Does Jeb Bush CAIR too much to be President?

With all of this talk about Jeb Bush running for president in 2016, his record of appeasement when it comes to Islamists in his state when he was Governor of Florida warrants closer inspection. That Presidential election year will mark the tenth anniversary of the forced resignation of O'Neal Dozier, a conservative Pastor whom Bush had put on the Judicial Nominating Committee in 2001.

In 2006, Dozier was fighting the construction of a mosque in the same neighborhood where his church stood. During a radio interview on the Steve Kane show, he made comments that were critical of Islam. Word got back to Bush, whose office then demanded Dozier's resignation. The larger issue not addressed by the Florida Governor was the validity of Dozier's concerns relative to who was behind construction of the mosque.

The following is an excerpt from Unsung Davids, which features a chapter on Dozier's battle with the Republican Party in general and Jeb Bush in particular:

The reason for Dozier's appearance on the (radio) show was to talk about the attempts of the Islamic Center of South Florida (ICOSF) to build a mosque near his church. As recently as 2009, ICOSF was listed as being owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was identified in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document as being a member group... NAIT, along with the CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history.

There was no investigation against NAIT. As Governor, Jeb Bush had the authority to recommend one. Instead, Dozier was forced to resign and the red flags raised by the mosque at the root of his concerns were ignored. Bush's action against Dozier, coupled with his inaction against groups with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in America put him on the very wrong side of a very real struggle in the United States.

Just one year prior to Dozier being forced to resign, Bush was invited to CAIR's annual banquet in Orlando, at which attendees were to be encouraged to contribute to the creation of a CAIR office in Orlando. Though Bush didn't attend, his office sent a letter to CAIR, which he signed, that said in part:

"It is a great pleasure to extend greetings and best wishes to all attending the Florida Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL) annual banquet... I commend your contributions to the protection of civil rights and freedom of religion... Once again, congratulations on your accomplishments and my warmest greetings and best wishes on your continuing success."

CAIR has had great success since receipt of that letter and much of that success has come as a direct result of people like Jeb Bush pandering to them.

Dozier's battle against a mosque in 2006 foreshadowed a similar battle over the Ground Zero mosque in New York City in 2010. The resulting backlash further validated Dozier's concerns and should give people pause when considering Jeb Bush's future as a presidential nominee.

The case of Mohamed ElBaradei and be careful what you wish for

As the 'Arab Spring' was dawning in Egypt in early 2011, perhaps one of the most prominent and loudest voices that demanded the ouster of Hosni Mubarak was former Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. Here is an excerpt of an interview he gave a short time before Mubarak stepped down.

Via Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Shouldn't you be headed down to Tahrir Square to try to use your authority to calm people down there?

ElBaradei: I was there once, and things broke out in turmoil. I need to watch out for my own safety. There are people who think they'd be doing the regime a favor by killing me. The longer things continue on this way with Mubarak, the clearer it becomes that the country is imploding both politically and economically. Mubarak must go; not at some point, but now. I believe the Americans are also getting very impatient.

SPIEGEL: You've given Mubarak an ultimatum. It expired on Friday, which the demonstrators dubbed the "day of departure" ...

ElBaradei: ... and I will say it again: He must go away quickly. I'm sure that some Arab country will take him in. I've heard from Bahrain. If he still has one spark of patriotism, this is his last chance.

As Egypt's newly elected Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Mursi doubles down on dictatorship at breakneck speed, ElBaradei's perception of the implosion of Egypt in early 2011 is nothing compared to what he's seeing now. As for his comment to Der Spiegel that the "Americans are also getting very impatient," his recent comments indicate that he would like to see that impatience continue but, to this point, the White House has been virtually silent over Mursi's most recent power grab.

Via Neil Munroe at the Daily Caller:

Morsi decreed Nov. 22 that his pronouncements and edicts were beyond the reach of judicial review. The announcement was met by resistance from the nation’s top judges, who said they would fight Morsi’s unusual self-elevation to near-dictator status.

“I am waiting to see, I hope soon, a very strong statement of condemnation by the U.S., by Europe and by everybody who really cares about human dignity,” declared Mohamed ElBaradei, who is one of Egypt’s more visible non-Islamist politicians.

This was a very foreseeable problem. Those of us who saw the 'Arab Spring' for what it was had far better vision than the likes of ElBaradei, who is becoming like another in a long line of Arab secularists who never seem to learn that when it comes down to them vs. the Islamists, the Islamists always seem to win.

As for that American (Obama administration) impatience now compared to then, Munroe seemed to sum that up quite succinctly:

There has been no White House response to ElBaradei’s Nov. 24 comments.

To be fair to ElBaradei, he's not the only secularist who was wrong. Just look at practically every Democratic politician in the U.S., a handful of Republicans, and the mainstream media.

It isn't rocket science but liberal secularists still never get it.

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.