For a Genius, Condoleezza Rice not making much sense

She served for four years as George W. Bush's National Security Advisor, another four as his Secretary of State; she had been Provost at Stanford, and is an extremely accomplished pianist. By all accounts, Condoleezza Rice is widely accepted as a genius.

So why on earth is she advocating for what would inevitably lead to Muslim Brotherhood control of Syria? After reading her recent op-ed in the Washington Post, there really is no gray area about where she stands, though as a seasoned diplomat, she does her level best to massage her message. Her position is that Assad must fall and Syria must not be allowed to fall into the hands of Iranian control.

Via WaPo:

The fragile state structure of the Middle East has been held together for decades by monarchs and dictators. But as the desire for freedom has spread from Tunis to Cairo to Damascus, authoritarians have lost their grip. The danger now is that the artificial states could fly apart.

What Rice avoids saying is breathtaking. Whatever desire there is for freedom in the Middle East is being snuffed out by new, religious tyrants who are filling the vacuum left by those "monarchs" and "dictators". Simply put, in every country where the 'Arab Spring' has been successful at removing dictators, things have gotten much worse. Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood leader is consolidating power and that country is increasingly on the brink of civil war; Libya may have elected a secular government but make no mistake; al-Qaeda is calling the shots. Yemen, Tunisia, et. al. are all seeing similar outcomes.

Therefore, why would Rice think Syria would be any different?

Perhaps the answer lies in the very next paragraph:

In Iraq, after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the United States hoped that a fledging multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democracy could do what authoritarians could not: give all of these groups a stake in a common future. To an extent it has, with elections repeatedly producing inclusive governments. But the institutions are young and fragile, and they are groaning under the weight of the region’s broader sectarian explosion. The conflict in Syria is pushing Iraq and others to the breaking point. At the same time, U.S. disengagement has tempted Iraqi politicians to move toward sectarian allies for survival. If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki cannot count on the Americans, he will take no risks with Tehran.

Note how Rice comes precariously close to admitting that going into Iraq was a mistake but qualifies it by implying that more time is needed. The notion that the Syrian conflict is pushing Iraq to the "breaking point" is a bit of an exercise in denial. Make no mistake; Iran has all but annexed Iraq and for Rice to assert anything to the contrary presupposes that the Bush strategy still has a chance. It was doomed to failure when the foundation for the new Iraqi constitution was Sharia law; it was a soft surrender.

As Rice points out, Iraq is 65% Shiite; so is al-Maliki Shiite. Counting on Americans would have involved a Constitution that did not have Sharia law. Assuming that al-Maliki was ever interested in true freedom in Iraq, such interest was snuffed out at that point because it meant the Americans could not be counted on.

Rice runs into another problem. Note I did say she only came "precariously close" to admitting failure. Opining that the United States should not support the ouster of Assad would be an admission of failure in Iraq and inconsistent with the broader strategy of her boss, because it would mean that the perceived liberation of people who are ruled by a dictator can lead to greater enslavement, which it has in Iraq, Gaza, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, et. al. Rice almost has to support Assad's overthrow at this point. Advocating the opposite would torpedo the Bush doctrine of democratization in the Middle East.

Comparing Iran to Karl Marx seems to be an attempt - in part - to liken the former to the United States' cold war nemesis. Take note of her reference to a "theocratic flag" and where it flies:

Today’s Karl Marx is Iran. It envisions the spread of its influence among Shiites, uniting them under the theocratic flag of Tehran — destroying the integrity of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. Iran uses terrorist groups, Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in southern Iraq to do its bidding. Syria is the linchpin, the bridge into the Arab Middle East. Tehran no longer hides the fact that its security forces are working in Syria to prop up Assad. In this context, Tehran’s sprint toward a nuclear weapon is a problem not just for Israel but the region as a whole.

Few would argue that there are easy answers in the Middle East but Rice seems to be falling into the same trap that so many westerners do. While being rightfully concerned about Iran, there is this inexplicable underestimation of Turkey, which continues to be wrongly viewed as an ally of the West. In reality, Turkey has been making more gains than Iran, in many ways. With every Muslim Brotherhood victory, Turkey is secretly emboldened and its lustful eye for a reestablished Ottoman empire waters a little more with increased anticipatory desire.

While Rice rightfully bemoans the Shia's "theocratic flag of Tehran", she ignores the "theocratic flag" that is being planted all over the Middle East as Turkey quietly sees those flags as representing a resurrected empire in the near future.

Rice continues...

In recent days, France, Britain and Turkey have stepped into the diplomatic vacuum to recognize a newly formed opposition that is broadly representative of all Syrians. The United States should follow their lead and then vet and arm the unified group with defensive weapons on the condition that it pursues an inclusive post-Assad framework. The United States and its allies should also consider establishing a no-fly zone to protect the innocent. America’s weight and influence are needed. Leaving this to regional powers, whose interests are not identical to ours, will only exacerbate the deepening sectarianism.

Certainly there are risks. After more than a year of brutal conflict, the most extreme elements of the opposition — including al-Qaeda — have been empowered. Civil wars tend to strengthen the worst forces. The overthrow of Assad could indeed bring these dangerous groups to power.

But the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk. Iran will win, our allies will lose, and for decades the region’s misery and violence will make today’s chaos look tame.

It is simply breathtaking to consider that someone of Rice's intellect does not understand the Islamist nature and goals of Turkey's leadership. She then talks about aligning with them and arming the Syrian rebels but under the condition that there is a post-Assad framework and that the rebels who are armed can be trusted (because that's worked out so well to this point).

Then, she demonstrates an unbelievable amount of naiveté relative to history, both old and recent, when she says that the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk than the Muslim Brotherhood groups ultimately taking control of Syria. If she was truly interested in preserving the "state system", Assad is the better option.

Does she not know that it is Turkey which desires the dissolution of every nation that has fallen to the Brotherhood?  That would also include Syria if Assad falls.

Rice's former boss - George W. Bush - communicated a similar embrace of the 'Arab Spring' in an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal last May.

For Rice or Bush to admit the truth would require them to admit failure, which they're obviously not willing to do.

Unfortunately, not doing so smacks of both pride an foolishness.

The man who should have been listened to in the days after 9/11

While doing some research for this post, I came across a document that appeared to have been written less than one month after 9/11; it was written in the form of a journal but did not have an author's name (I have since learned it and reveal it at the end of this post ). It consisted of a first hand account of someone who lived near to and worked in Washington, D.C.; it was someone who worked near the Capitol Building; it was someone who knew Congressmen and Senators personally; and it was someone who was a strong Christian.

As I read what this person obviously knew in the hours after 9/11, it became blatantly obvious to me that the individuals at the highest levels of the George W. Bush administration knew it too. If the author of this account had been listened to then, the rise of Islam across the Middle East, Europe, and here in America since, may have been significantly reduced, if not outright prevented. These observations are so spot-on from someone who had much less information than Bush's inner circle did that I'm convinced this is not an issue of Monday morning quarterbacking; the Bush strategy after 9/11 was fatally flawed and his administration chose the path of least resistance. In short, the administration lied to us and to itself.

Read the entire account here if you'd like. I've excerpted portions that particularly struck me for their prescience at the time. This is some of the author's account of what he experienced on September 12, 2001:

By mid afternoon on Wednesday I was convinced that not only was the United States a victim of Islamic Jihad, but that the attack had been perpetrated by an organization controlled by a Saudi citizen and that most of those involved were Saudi, and that furthermore the attack was financed for the most part by Saudi businessmen and members of the Saudi royal family.

At the end of the day I made the following statement to my wife:

"These attacks were planned, financed and carried out by Saudi nationals and as a result the real culprits will never come to justice. We will bomb some third world nation like Afghanistan and our government will say our "moderate" Islamic friends with all the oil were not involved. Worse, we will put a handful of people in jail like we did the last time the World Trade Center was bombed. The Islamic fanatics will think a trade off of four or five in jail getting three meals a day, versus thousands of Americans dead, is a great deal.

So far, he accurately identified what the Bush administration would do with respect to Afghanistan. We also know that based on the fact that al-Qaeda financier - Abdullah Omar Naseef - was not held to account for his role in funding al-Qeada, there were some "moderate" Islamic friends who escaped American wrath over 9/11. Naseef was once the Secretary General of the Muslim World League (MWL), which is funded by the Saudi Royal family. He also founded the Rabita Trust, an entity that was identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as financing al-Qaeda; it was listed as a terrorist organization and its assets frozen one month after 9/11.

Here is an excerpt from the author's account about his experiences on September 13, 2001:

As I talked to congressmen and Senators my worst fears were realized. I carried documents with me showing clearly that most funding for Osama Bin Laden’s terror network came from moderate states like Saudi Arabia. While the Saudi government itself claims that it has no ties to these terror organizations, each year the government gives $10 billion to fundamentalist Islamic organizations, many of them located in the United States.

When I confronted one well known Senator about the millions of dollars going to Bin Laden’s terror network from Saudi businessmen, he said to me, "Yes, but they are coerced into giving it to him."

I responded to this by saying, "Maybe those millionaire Saudi businessmen should be more fearful of us than they are of Bin Laden."

Later that day almost the identical conversation took place between myself and a member of the House leadership and then again with someone within the Bush Administration. It was made clear to me that none of the wealthy Saudi Arabians who finance Islamic terror would meet the wrath of the United States for fear of angering the "friendly" state of Saudi Arabia. This was made clear to me by members of the House and Senate, both Democrat and Republican as well as by some in the Administration. I was appalled.

The author was quite correct about those "moderate" Islamic friends facing no consequences. Perhaps the most chilling excerpt from the author was found in his account of what he witnessed on September 14, 2001:

My stomach churned as I watched Muzammil Siddiqi, the Imam for the Islamic Society of North America, stand on stage with President George W. Bush in the National Cathedral. Imam Siddiqi is a radical extremist who has participated in anti-American demonstrations in front of the White House as recently as October of 2000. He has in the past called for a Jihad or holy war against this nation. While the Christian and Jewish leaders at the event prayed for our nation and for the dead and dying from the attack, Imam Siddiqi did not do so. At no time did he condemn the acts of the terrorists nor did he pray for America or for the families of those who lost their lives in the Jihad attack against the United States...

As the service closed I felt the chill of the presence of the awesome power of God. I was clearly reminded of the very first of the Ten Commandments, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME (Exodus 20:3). The National Cathedral had been defiled... Our Christian President had bowed his head to prayers offered to other gods, prayers that may have been for those who would destroy our nation and enslave our children to an alien religion. At that moment the hand of protection of the true God was removed from our nation. 

Since the Jihad attack on the United States on September 11th the President has surrounded himself with and sought advice from radical Islamic leaders who have openly called for the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. In addition, the President has invited six of the seven Islamic nations known to sponsor terror into his "coalition against terror". 

By late Friday it became apparent to me that our nation was in fact not going to fight a war on terrorism, but rather follow the same old track of "punishing those who actually committed the crime." This was not a "crime;" it was an act of war.

Siddiqi eventually stepped down as president of the Muslim Brotherhood group but he has not really left the ISNA; he now serves as the Religious Director for the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), which recently welcomed Congresswomen Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).

Here's a portion of the author's entry about the week of September 17, 2001:

A sharp line began to form in Washington between those of us willing to tell the truth about what had happened on September 11th and those who wish to continue to live in the fantasy world of pluralism. The ACLU began a campaign to stop "oppression" of Muslims in the United States. They began the campaign by signing up organizations to protect the "civil rights" of Muslims.

Meanwhile the "moderate" Islamic organizations had a word of their own for Muslims in America: DO NOT HELP THE FBI. Internet sites warned Muslims that: "The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI."

As for the author's assertion that George W. Bush wrongly stood with radical Islamic leaders... Once again, here is video of Bush on September 17, 2001 inside the Islamic Center of Washington mosque. The Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) - Nihad Awad - stood behind Bush as the president espoused the religion of our attackers:



He spoke at the same mosque more than one year later on December 5, 2002:



Those who argue that the Bush strategy was based on a tried and true adage that says, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, run into a big problem.

It's a strategy an excuse that has failed us miserably since 9/11.

Islam is on the rise all across the globe. The Muslim Brotherhood front groups Bush attempted to appease have smiles from ear to rear. In fact, Bush himself, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, actually seemed to urge people to embrace the Brotherhood's rise in the Middle East:

These are extraordinary times in the history of freedom. In the Arab Spring, we have seen the broadest challenge to authoritarian rule since the collapse of Soviet communism. The idea that Arab peoples are somehow content with oppression has been discredited forever.

Yet we have also seen instability, uncertainty and the revenge of brutal rulers. The collapse of an old order can unleash resentments and power struggles that a new order is not yet prepared to handle.

Some in both parties in Washington look at the risks inherent in democratic change—particularly in the Middle East and North Africa—and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know in the name of stability.

But in the long run, this foreign policy approach is not realistic. It is not within the power of America to indefinitely preserve the old order, which is inherently unstable. Oppressive governments distrust the diffusion of choice and power, choking off the best source of national prosperity and success.

Today, Naseef, at least one of the men who should have been the object of as much American ire as bin Laden was, watches safely from afar as a woman who served with him on the Board of an organization he founded - the Islamic Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) - now serves alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as Clinton's closest advisor.

In the days and weeks after 9/11, George W. Bush's approval rating shot to 90%. When he left office, he was at 34%. 9/11 was his moment of truth and his approval rating steadily fell after the invasion of Afghanistan; they jumped after the initial success in Iraq, and they steadily declined thereafter. Bush had the American people behind him after 9/11 and he ultimately squandered much of our support by not leveling with us and by not identifying everyone who was responsible for hitting us.

In hindsight, the anger at Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al. was not all that unwarranted, though the vitriol and expressed reasons for that anger often were. The decision to go into Iraq was a devastatingly wrong one. That should be obvious now. Iraq was a threat to Saudi Arabia more than it was to us. Saddam Hussein threatened the Saudis in a way not all that dissimilar from how he threatened Kuwait in the early 90's. In essence, the United States aligned with a nation that was actually culpable for 9/11, against their enemy.

It's time for us on the right to acknowledge that many of those who screamed the loudest about invading Iraq being the wrong thing to do, were correct. George W. Bush should do the same.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED AFTER 9/11
Based on the insights of the author of that prescient 9/11 account - William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition - the argument that Murray knew the truth while Bush and his advisors did not is poppycock. That's why this is not about Monday morning quarterbacking; it's about what should have been done.

POSSIBLE SCENARIO: In the days after 9/11, George W. Bush repudiates all groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The president goes to Congress and seeks to have the Brotherhood labeled as a terrorist entity / enemy. CAIR, ISNA, MSA and any other front groups for the Brotherhood in the U.S. are put on notice and identified as what they are - entities that seek the destruction of the United States from within. The accounts of all such groups are frozen and leaders are either arrested or sent out of the country.

Any and all individuals with verifiable ties / loyalties to the aforementioned groups and who either hold jobs or any political influence inside the U.S. Government are prohibited from serving in those capacities.

Bush gathers all of his advisors and top Cabinet officials together to determine how best to become energy independent as quickly as possible. He orders is Energy Secretary to loosen as many regulations as humanly possible; this will encourage increased drilling and refining. With a 90% approval rating, the political capital at the president's disposal is virtually unlimited. The goal is energy independence within two years. Aggressive? Yes. Impossible? Americans have a history of exceeding goals in times of crisis and war. In this case, not letting a crisis go to waste would have been a good thing.

Bush decides to invade Afghanistan upon getting Congressional approval, which leads Saudi Arabia to believe it's successfully staving off American ire. Going into Afghanistan is the first in a hypothetical chain of events:

1. Target Osama bin Laden and destroy the Taliban, which was responsible for both running the terrorist training camps and harboring bin Laden.
2. Stay focused in Afghanistan while buying time to allow for energy independence in America. The world is made to believe that we are attacking those who we perceive attacked us. Singling out Saudi Arabia as being complicit in 9/11 at this point likely would result in a loss of oil and a debilitating energy crisis in the U.S.
3. Once the U.S. is confident it can survive the Saudi Arabian oil spigot being turned off, top tier al-Qaeda financiers - sources of Osama bin Laden's funding - are identified publicly by the President and targeted as enemies of the United States. Abdullah Omar Naseef, for example, is tightly connected to the Saudi Royal family but he has also been identified as a financier of al-Qaeda. Groups that Naseef has either led, founded or both, are proven to have been financed by the Royal family, which seeks to protect Naseef.
4. The decision is made by the Bush administration that while it will not target the Saudi family specifically, it will not respect the family's wishes with regard to which al-Qaeda financiers are off-limits. Bush then informs the Royal family that if the oil spigots are shut off, that policy is subject to change and the Royal family risks the same fate as those 'untouchable' al-Qaeda financiers.

Those who scoff and call such ideas ridiculous lose the argument when we see how reality has unfolded since September 11, 2001.

In either case, it's safe to say that Murray was right and the Bush administration was wrong.

Iran and Turkey have a Syria-ous Problem

The 'Arab Spring' that has been ongoing for a year now is as much (if not more) about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) as it is about removing dictators. The Ikhwan seeks a return of the Ottoman Empire, which was centered in what is today Turkey. To varying degrees, the Muslim Brotherhood has gained control of the countries on the map that have red arrows pointing to them. This benefits Turkey tremendously.

Over the last several years, Iran and Turkey have had an alliance of convenience but the situation in Syria is putting great strain on that alliance. Syria, which borders Iraq to its east, Lebanon to its west, and Turkey to its north has essentially been an arm of Iran under the Assad regime. Assad has allowed his country to act as a funnel for weapons and Hezbollah fighters into Lebanon. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, those efforts were more difficult.

With the removal of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent withdrawal of American troops from Iraq more than eight years later, Iran has essentially gained control of Iraq. At least one high-ranking cabinet member inside the Iraqi government is also a high-ranking Quds official with loyalties to the Ayatollah; his name is Hadi al-Ameri. That someone like him would hold the position of Transportation Minister in Nouri al-Maliki's government is a serious red flag that signals Iran has already annexed Iraq.

In this behind-the-scenes struggle between Turkey and Iran, the latter has control of Iraq, which also shares a border with Turkey to its north. This makes Syria all that more important for both countries. If Assad is removed from power, the Brotherhood will most assuredly attempt to wrest control for the larger Ottoman movement. Despite its public stance, Turkey is licking its chops over the possibility of acquiring Syria. It would be a huge victory for the Ikhwan and a huge defeat for Iran, which will not give this up easily, however.

As long as Assad is in power, Iran's guy is running the country. When and if he ultimately steps down or is removed, Iran will do all it can to ensure Syria does not come under the control of the Brotherhood.

At that point, Israel could take a back seat in the minds of Iran and Turkey. Syria is that important. As both nations fight over Syria, the mask that has been hiding much of the geopolitics in the region could slip significantly. Turkey's desire for stealth could be more difficult to maintain. In either case, Iran has far more to lose relative to Syria than does Turkey but the latter country has far more to gain if it gets control.

In this game of chicken, Syria is like a piece of meat Iran desperately wants to keep on its plate. Conversely, the Muslim Brotherhood desperately wants to gobble it up for its master - Turkey.

h/t Shoebat

Duh: Violence in Iraq up after US Exit

Like this wasn't predictable. Obama's decision to pull our troops out of Iraq in the days before Christmas was a direct appeal to his far left base for 2012. It was also made more politically palatable because of the exploding national debt, for which he is largely responsible. The consequence of his decision, however, has been increased violence in Iraq.

Via Washington Post:

Violence appears to have increased sharply since U.S. troops left Iraq a month ago, as insurgents have unleashed a wave of furious bombings targeting Baghdad neighborhoods, Shiite pilgrims and police facilities in Sunni areas.

The deadly attacks have roots not only in the troops’ departure but also in a domestic political crisis that erupted in its wake. Shiite and Sunni leaders have squared off in a power struggle, one that analysts say insurgents are trying to turn into a full-scale civil war. How the politicians handle their own mess, and the attacks, will determine Iraq’s ability to hold itself together.

There are multiple indications that Iraq's Shiite government is closely aligned with Iran. Iraq's Transportation Minister, Hadi al-Ameri, has a long history of allegiance to Iran. Here he is bowing to and kissing the hand of the Ayatollah:



Back to the Post article:

U.S. officials never promised the transition would be easy. At a ceremony in Baghdad two days before the last troops left, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta sounded a note of caution.

“Let me be clear, Iraq will be tested in the days ahead — by terrorism, by those who would seek to divide, by economic and social issues, by the demands of democracy itself,” he said.


Even as Panetta was speaking, security forces loyal to Maliki, a Shiite, were moving to arrest Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, on charges that he used his bodyguards to run a terrorism squad. Hashimi fled to a semiautonomous region of Kurdistan, where leaders provided refuge even as Maliki demanded his return to Baghdad to face trial. At the same time, Sunni leaders walked out of parliament and boycotted cabinet positions to protest what they said was Maliki’s move to create a Shiite-controlled dictatorship.

Making this more noteworthy is that Shiite al-Ameri is a confirmed terrorist, yet he is in Iraq's cabinet while the Sunni Vice President had to flee to avoid arrest.

Such things make the words of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta one month before the Iraq pullout quite puzzling; they should prompt some major head-scratching:

"My view is that the region largely rejects Iran and its intentions. And I think Iraq is at the top of that list."

Again, in light of al-Ameri's prominence in the Iraqi government (he was given the red carpet treatment by the Oval Office on December 12th) and the arrest warrant of the Sunni Vice President, Panetta's statements to Senate Armed Services Committee one month before the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq are belied by the facts.

h/t Hapblog

Iran Blaming United States for Iraq Bombing

In light of what is now known about the Iraqi government having extremely close ties to Iran - Iraq's Transportation Minister, Hadi al-Ameri is an Iranian agent and terrorist - this may be a level of audacity that trumps all others. An Iranian cleric has actually asserted that the rash of bombings which have been taking place in Iraq since the United States left, have been perpetrated by, well, the United States. Why? Because we wanted to take our revenge out on the Iraqis for being glad we left.

Via Iranian Press TV:

“To take revenge on Iraqis for their joy over the withdrawal of the occupying [American] forces, the US commissioned consecutive bombings and killings in Iraq in order to [also] convey that the Americans were the source of peace in the country and that their withdrawal created instability,” said Hojjatoleslam Kazem Seddiqi said on Friday.

The Iranian cleric added that the presence of American forces in Iraq resulted in Muslim hatred and international loathing for the US, emphasizing that Shia, Sunni, Kurd and Arab all wanted US troops out of Iraq.

Seddiqi advised the Iraqi nation to maintain unity and continue resistance to thwart enemy plots.

Iraq has witnessed a surge in violence and bombing attacks over the past few weeks.

It was recently learned that a Federal US Judge ruled Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks. If true, we exacted punishment on Iran by giving them Iraq, which is the consequence of what we've done. As if that wasn't despicable enough (Iran should be thanking us), we're being blamed for the violence in Iraq, not as a result of our leaving Iraq but because of our anger toward Iraqis for being glad we did.

In reality, the most recent bombing appears to have been committed by Sunnis against Shi'ites; the latter makes up the majority of the Iraqi government that we helped to install.

This is victimology on steroids.

h/t GWP

The 9/11 Commission Report - Part II

Former legal counsel to the 9/11 Commission, Janice Kephart is a border / immigration expert who was an integral part of the 9/11 Commission, which concluded that Iran and Hezbollah were likely involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Commission recommended that the United States Government (USG) pursue those leads. USG never followed up but a private sector law firm did. That law firm's conclusions shine an even bigger spotlight on the Obama administration's decision to give an Iran-sponsored terrorist the red carpet treatment.

The 9/11 Commission Report - Part II
Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

If the government has Ten Commandments, the game of politics, not homeland security, would be at the top of the list. Eager to play the game, the Obama Administration pulled out of Iraq in time for Christmas as it welcomed Iran’s puppets into the Oval Office. The Iraqi delegation, headed by Nouri al-Maliki, included a conspirator in Iran’s terror campaigns—the Iraqi Minister of Transportation, Hadi al-Ameri.

To quash the voices of survivors and victims' families who linked al-Ameri to American deaths in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the Obama administration replied, “There is no evidence of Hadi al-Ameri's involvement in any act of violence against U.S. Citizens.”

However, when dots are connected, they point to al-Ameri being an Iranian agent—a first-class terrorist. Ten days after al-Ameri's visit to the White House, US District Judge George B. Daniels signed a 53 page document in Havlish v. Iran that included 276 Statements of Fact and 35 Conclusions of Law in his ruling that the 9/11 attacks were the result of an “Iran-Hezbollah-al Qaeda alliance.” The document showed one Abolghasem Mesbahi—who had defected years earlier after receiving a tip from a colleague that he was on the regime's kill list while working for Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS)—testified that MOIS gave material support to Hezbollah. His credible testimony included three coded messages he received in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 attacks from contacts he had inside Iran.

The case revealed that Imad Mughniyah, once Iran's notorious Hezbollah leader, was involved in coordinating and facilitating the 9/11 attacks and committed “numerous terrorist operations against American citizens.” He cracked the FBI's “Most Wanted” list for twenty-one years but al-Ameri’s terrorist rap sheet puts him on par with Mughniyah, whose connection with the Iranian Revolution is not without significance. Arabic translations surfaced from Al-Malaf Net in Amman, Jordan; they uncovered top-secret documents years ago that identified Al-Ameri as:

“...the most prominent identity in this equation. He possesses all the keys relating to the connections with Iran and is in charge of the strongest security authority in Iraq at present—Badr Organization… [al-Ameri] is a high-ranking member in the Central Committee of the institution, known as the Central Authority; it is the largest security/military organization in Iraq that plans and executes dozens of military and security operations against Iran's opposition in various Iraqi cities, on a daily basis. He works directly under the command of Abdel Aziz Al Hakim.”

The documents show that al-Ameri’s Badr is the...

“Central Authority, which  receives its Fatwas for assassination operations directly from Khamenei's office. Targets are specified in coordination with the command of the Iranian Ramadan Base. Hence, any agreed upon operation is executed.”

One such document (pictured) discusses working with the Badr terrorist forces for the purpose of liquidating opponents, controlling the media, and using weapons and provisions provided by the Iranian revolution, to combat “Anglo-American” forces.

Havlish identified Al Quds Brigade, of which al-Ameri is a member, as the “foreign division” of another defendant in Havlish, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Al Quds is responsible for overseas terrorism and named one of the “most... violent terrorist organizations in the world.” Al-Ameri's membership in Al Quds was translated to include the names of agents and victims, as well as his Iranian Al Quds secret file number (10074) and bank account number (3014) into which over 2 million Iranian riyals a month was to be paid as blood monies for carrying out acts of terrorism. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, his religious obedience to Iran’s Islamist regime is quite visual in that al-Ameri can be seen bowing and kissing (video below) the hand of his Fuhrer—the Ayatollah himself. Iran's Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran identifies al-Ameri as having been responsible for 150 terrorist operations over a period of time during which the Khobar Towers were bombed.


Janice Kephart, former staff counsel to the 9/11 Commission, was interviewed for this article and explained why these recent discoveries were absent from the 9/11 Commission Report; there wasn't sufficient time to further develop the intelligence prior to its release. Kephart referred to pages 240 – 241, adding that al-Qaeda members avoided having their passports stamped by Iranian border inspectors; and between 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers traveled into or out of Iran prior to 9/11. Kephart concluded that “The document signed by Judge Daniels really represents part two of the 9/11 Commission Report.” “We showed a tangential connection between al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Iran but after several years, the plaintiffs' attorneys in Havlish really got to the heart of that relationship, and it was extensive.” Senior Counsel for 9/11 Commission staff, Dietrich Snell also submitted an affidavit that corroborated this ‘Iranian connection’ evidence.

Al-Ameri's Oval Office visit occurred despite the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that the United States government (USG) explore Iran's involvement in 9/11. Instead, it took a private law firm spending several years doing what the USG would not, while the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta falsely stated:

“...my view is that the region largely rejects Iran and its intentions and I think Iraq is at the top of that list.”

Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid detailed Panetta's close personal friendship with Communist Party member Hugh DeLacy. The two exchanged letters revealing that then-congressman Panetta pledged to show DeLacy “a series of documents on military and foreign policy matters.”

While some might overlook the red carpet treatment given to terrorist al-Ameri as diplomacy, Obama's recent attempts to build ties with Egypt's notorious Muslim Brotherhood will eventually prove to be catastrophic; the entire Middle East has been presented to Islamists on an altar made bloody by thousands of American soldiers and civilians.

After all, it is an election year and politics is the first Commandment.

Arrest Warrant Issued for Iraq's Vice President on Terrorism Charges

We might be able to call this Islam's version of partisanship. What do you get in a country with a government majority and Prime Minister that is Shi'ite, coupled with a Vice President that is Sunni? In the case of Iraq, VP Tariq al-Hashimi is being charged with terrorism.

Via Washington Post:

Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government on Monday accused its Sunni vice president of terrorism, plunging the country into its deepest political crisis in years only one day after U.S. troops departed. 

As an arrest warrant was issued for Tariq al-Hashimi, three men said on Iraqi television that they had worked as his bodyguards and had carried out bombings and assassinations, killing as many as a half-dozen people. 

They said Hashimi knew what they were doing. But many Iraqis questioned whether the allegations rang true. 

Neither Hashimi nor his spokesman could be reached for comment. Hashimi was in the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan holding crisis talks with Kurdish leaders. 

Iraqi Kurds called for calm, as did U.S. officials in Washington. The charges came despite talks over the weekend among President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Sunni politicians and U.S. Embassy officials, which appeared to resolve the issue with the creation of a judicial committee to “thoroughly investigate” the terrorism charges.

Contrast the terrorism charges against al-Hashimi with the royal treatment Hadi al-Ameri, Iraq's Transportation Minister, received just last week; he was part of an Iraqi delegation that visited Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

Al-Ameri's history when it comes to terrorism is off-the-charts but remember, he is Shi'ite. There is also video of him kissing the hand of Iran's Ayatollah Khameini:

Did Obama Administration Invite an Accomplice to Khobar Towers Bombing to White House?

The Khobar Towers bombing of 1996 killed 19 American servicemen. The FBI named the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) in an indictment. A man named Hadi al-Ameri was once the commander of the IRG. Suspicions of his involvement in that bombing are well-founded.

Today, he is Iraq's Transportation Minister under Nouri al-Maliki. On December 12th, al-Ameri was part of a delegation that visited the Oval Office. This raised concerns among a former FBI Director and a current Congresswoman, which prompted an official response from the White House. I draw your attention to what is in bold.

Via Fox Insider:

“We have no evidence of al-Ameri’s involvement with the Khobar Towers attacks, nor do we have any evidence of Hadi al-Ameri’s involvement in any act of violence against U.S. citizens. Hadi al-Ameri is the minister of transportation in the democratically elected Iraqi government. He is a longstanding partner and interlocutor of the Unites States Government, going back to the previous administration.”

It would seem that the White House, as has become commonplace, is parsing its words. This is very lawyerly verbiage and indicates a willingness to concede that al-Ameri HAS perpetrated violence against non-U.S. citizens. You will be shocked at just how bad it is.

There will be more on this in coming days.

Al-Ameri, like al-Maliki, is Shi'ite and the fact that the former holds a position this high in Iraq's government is not only disturbing but could be evidence that Iraq has already begun the process of falling into the hands of Iran.

Bringing US troops home only to leave Iraq in the hands of people like this cannot be good.

Here is an interview with a survivor of the Khobar attacks, William Schooley, on Fox News. He is obviously not happy with al-Ameri's White House visit.

Video: Trump's Message is Resonating Big Time

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump's words are resonating in a big way with the Tea Party. He got more traction than anyone prior to him when he demanded Obama present his Birth Certificate. He's also saying what many Americans have been demanding from a leader for years. China is a threat to the United States but no one has put forth a plan of how to deal with it. To his credit, Trump has done so. Iraq? The cost of the war since 2003 has been over $1 Trillion. Trump's solution? Stay there and pay down the debt with the oil we rightfully secured.

The alternative would be to leave with a $1 Trillion debt and watch Iran take control of the oil. Trump has been getting a lot of time on O'Reilly's show this week but this excerpt may be the best so far. I've got some issues with Trump but couldn't agree more with his arguments in this exchange.

Via Fox Nation:

Christian Genocide in Iraq

I've long maintained that the war in Iraq that was supposed to 'liberate' its people from tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein only served to put the Christian population in greater danger. Now, an Iraqi archbishop is actually claiming that the treatment of Christians in Iraq borders on 'genocidal.' Among the reasons he cites is the duplicity that exists between what we went over there for - western democracy - and what the Iraqi constitution has ushered in - Islamic theocracy.

Via Catholic San Francisco:

DUNDALK, Ireland (CNS) — An Iraqi archbishop spoke of “near-genocide conditions” for Christians in his country and said those fleeing violence were straining resources in other parts of the country.

Archbishop Bashar Warda of Irbil, Iraq, said part of the problem was the country’s “weak constitution, which tries to please two masters.”

“We are living in a region which cannot decide if it is for democracy or Islamic law,” he said March 16 at news conference sponsored by the Catholic charitable agency Aid to the Church in Need.

Archbishop Warda criticized “neighboring governments feeding insurgents with money and weapons to destabilize the Iraqi government” and said the rest of world’s governments had “turned their backs on us, as if the human rights abuses and near-genocide conditions Iraqi Christians experience are temporary.”

Archbishop Warda said that since the U.S.-led occupation of his country began in 2003, more than 500 Christians had been killed in religious and politically motivated violence.

Between 2006 and 2010, 17 Iraqi priests and two bishops were kidnapped and beaten or tortured. One bishop, four priests and three subdeacons were killed.

“In most cases, those responsible for the crimes stated they wanted Christians out of Iraq,” the archbishop said.

Again, this should serve as a clear reason why a Democratic Republic like that established by our Founding Fathers and Sharia Law are two mutually exclusive entities. When Sharia Law is the law of the land, freedom of religion does not exist. Again, in Iraq, it looks like we took Christians out of the frying pan and threw them into the fire.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: Joe Biden Calls for Impeaching the President

The Vice President makes a very impassioned case for impeachment here. When the president has no constitutional authority to take the United States into war and he does so anyway, Joe Biden said, it is grounds for impeachment that he would push for. Here, Biden appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and was asked if he would call for impeaching the president if the latter attacked a country without congressional approval. Biden answered resoundingly in the affirmative.

This interview took place before Obama ordered attacks on Libya - way before. The exchange took place back when Biden was a Senator in 2007; he was talking about what he would do if George W. Bush attacked Iran without congressional approval. Bush never did attack Iran but Obama attacked Libya.

Fast forward to the :50 mark.



h/t Hapblog

VIDEO: FOX'S GRETCHEN CARLSON SMACKS DOWN GIBBS

Chalk another one up for the ladies having 'more manhood than the men' department. I have absolutely zero doubt that Gretchen Carlson had a few choice words about White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs after this exchange was over and she was off-camera. Can you just see Doocy and Kilmeade wincing prior to each Carlson comeback to Gibbs's blatant condescension and arrogance. Gibbs comes off as a cross between Nathan Thurm and an emotionally agitated spoiled child caught in a lie - which he was.

Carlson comes across as the mature adult unwilling to back down to that child. She is visibly disgusted by Gibbs and it's rather obvious.

This is awesome.



h/t to Free Republic

VIDEOS: RETIRED LEADERS WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE

Billy Joel sang that 'Only the Good Die Young'. After watching Lt. General Jerry Boykin talk about why the Ground Zero mosque cannot and should not be built and Lt. Colonel Allen West talk about why he left the military, you'll wonder if only the good Generals and Colonels retire. As for Boykin's message, it's crystal clear. Construction of the Cordoba House mosque would not only be a symbolic victory for the Islamic world but it would serve to unite Muslims against the United States and put our security at much greater risk.

This really isn't hard to comprehend but for some reason, not nearly enough do.

Via Erik Stakelback at Big Peace:



Also via Big Peace, is this highly inspirational video featuring Lt. Col. Allen West, also retired. However, West IS running for Congress in Florida:

VIDEO: MUST SEE VIDEO FROM MARINE IN IRAQ

Armed with a .50 Calibur, U.S. sniper Steve Reichert notices that his men are in danger and out-numbered by Islamist whack jobs. Riechert spots a potential IED through his scope and then later discovers that Islamists come out of the wood work until finally, three whack jobs take their position behind a brick wall.

Perhaps the wall should have been made of something else.........



h/t to New Zeal Blog

OUTRAGE: NAVY SEALS CHARGED FOR MISTREATING BARBARIANS

We all remember the images of the charred bodies of Americans hanging from a bridge in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. Scott Helvenston, Wesley Batalona, Jerry Zovko and Michael Teague were ambushed while working in Iraq as contractors with Blackwater. Regardless of anyone's opinions about the war, four Americans were brutally murdered by savage barbarians that, in a rational world, would be considered part of the enemy, right?

Well, here's the outrageous part. Navy SEALS recently captured the mastermind of this savage act - so far, so good - and allegedly gave the scumbag a fat lip. Now the SEALS are facing criminal charges. FOX NEWS reports:

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

Now Fat lip boy is acting like a whiney baby to garner sympathy, which is straight out of their hand book, which we actually obtained but continue to ignore. Instead of these SEALS being treated as heroes, they're facing a court martial.

For more on the 2004 savagery, CLICK HERE.

h/t to JAWA