 8:39 am | #19
Unfortunately , none of this makes a difference. In Kennedychussettes ,they could run a dead weasel and as long as it has a (D) after it’s name, it’s in.
If that were always true, there wouldn’t have been a Governor Weld, Cellucci, or Romney in that state. Yes, the odds are always stacked against Republicans in Mass. but the environment that exists today gives a solid Republican candidate like Brown as good as chance as any, especially against a weak Democratic candidate like Coakley, who doesn’t have the advantage of incumbency.
drjohn commented:
Yep. She’s a complete idiot.
That makes her perfect for Massachusetts.
Ladue Pundit commented:
Harry Reid – Mormon
Barack Obama – United Church of Christ
Hillary Clinton – Methodist
Bill Clinton – Baptist
Chuck Schumer – Jewish
Rahm Emmanuel – Jewish
David Axelrod – Jewish
Barbara Boxer – Jewish
Dianne Feinstein – Jewish
Jesse Jackson – Baptist
Why are you singling out Catholics, syn? Could it be that you have an ax to grind with the Church?
The people I’ve listed here have done much damage to the U.S., but I do not blame their religious affiliation. They are first and foremost LIBERALS, and DEMOCRATS. Therein lies the problem.
syn commented:
“Not all Catholics support Democrats, abortion, Obummercare, etc”
Since 50% of weekly Catholic goers voted for the president who is more extreme against the ‘Sanctity of Life’ than NARAL and who advocated the baby die after the initial abortion failed then perhaps the Catholic Church could abandon their false prophecy that they defend the Sanctity of Life?
Both candidates running for Kennedy’s seat, by the way, are pro-choice Roman Catholic.
I am sorry the inside of your Church’s cup is so dirty and that the worshipers inside your Church hate your Church more than I but would you please stop lying about protecting the Sanctity of Life.
syn commented:
Why single out Catholics?
Nancy Pelosi -Catholic
Ted Kennedy- Catholic
John Kerry- Catholic
Martha Coakley- Catholic
Joe Biden -Catholic
Claire McCaskill -Catholic
Kathleen Sebelius -Catholic
Jennifer Granholm -Catholic
Arnold Schwarzenegger -Catholic
Rudy Guiliani -Catholic
Andrew Cuomo – Catholic
Michael Steele –Catholic
This is just the short list.
My question still remains, why do Catholics persistanly betray their faith?
Ladue Pundit commented:
Since 50% of weekly Catholic goers voted for the president —syn
January 12th, 2010 | 9:54 am | #28
syn, I am from a family of 9 kids. One of us voted for Obama (he’s a musician with a well known rock band.) BTW, he’s the only one who does NOT attend mass.
My boss is a Catholic who voted for Obama–he doesn’t attend church, either. A lot of cultrural Catholics–beer, bingo, unions, etc.–cannot be lumped in with the faithful.
Our Church has not split (officially) like some Protestant denominations who were able to distance themselves from the liberal evolvist theologians in their creed.
I think it’s small of you to post this tripe on Jim Hoft’s (a Catholic) site @ First Things (a Catholic site). Kind of ironic, also, that you are condemning our entire faith when this site is on the RIGHT side.
As for Scott Brown, he’s a step in the right direction. At this point in our nation’s history, I’m willing to take that step.
syn commented:
I would not point out the inside of the Catholic Church’s dirty cup if not for the fact that this particular religious organization has unrighteous power in America and is doing dreadfully immoral things to those with moral conscience!
syn commented:
“syn, I am from a family of 9 kids. One of us voted for Obama (he’s a musician with a well known rock band.) BTW, he’s the only one who does NOT attend mass.”
I made the point specifically about ‘weeky’ since the percentage of quasi-attending catholics who voted for Obama is HIGHER than those who attend weekly.
wanumba commented:
Reality of Churches:
EVERY church is made up of the following three groups:
1) SMALL group of COMMITTED Christians
2) larger group of NOMINAL Christians
3) Everyone else are Happy Pagans.
Catholic or Protestant, doesn’t matter.
The Committed Christians will vote/act consistently with Biblical guidance, many of the NOMINAL Christians will vote/act social trendy or selfish, the Happy Pagans vote/act social trendy or selfish. Nominal Christians and Happy Pagans outnumber the Committed Christians in most churches. Some churches don’t have a single Committed Christian in them.
Politicians trawling for votes are quite aware of this.
Instead of Catholic and Protestants sniping at each other, blame-gaming instead of admitting this reality, the winning strategy is to unite the Committed Christians from all churches and denominations.
They will be a noticeably smaller bunch, but God has their backs.
syn commented:
Further; I am asking these question on Jim’s site because I want to understand why the Catholic Church is so divided.
DO you not realize that people like myself would like to belong to a church BUT because the church is so corrupt there is no where to go?
Has it ever occurred to you how torturous it is for people who look into a Church only to see the Church betrays its own faith!
Ladue Pundit commented:
If the Catholic Church wielded so much power, we’d not be giving any tax money to Planned Parenthood, abortion would be illegal, same sex marriage would be illegal, divorce would be a rarity, for starters.
I am sorry that you have fused your disgust for liberals with an obviously deep-seated hatred of the Church. Today is your lucky day, syn. I have moved you to the top of my prayer list. You have just topped El Presidente. Blessings!
Sojourner commented:
Irish.. like you, I’m an East coast Catholic kid…love my faith, but detest the ‘dirty cup’ its institution is..
the article here hits on a small bit of what a ‘tool’ the Church has become for that creep, Soros in establishing the ‘new world order:’
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff367.htm
we are in a fight to save our country from. (hopeful that Brown wins). … while faith is strong, practicing it in the current ‘Church’ is hypocrisy to so many American Catholics like me..
bill hedrick commented:
I have my own issues with the Catholic Church, but thats what they are, my issues. syn my lad, you have only 1 souls to worry about, your own. I will give you this one bit of advice: get right with Him yourself. Everything else will take care of itself.
Ladue Pundit commented:
bill hedrick
January 12th, 2010 | 10:59 am | #39
Agreed. Right now we have a Republic to save, and electing Coakley would be a win for the majority party of destructionists, and that’s a loss for everyone.
Solaratov commented:
syn
January 12th, 2010 | 8:03 am | #14
So, you’re saying that ONLY the Catholic Church has people within its flock that don’t adhere to Church doctrine? Or are hypocrites? Or are Christians of convenience?
Or is it only the Catholics of Massachusetts?
Religious bigotry is quite unattractive, syn; and is no better or more justifiable than any other kind of bigotry.
Irish commented:
Those politicians who state that they are Catholic do so only when it is convenient for them to use the Church for their purpose. I also know a great deal of people who say that they are Catholic, but are far from it. This does not mean that my faith is diminished because of them or that I would abandon my beliefs. I do not believe I “drink from a filthy cup”. I uphold the teachings of my faith, including confronting people who would call themselves Catholic yet uphold that they are pro-choice and voted for Obama, as I would to anyone calling themselves a Christian or Jew. This also includes writing Bishops and letting them know that they need to publically excommunicate Pelosi and her ilk. I also know many blacks and latinos who voted for Obummer, but I also know many who didn’t. This means I judge a person on what they not only say, but do. But, as before your anti-Catholic stand is noted. You are allowed to freely express this opinion and when you do so please thank a veteran, especially the ones from the large Irish Catholic family!
Solaratov commented:
syn
January 12th, 2010 | 10:47 am | #36
Has it ever occurred to you how torturous it is for people who look into a Church only to see the Church betrays its own faith!
************************************************************
Has it ever occurred to you how tortuous and irritating it is to listen to whiney little snots who get so bent out of shape because not everyone in a particular church (or other organization) doesn’t/can’t/won’t live up to the whiner’s “standards” and believe as they do in all things?
Church congregations are made up of people. And people don’t always live exactly as we’d like them to.
That not everyone in a particular denomination lives and acts as you would have them is certainly no reason to attack the whole denomination; and to do so only demonstrates your own unChristian attitudes and behavior.
If you can’t find the rigidity/piety/dedication that you seek in the Catholic Church, why don’t you try another denomination? Perhaps you’ll find what you are looking for.
Robb76 commented:
syn
We all aware that there are rogues in our church.
But pray tell, what has that to do with our Lord.
I attend Mass to worship the triune God and to meet Jesus at the Eucharist. The points you make contain some truth and that is unfortunate but so what?
The Gates of Hell shall not prevail etc.
bg commented:
++
syn @ 7:23 am #7
you need to separate Church
from State, that being said..
Pope Benedict XVI Speaks Out Against
Abortion, Euthanasia, Genetic Testing
[The Vatican (LifeNews.com) -- In a Wednesday address, Pope Benedict XVI spoke out against abortion, euthanasia, and casual genetic testing that could lead to abortion decisions. The pontiff said more legislation is needed to protect human life from these very real threats and that laws are only just when they protect the vulnerable.
The only just laws "are those laws that safeguard the sacredness of human life and reject the acceptance of abortion, euthanasia and unrestrained genetic experiments," Benedict said.
Failure to recognize a respect for human life in the law leads to a "dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything definitive and leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self and one's own desires,"
he said.
He added a "an objective, unchanging truth accessible to human reason and that concerns practical action" exists -- something that guides pro-life people.
"In our time especially in some countries, there is a worrying disconnect between reason, which has the task of discovering the ethical values of human dignity, and freedom, which has the responsibility to welcome them and promote them," Benedict said.
Pope Benedict dedicated his weekly talk to the writings of 12th-century British philosopher and theologian, John of Salisbury.
John eventually went into exile with St. Thomas Becket as a reaction to King Henry II to affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Centuries later, the Pope said John's writing still have relevance today, especially on pro-life issues.
"John's insights are most timely today in light of the threats to human
life and dignity posed by legislation inspired more by the 'dictatorship of relativism' than by the sober use of right reason and concern for the principles of truth and justice inscribed in the natural law," he said.
According to a CNS report, Pope Benedict also said laws today need to respect the separation of church and state -- not by prohibiting the introduction of morality in the law but by protecting religious freedom.
The Pope said that even with the advent of the Internet, Catholics must
be mindful of the kind of communications they employ as they attempt to persuade others to adopt pro-life views.
He said "there remains an urgent need to communicate messages endowed with wisdom, that is, inspired by truth, by goodness and beauty."]
not to mention politics from personal beliefs, even Hitler claimed to be a Christian, yet he detested Christianity along with the rich, the capitalists, the Jews, and “the System”, hmmm hmmm hmmm..
==
Vangel commented:
This is one issue on which the Republicans are vulnerable. The bottom line is that the Afghan and Iraq adventures were a bad idea from the beginning. While one could make a case to attack the al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan there is no way that an occupation of either Afghanistan or Iraq will end in a good way.
On this issue Republicans should learn from Ron Paul and argue for pulling all troops home. There is no need to create enemies by using drones to kill innocent civilians in the hope of getting the odd terrorist. All that would do is create even more enemies at home and abroad.
For the life of me I can’t understand why Republicans would consider cowardice and intervention a virtue. Why would they be so scared of a handful of idiots who hate the US government because it invades foreign countries and props up foreign dictators. The, ‘home of the brave,’ can learn a lot from the British and learn to accept that there is no way to provide perfect security. By giving up your liberties in the hope that some TSA employee will get lucky you have already lost the struggle.
Stop shooting yourselves in the foot and start attacking the Democrats where they are vulnerable. Attack the intervention into the economy that so many Americans oppose and stop reminding voters that both parties are corrupt and favour of the growth of state over individual liberty.
bg commented:
++
ps: syn @ 7:23 am #7
“Legislative action in favor of abortion is incompatible with participation
in the Eucharist,” the statement said, and politicians who vote that way should “exclude themselves from communion.”
btw syn, why the HUGE distraction away
from the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR??
==
bg commented:
++
It’s not over until it’s over
[According to John Brennan, head of the White House's homeland security office, the war on terrorism is over. From now on, the administration will never use terms like "jihadists" and "global war" because doing so, as Mr. Brennan said, "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve." He insisted that the U.S. is at "war with al Qaeda" ("U.S. no longer at war with 'terrorism' ," Page 1, Friday).
Could we be more blind? Acts of terror are rooted in the aspirations
of Islamists to create an Islamic state and impose their version of Shariah law.]
more @ link & here
==
bg commented:
++
“The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama”
['He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.
He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.
He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.]
more @ link..
==
bg commented:
++
Weakening Islamism is Vital to Improve US Image in the Muslim world
[In addition, after President Obama came to office in 2009, the number of home-grown Islamist terror plots inside the US has risen dramatically compared to the previous years. The Year of 2009 represents the highest level of domestic home-grown Islamic radicalism in the US since 2001.
We must question why President Obama's approach with the Muslim world has not succeeded yet in at least having a more positive effect in improving the US image in several Muslim countries or in decreasing the rate of home-grown Islamic radicalism on the home front. One of the main reasons for this lack of success is that US strategic communications with the Muslim world was largely based on the assumption that the problem of Islamic Radicalism and hatred to America is primarily because of the US foreign policy with the Muslim world and thus changing this policy will change the latter. This can only work if the main problem was in the US approach; however, if the main problem was in the Muslim world, such an approach cannot succeed as it will be like trying to change the keys to open a room while the problem is in the rusty lock! In the latter situation, changing the lock - or in other words changing the Muslim world itself - is crucial to solving the problem.
Improving the image of the US in the Muslim world before the proliferation of the phenomenon of Islamism was a very different task compared to trying to improve its image after the phenomenon has proliferated. While traditional approaches of diplomatic, economic and social engagement had the possibility of working with the earlier situation, non-traditional ways to weaken Islamism are now needed for today's situation.
Islamism, or the broad collection of movements to impose intolerant forms of Islamic teachings and practices, has made many in the Muslim world unable to be satisfied with any political system that does not implement Sharia law in some form or fashion. Any Un-Islamic system is seen as an enemy to Islam that must be opposed through violent or even non-violent means. Dr. Al-Zawaherri (second in command of Al-Queda) was clear is his offer for the US to convert to Islam in order to stop terrorism against it.]
more @ link..
==
bg commented:
++
ps re: bg @ 2:30 pm #54
Musawi disclose the rainbow of the existence of evidence proving the involvement of the former regime with terrorists, bin Laden and Zawahiri
==
bg commented:
++
On the Job Training
[It is sad that President Obama and his team are still going through on-the-job training a year into their administration. Despite the fact that Janet Napolitano, our homeland-security secretary, bizarrely tried to nix the use of the term terrorism and despite the fact that his own White House dubiously dubbed this global conflict "an overseas contingency operation," the president has finally learned to use the most obvious term - terror- this week. Mr. President, if you are listening, here are a few more thoughts from a concerned Muslim.
You cannot just stay hunkered down at your "beachhead" in Hawaii after another virulent byproduct of global political Islam attacked on our homeland. While no one was really hurt, you don't exactly look like you are taking the issue seriously when your photo of the day captures a romp on the beach. It was not a coincidence that this was attempted on Christmas day, yet you ignore the religious struggles in this conflict. It is time that our commander-in-chief and the leader of the free world come to terms with the reality that this is the greatest conflict of the century and a battle of ideas between western liberal secular democracies and political Islam.
While you and your colleagues are stymied by the question of whether to even use the term "terror," the ideology of al-Qaeda (violent political Islam) is spreading exponentially. Your systematic failure to advance American security against ideologies that threaten us may turn catastrophic. In fact the Christmas bomber said so himself, telling an investigator that "there are more just like me who will strike soon." By all means, Mr. President, fix the holes in our security that we know are there - but terrorists who are suicidal religious zealots and very creative will sadly very likely strike again soon. This year certainly proves that.
Our nation is clearly becoming more and more anxious and concerned over the rash of radicalized Muslims. Is it not time for you to acknowledge that terror is a simply a symptom of a more profound deeper underlying disease? That disease is political Islam.
Hopefully you will realize that we can only defeat an enemy we can name, describe, and understand. As Thomas Friedman and others have recently reminded us, the only answer to jihadists, Salafists, and Islamists is a narrative from within America, and most important from within Islam, that counters the global supremacism of political Islam. Until you say exactly that, we will continue to flail in this conflict.
I hope after Nidal Hasan, after the American jihadis in Pakistan, and now after the Christmas bomber radicalized in London, that you see our need for clear leadership against political Islam and its ubiquitous permeating militant manifestations. We need a leader who recognizes that this conflict is most significantly within Muslim communities as we Muslims struggle with the conflict between theocracy and democracy, sharia and liberty, Islamism and freedom, and salafism and modernity. The longer you squander your leadership and stay silent on this, the more vulnerable we will be.]
by M. Zuhdi Jasser
==
bg commented:
++
A Cold-Blooded Foreign Policy
[The joke is on the enthralled crowds in Cairo, Ankara, Berlin and Oslo. The new American president they had fallen for had no genuine calling or attachments abroad. In their enthusiasm for Mr. Obama, and their eagerness to proclaim themselves at one with the postracial meaning of his election, they had missed his aloofness from the genuine struggles in the foreign world.
It was easy, that delirium with Mr. Obama: It made no moral demands on those eager to partake of it. It was also false, in many lands.
[..]
What a difference three or four years make. The despots have waited out that burst of American power and optimism. No despot fears Mr. Obama, and no blogger in Cairo or Damascus or Tehran, no demonstrator in those cruel Iranian streets, expects Mr. Obama to ride to the rescue. To be sure, it was in the past understood that we can’t bear all burdens abroad, or come to the defense of everyone braving tyranny. But there was always that American assertion that when things are in the balance we would always be on freedom’s side.
We hadn’t ridden to the rescue of Rwanda and Burundi in the 1990s, but we had saved the Bosnians and the Kosovars. We didn’t have the power to undo the colossus of Chinese tyranny when the tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square, but the brave dissidents knew that we were on their side, that we were appalled by the cruelty of official power.
It is different today, there is a cold-bloodedness to American foreign policy. “Ideology is so yesterday,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed not long ago, giving voice to the new sentiment.
History and its furies have their logic, and they have not bent to Mr. Obama’s will. He had declared a unilateral end to the “war on terror,” but the jihadists and their mentors are yet to call their war to a halt. From Yemen to Fort Hood and Detroit, the terror continues.
But to go by the utterances of the Obama administration and its devotees, one would have thought that our enemies were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, not the preachers and masterminds of terror. The president and his lieutenants spent more time denigrating “rendition” and the Patriot Act than they did tracking down the terror trail and the latest front it had opened at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. Our own leaders spoke poorly of our prerogatives and ways, and they were heard the world over.
Under Mr. Obama, we have pulled back from the foreign world. We’re smaller for accepting that false choice between burdens at home and burdens abroad, and the world beyond our shores is more hazardous and cynical for our retrenchment and our self-flagellation.]
more @ link..
==
bg commented:
++
It’s time to root out political Islam
For almost a decade, American Muslims have seen a growing debate in their communities about the radicalization of Muslims in America and how to combat it.
Since its inception in 2003, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) has been one of the lone voices publicly waging a contest of ideas with Islamist organizations in the U.S.
The crux of our mission is that the ideology of political Islam (Islamism) is the root cause of extremism that threatens Americans’ security as well as the faith of American Muslims. Most major American – Muslim organizations hatched from the Muslim Brotherhood are advocates of political Islam and will always refuse to acknowledge the need to separate mosque and state.
The recent Christmas Day airliner attack, the earlier December arrests of American Muslims in Pakistan, and theFort Hood massacre moved that debate into a new phase. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Muslim American Society (MAS) have begun to acknowledge for the first time that Muslim communities are facing a “radicalization” problem.
These organizations recently announced they are pursuing “anti – radicalization” programs. This is certainly an important change in their rhetoric, but sadly, window – dressing.
These Islamist groups have simply recognized that their post – 9/11 apologetic messaging is not resonating with the general public. To solve the problem, they co – opted the rhetoric of curbing radicalization. But absent real, honest reform against political Islam, their rhetoric is vacuous.
The question that begs to be asked of any Muslim group touting these programs is: What will be the structure and substance of your campaign, and will you confront, renounce and reform the ideology of political Islam?
CAIR and MPAC have typically renounced the use of terror and violence, but they have never taken a position against the ideology of political Islam. They have also been constant antagonists to efforts by law enforcement to understand and mitigate the real stages of radicalization of Muslims in America. Just recently these groups called for government to naively “decouple religion from terror.”
If the root cause of Muslim radicalization is Islamism, what good is any counterterrorism effort that decouples religion from terror? How can law enforcement effectively counter terrorism in our country without recognizing the slippery slope of political Islam and its separatist narrative is the core ideology that drives the mindset of the extremists as they radicalize?
Pragmatically, and I say this with tough love for my co – religionists, many American Muslims need a 12 – step program to recognize the driving separatism of political Islam.
So many American Muslims have gone down that slippery slope of
political Islam to radicalization that the connection cannot be denied.
Until the majority of American Muslims can reform their theo – political ideas against the growing global power of the Islamist movement, home – grown terror will only increase as it has. There must be a public war of ideas within the Islamic consciousness promoting liberty over Islamism, freedom over theocracy and secular law over Sharia law.
more here and here..
==
bg commented:
++
Earth to Coakley et al..
The Taliban in Afghanistan
The Road Ahead
The whereabouts of Afghanistan’s exiled Taliban leaders are not fully known. Some have been captured and detained by U.S. forces as enemy combatants in the “war on terror.” Experts say many of the Taliban were able to melt back into predominantly Pashtun areas of Afghanistan in the south and east; they have occasionally linked up with others to mount attacks, and some are working to overthrow the current government. Many others have reassembled in neighboring Pakistan, where the Taliban movement was born, and launch attacks from there. Beginning in mid-2006, the Afghan Taliban stepped up its attacks on coalition forces, with fighters adapting Iraq-like suicide and roadside bombing tactics. Uruzgan, Helmand, Kandahar, and Zabol Provinces in the east and south–regions that NATO forces have been responsible for securing since July 31, 2006–saw some of the fiercest clashes. Katzman writes in a June 2009 report that the resurgence in fighting has sparked debate (PDF) about whether it was driven by frustration with the Karzai government or Taliban intimidation. For its part, the Afghan government asserts the spike in attacks is the result of Pakistan providing the Taliban safe haven across the border. In an interview, Katzman said one unintended consequence of knocking out senior Taliban leaders has been the rapid rise of inexperienced younger leaders, some of whom have been radicalized by al-Qaeda.
(just a sample)
bottom line: wherever they are, they
are still attacking US in Afghanistan..
for Coakley to state the Taliban are not in Afghanistan, not only
shows the depth of her ignorance, but it’s totally absurd, period.
==
lman commented:
Cross-blogged at http://www.repubx.com – the first in news and home to IntelliFetch Search – no censorship or political agenda link promotion or keeping your search history (i.e. Google).. try it!
Americaneocon commented:
American Power tracked-back with, ‘They’re Gone? Martha Coakley Clueless on AF-PAK Strategic Theater’.
Bob Belvedere commented:
Quoted from and Linked to at:
Things That Make Your Head Explode: Martha Coakley On 2010-01-11
ZeGermans commented:
It’s quite obvious she meant al-qaeda terrorists, not the taliban. She’s right, they’ve gone to pakistan. Just a reminder that the taliban and al-qaeda are not the same thing. It’s absurd to paint every islamic extermist as a member of the same club that goes to weekly meetings or something; they’re dozens if not hundreds of different factions, with different goals, many of whom hate each other.