Obama Appointee: I see "nothing objectionable" about the Taliban

President Obama has ordered national security officials to look into allegations that the Bush administration resisted efforts to investigate a CIA-backed Afghan warlord over the killings of hundreds of Taliban prisoners in 2001.

Obama officials asserted on Friday that there weren't sufficient grounds to look into such allegations, but apparently, the "Waffler in Chief" has changed his mind:

"The indications that this had not been properly investigated just recently was brought to my attention," Obama told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an exclusive interview during the president's visit to Ghana...

"So what I've asked my national security team to do is to collect the facts for me that are known, and we'll probably make a decision in terms of how to approach it once we have all of the facts gathered up," Obama said....

When asked by CNN whether he would support an investigation, the president replied, "I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have, even in war. And if it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of laws of war, then I think that, you know, we have to know about that."...

You can tell that the president, whose poll numbers are starting to plummet as a result of his bumbling incompetence, is starting to feel the heat, when he resorts to a myriad of investigations of the Bush administration to bolster his popularity.

Nevertheless, here's another interesting, and perhaps somewhat related, tidbit:

The President on Friday tapped Mr. Glyn Davies - who served as State Dept. spokesman under former President Bill Clinton - to be the US envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna.

In September of 1996, Mr. Davies, stated that he saw "nothing objectionable" about the Taliban imposing its strict interpretation of Islamic law.

From the Washington Post - November 6, 2001:

Each year, the State Department formally rebukes and imposes penalties on governments that protect and promote terrorists. But since 1996, when the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan, the nation harboring Osama bin Laden has never made the department's list of terrorist-sponsoring countries.

The omission reflects more than a decade of vexing relations between the United States and Afghanistan, a period that found the State Department more focused on U.S. oil interests and women's rights than on the growing terrorist threat, according to experts and current and former officials...

The day after the Taliban seized Kabul in September 1996, the State Department spokesman, Glyn Davies, encountered tough questions from American reporters.

Victorious in a brutal fight against rival factions, the Taliban claimed power after castrating and killing former President Najibullah and hanging the corpses of him and his brother from a post at the entrance to the presidential palace.

Mr. Davies reported the events matter-of-factly and told reporters the United States saw "nothing objectionable" about the Taliban imposing its strict interpretation of Islamic law.

"So let me get this straight," a reporter asked. "This group, this Islamic fundamentalist group that has taken Afghanistan by force and summarily executed the former president, the United States is holding out possibility of relations?"

"I'm not going to prejudge where we're going to go with Afghanistan," Mr. Davies said...

Throughout the mid-1990s, a U.S. oil company was tracking the outcome of the Afghan conflict. Unocal, a California-based energy giant, was seeking rights to build a pipeline system across Afghanistan, connecting the vast oil and natural gas reserves of Turkmenistan to a plant and ports in Pakistan.

State Department officials promoted Unocal's pipeline project in their role of helping U.S. companies find investments in the region, Ms. Raphel said.

Before Unocal, the Taliban "were just a bunch of wild jihadists running around. They came out of nowhere," said Richard Dekmejian, a University of Southern California terrorism specialist, using the Islamic term for holy warriors.

In a late 1997 public relations move, Unocal flew Taliban officials to tour the company's U.S. offices. They took a side trip to the beach, then flew to Washington for meetings in the Capitol and at the State Department to press their case for U.S. recognition.

But the visit only fueled the outrage of women's rights groups who were incensed by Unocal's coziness with the regime. However, among the State Department's old hands, "there was a lot of putting down, like these women didn't know what they were talking about," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation...

I could only imagine what kind of cozy relationship Barack Obama would have cultivated with the Taliban had he been president at the time. As ruthless and blood-thirsty as these thugs may be, he too, probably would have seen nothing "objectionable" about the Taliban...

Investigate Eric Holder & Leon Panetta!

Attorney General Eric Holder is reportedly mulling whether to investigate the Bush administration's alleged abuse of terrorist detainees. And CIA Director Leon Panetta is currently prodding lawmakers to investigate the Bush administration's alleged directive to the CIA to keep a secret counter-terrorism program hidden from congress.

However, before the US Justice Dept. and Congress follow the marching orders of Eric Holder and Leon Panetta, proper protocol would dictate that they first investigate whether Mr. Holder and Panetta, while working in the Clinton administration, had any knowledge of the Clinton administration's extraordinary renditions program.

Bear in mind that in 1993, Leon Panetta was chosen by President Clinton to be Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget. In 1994 Mr. Clinton appointed Panetta to be his Chief of Staff, a position which he held until 1997.

As chief of staff, Mr. Panetta sat in on the daily intelligence briefings, and in his previous post as director of the Office of Management and Budget, he reviewed the nation's most secret intelligence-collection and covert-action programs.

Eric Holder was Bill Clinton's Deputy Attorney General from 1997 till 2001.

In May of 2009, during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, then-Attorney General nominee Eric Holder was grilled by Senators Lamar Alexander and Richard Shelby about his role in the CIA's "rendition" program under Bill Clinton:

Didn't that [extraordinary renditions] happen during the Clinton administration? [They asked]

Yes, Holder said.

"How many did you approve?" they asked.

Holder said he'd check the record....

Heh....

According to MSNBC, The senators were suggesting that if any criminal investigation were to be opened by Mr. Holder, "Republicans would push to get it expanded beyond events during the Bush administration."

The following are but two examples of extraordinary renditions that took place under Bill Clinton:

Talaat Fuad Qassim, a leader of al-Gamaa Islamiya, the Egyptian jihadist group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, in the 1990s, was subjected to extraordinary rendition. In late 1995, he was kidnapped in Croatia, interrogated by US agents on a ship on the Adriatic Sea, then handed over to Egypt. Human rights experts believe he was tortured, then executed - no record of any trial exists.

In July 1998, several members of the Egyptian Jihad organization - which at the time, was merging with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network - were nabbed in Albania by Albanian security agents. They were then flown on a CIA-chartered plane to Cairo, where they were beaten and tortured. Two of the detainees were subsequently hanged in an Egyptian prison yard.

Some of the detainees reported that Egyptian interrogators had applied electrical shocks to their nipples, genitals and feet while suspending them in mid air by their limbs....

Incidentally, former CIA agent Robert Baer was once quoted as saying: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

Surely, Eric Holder [he even conceded to it at his confirmation hearing] and Leon Panetta must have been aware of the CIA's secret renditions program. Mr. Holder, after all, was Deputy Attorney General at the time and Leon Panetta was Clinton's Chief of Staff. Panetta sat in on Mr. Clinton's daily intelligence briefings. [Which was the reason Barack Obama said he had appointed Mr. Panetta to be CIA Director.]

Thus, this begs the question: Why didn't Mr. Holder, in his capacity as Deputy head of the Justice Dept, open up an investigation into the Clinton administration's misconduct? And why didn't Leon Panetta at the time prod members of congress to investigate the CIA's secret program?

Did they even bother to inform members of congress about the program? And, if they did, who did they tell, and why didn't these members of congress investigate the matter?

Clearly, Eric Holder and Leon Panetta - and perhaps members of congress - were aware of the program, and in their silence, they were accessories to the crime.

Thus, I say, let the investigations begin! However, Eric Holder and Leon Panetta must take the witness stand first and explain what role they played in the Clinton administration's secret renditions program.

I beseech readers of this blog to take a few minutes of their time to email one or more of the following lawmakers [or if you prefer, email your own senator or district representative] and ask them to open up an investigation into the role that Eric Holder and Leon Panetta might have played in the Clinton administration's extraordinary renditions program.

Simply copy and paste the URL address [permalink] of this blog post
[http://obamareport.blogspot.com/2009/07/investigate-eric-holder-leon-panetta.html] and add the following sentence: "Investigate Holder and Panetta!" That's it! When emailing Senators Lamar Alexander and Richard Shelby, remind them of the exchange they had with Mr. Holder during his confirmation hearing.

Jim DeMint

Lamar Alexander

Richard Shelby

Connie Mack

House overwhelmingly rejects Obama's signing statement

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama insisted he would reopen negotiations on NAFTA, citing the need to strengthen labor and environmental standards. And then, in typical Obama fashion, he waffled on that pledge a few months ago, saying he had no plans to renegotiate NAFTA.

Apparently, labor and environmental standards were only of concern to Obama during the presidential campaign. Which explains why he included a signing statement in the war-spending bill last month, saying he would disregard provisions of the legislation that would compel him to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards.

The conditions would "interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions," Obama said in the signing statement.

Then again, when it comes to "international organizations and foreign governments", Obama is capable of just about anything, especially when these international organizations are of the rogue variety. Hmmm......

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama, who consistently criticized George W. Bush for issuing signing statements - although Obama himself has already issued 5 signing statements since taking office - received a little taste of his own medicine Thursday:

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members [on Thursday] approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities...

The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.

Senior Democrats and Republicans railed against the notion that the president could ignore a law they had passed and he had signed.

"We do this not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of this democracy," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "There's kind of a unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements ." ("undemocratic", hmmm... Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Zelaya, Castro... Oba.., ah yes, "undemocratic".....)

Obama, a unilateralist?

How dare you insinuate such a thing, Mr. Frank!

Leave that to the pundits! Shame on you!

Time for a Congressional Hearing, Obama vs. Honduran law

Rep. Connie Mack (FL-14) introduced legislation in the House of Representatives on Wednesday condemning former Honduran leader, Manuel Zelaya, for his unconstitutional and illegal attempts to alter the Constitution of Honduras.

"Manuel Zelaya’s record on quashing freedom looked like it was ripped from Hugo Chavez’s playbook," said Mack. "Zelaya trampled on the Honduran Constitution."

That's all fine and dandy, but why is President Obama being left out of the equation?

As Senator Jim DeMint eloquently explained on the senate floor several days ago, "the Honduran Congress, controlled by Zelaya's own Liberal Party, voted 125-3 to replace Zelaya with their speaker, Roberto Micheletti... This transfer of power was strictly in keeping with Honduras' constitutional line of succession [as the Vice President had recently resigned]"

Honduran law explicitly states:

No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

Barack Obama, in supporting Zelaya's presidency, is clearly trampling on the Honduran constitution and subverting the decisions of Honduras' democratically elected government. And yet, Obama has the audacity to try and portray his actions as being in defense of Democracy, when in reality, he and his co-conspirators are quashing Democracy.

If Manuel Zelaya is deserving of a congressional condemnation for his trampling of the Honduran constitution, than his accessory in crime, Barack Obama, is also deserving of a congressional condemnation.

Several Republican lawmakers recently came out and criticized the president for siding with Zelaya, but stopped short of condemning Obama. Instead, they pleaded with him to reverse course and to stand on the side of freedom and Democracy. But only a fool would assume the president is going to jump ship and change his radical ideologies anytime soon.

In truth, several days ago, I suggested that lawmakers condemn the president for his actions, but now, I am no longer content with a mere censure. We need a congressional hearing on the matter.

Democracy, whether in the US or abroad, is inviolable, and it must be shielded from the Chavezes and Obamas of the world.

No president should ever be afforded carte blanche to interfere in the legislative decisions of a democratically elected government. And, when a president begins to assume such power, it is time for congress to intervene in the matter.

Trampling on freedom and Democracy is no laughing matter, subverting both the authority of the Honduran congress and the laws of Honduras' constitution is criminal.

Hence, I am calling on members of the House and Senate to immediately commence a congressional hearing on the matter.

US Senate, contact information
US congress, contact information
Request congressional hearing.........

Vladimir Putin Jr: "Obama Boggles Russian Minds!"

Senators press Administration to respect Honduran law

Seventeen Senators on Wednesday sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urging the Obama administration to reverse its rhetoric and support the removal of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, The Hill reported today.

The following is a small excerpt from the aforementioned letter [PDF link]:

President Obama said in Moscow, "we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders." In a 125-3 vote, the Honduran congress approved of the actions taken to remove Mr. Zelaya from office and install Mr. Michelleti.

It appears that the elected officials of Honduras - representing their constituents - did indeed choose their own leader and that the system of checks and balances, instrumental to a functioning Democracy, actually worked as prescribed.

With these facts in mind, we are concerned by what appears to be one-sided support for Mr. Zelaya, and it appears this situation was exacerbated by this administration's insistence in disregarding Honduran law...

The US position should not be about supporting specific politicians in this crisis, but about supporting Democracy for the Honduran people and judiciously defending the rule of law...

We look forward to working with you to ensure the respect for the rule of law in Honduras and freedom and Democracy in Latin America...

The letter was signed by Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Cornyn (Texas), David Vitter (La.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), John Ensign (Nev.), Jim Bunning (Ky.), Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), James Inhofe (Okla.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Jim Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Kit Bond (Mo.) and John Thune (S.D.).

Is Obama aiding and abetting the Venezuelan Drug Trade?

From La Gringa's Blogicito:

The US Congress has sent a letter to President Obama asking for his assurances that the US government has no knowledge of drug connections of former Honduran President Mel Zelaya.

July 2, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House

Dear President Obama:We write to seek your explicit personal assurances that U.S. intelligence or law enforcement agencies have no information implicating officials of the Honduran administration of Manuel Zelaya, including Mr. Zelaya himself, in the transit of illegal narcotics through Honduran territory or in any other ties to drug trafficking.

On June 30, the Associated Press published an accusation by a current Honduras official that Mr, Zelaya's government "allowed tons of cocaine to be flown into the Central American country on its way to the United States."

Honduran Foreign Minister Enrique Ortez is quoted saying, "Every night, three or four Venezuelan-registered planes land without the permission of appropriate authorities and bring thousands of pounds ... and packages of money that are the fruit of drug trafficking.... We have proof of all of this. Neighboring governments have it. The DEA [a US/DOJ enforcement agency] has it." [Ed. note: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Rusty Payne in Washington said he could neither confirm nor deny a DEA investigation. Hmmm....]

In light of your personal, public demands that Mr. Zelaya should be restored to power, we believe that you must assume personal responsibility for ensuring that our government is not aware of any information that suggests that Mr, Zelaya or his associates have been complicit in the trafficking of cocaine or any other illegal substances to the United States.We are certain that the American people would be shocked to discover that the United States government is playing or has played any role in restoring to power any official who U.S. intelligence or law enforcement agencies suspect of any ties to the deadly illicit drug trade...

For the life of me, I can't figure out why congress is so irate at Obama for lending a helping hand to one of his closest allies - Hugo Chavez...

The Canada Free Press notes: "Obama, of course, has his own past drug ties. Unlike the allegations regarding Zelaya, however, the American president was a user and not a middleman or one profiting from the distribution of cocaine..." Heh, heh......

Thank You Sen. DeMint

In my previous post, I opined that President Obama, in his efforts to reinstate former dictator, Manuel Zelaya to the Honduran presidency, is breaching Honduran law, specifically article 239 of the Honduran constitution.

Article 239 reads as follows:

No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

President Obama on Tuesday reiterated his support for Mr. Zelaya during a commencement address at Moscow’s New Economic School:

America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country...

Even as we meet here today, America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies...

"America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country... " Heh, vintage Obama.

I also opined yesterday that the president is deserving of a harsh condemnation for making a mockery out of the Honduran constitution. And, I called upon Sen. Jim DeMint - who, on Thursday had already lambasted the president for siding with the enemies of freedom and Democracy [Manuel Zelaya, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] - to officially condemn Obama's breach of Honduran law.

Today, Sen. DeMint delivered a speech on the Senate floor calling on Obama to support the rule of law in Honduras. Not exactly a condemnation [and that's understandable], but the senator deserves a big "thank you" for standing up to a president who is rapidly transforming this country into both an ally and a sponsor of tyranny and despotism.



Thank you, Senator!

The senator's contact page is here.

Send him a big "Thanx"!

Should Obama be condemned for violating Honduran law?

As I noted in my previous post, State Dept. spokesman Ian Kelly on Monday issued a statement saying the US "deplores the use of force against demonstrators in" Honduras. He then added, "We're very focused on the need for a dialog to restore [Manuel Zelaya] back to office and restore the democratic order."

It has also been reported that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to meet with the former dictator [Mr. Zelaya] on Tuesday.

Of course, as I noted previously, Ian Kelly, in typical hypocritical fashion, refused to condemn [deplore] the brutal suppression of protesters in Iran [during a press conference last month].

Nevertheless, there are some additional questions that need to be addressed:

Where was the Obama administration on March 23 when Manuel Zelaya issued a presidential decree calling for a national referendum, in violation of Honduras' constitution? [scroll down for video] The Attorney General of Honduras, the Supreme Court and the supreme electoral tribunal all declared the intended referendum illegal. Dozens of national institutions and associations joined in condemning the proposed referendum as unconstitutional. Why was there was no condemnation at the time from the Obama administration? And why didn't the administration intervene and try to block Mr. Zelaya from illegally holding on to power?

On June 25, Manuel Zelaya issued a second decree calling for a survey, which was also illegal. On the same day, the Supreme electoral tribunal and the Attorney General confiscated the ballots, but Zelaya and his thugs broke into the warehouse and seized the ballots by force. Why didn't the Obama administration issue a condemnation then?

The Honduran constitution explicitly states that any president who attempts to serve more than his allotted term shall immediately be removed from office [for a period of 10 years]. Honduran constitution does not provide for a process of impeachment, consequently, Mr. Zelaya was removed from his post. - h/t - Honduras Sprouts



The Obama administration refused to condemn Mr. Zelaya's illegal referendum and did nothing to prevent him from illegally extending his term in office.

Instead, State Dept. spokesman Ian Kelly now asserts that the administration is "very focused on the need... to restore [Manuel Zelaya] back to office," despite the fact that this would be in violation of Honduras' constitution.

Thus, the question arises: Should Obama and his minions be condemned for attempting to reinstate Mr. Zelaya into office, in violation of Honduran law?

I don't see why not.

Admittedly, Mr. Kelly did say that he wishes to reinstate Mr. Zelaya into office by means of a dialog. But bear in mind that Mr. Zelaya violated his country's constitution, and according to Honduran law he must be removed from office for at least 10 years. Hence, I believe the administration is attempting to skirt Honduran law and is thus, deserving of a scathing condemnation.

Article 239 - Honduran constitution:

No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

Sen. DeMint, Rep.Ros-Lehtinen, the ball is in your court, how about a congressional condemnation, please?

US Senate, contact information
US congress, contact information

Request condemnation.....

State Dept. Willing to Condemn Micheletti, but not Ahmadinejad

From Reuters - July 7, 2009:

"We deplore the use of force against demonstrators in Tegucigalpa in recent days and once again call upon the de facto regime and all actors in Honduras to refrain from all acts of violence," said U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly in Washington...

From Politico - June 15, 2009:

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the U.S. is “deeply troubled” by events in Iran but stopped short of condemning them.

“I haven’t used that word, ‘condemn,’” he told the State Department press corps. “We need to see how things unfold.”

"You need to see more heads cracked in the middle of the street?” Fox News’ James Rosen shot back.

“We need a deeper assessment of what’s going on,” Kelly said...

No surprise there.

Reuters is also reporting:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to meet Manuel Zelaya in Washington on Tuesday, a U.S. official said, in a sign the Obama administration -- which has already condemned his ouster -- wants to provide visible support. The official gave no other details of the planned meeting.

Looks like Hugo Chavez' deliberately planned diatribes against the US is having the desired effect.

Chavez is a master rhetorician who knows how to push the right buttons. Right now, he practically owns Obama!

See previous [related] post, Liberal Media Cunningly Extols Obama's Pacifist Policies

Liberal Media Cunningly Extols Obama's Pacifist Policies

Last week, the New York Times craftily depicted President Obama's handling of the Honduran crisis as a brilliant act of diplomacy, which seemed to have caught Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, off balance.

From the moment the coup in Honduras unfolded..., President Hugo Chávez had his playbook ready. He said Washington’s hands may have been all over the ouster...

But President Obama firmly condemned the coup, defusing Mr. Chávez’s charges. Instead of engaging in tit-for-tat accusations, Mr. Obama calmly described the coup as “illegal” and called for Mr. Zelaya’s return to office...

Other news media outlets have made similar claims with regards to the president's handling of the Iranian crisis. By refusing to "meddle in Iran's internal affairs", the argument went, Obama was defusing Mr. Ahmadinejad's strategy of blaming America for the post-election protests in Iran.

Thus, according to this cunning and underhanded analysis, Barack Obama is a diplomatic genius who has managed to outmaneuver Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with his political savviness.

But in reality, just the opposite is true: President Obama is playing right into the hands of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Last week, I noted that immediately following Manuel Zelaya's ouster, UN Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann issued a press release, accusing Barack Obama of being behind the coup and demanding that Obama immediately condemn the coup. The next morning, Obama, like the obedient lap-dog that he is, heeded Mr. Brockmann's directive and called Manuel Zelaya's ouster "illegal". For ultimately, the president's entire foreign policy is nothing more than a policy of appeasement.

Barack Obama's sole concern is to bolster his relationship with the socialist and tyrannical dictators of the world. And, sadly, the Ahmadinejads, Chavezes and Brockmann's of the world understand this quite well. Which is why they continue to hurl these ridiculous accusations at Obama, knowing it will not only keep the King of Pacifists at bay, but it will also compel him to throw his weight behind their evil machinations. For indeed there's nothing more noble in Obama's eyes than to curry favor with a band of socialist, totalitarian thugs, even if it means suppressing Democracy.

For indeed, bolstering Democracy was never part of the president's game-plan, whereas, supporting Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is very much a part of both the Obama Doctrine and the president's New World Order.

Obama, a 'Laughing' Contradiction?

On March 17, 2008, MSNBC reported as follows:

Obama claimed that the economy was "teetering on a potential crisis"... and pointed a finger at President Bush...

"History will not judge President bush kindly," Obama said of the economic downturn, arguing that Bush appeared nonchalant over the potential crisis in remarks last week.

"When I saw the president in his press conference, almost lighthearted and joking about some of these issues, I think it did not instill the kind of confidence in the American people and certainly it didn't instill any confidence in me that the Administration is taking the situation seriously," Obama said.

Thus, in March of 2009, Barack Obama made a special appearance on CBS' 60 Minutes program in order to impress upon the American people just how seriously he was taking the economic crisis:



Meanwhile, during an interview with ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden was asked by host George Stephanopoulos to explain the nation's 9.5% unemployment rates - the worst numbers in 26 years - considering that he and the President had predicted that unemployment would peak at no more than 8% if the president's stimulus package was passed:

"The truth is," Biden conceded, "we misread how bad the economy was..."

Heh, I suppose the Vice President was employing a little bit of "gallows humor" to help us make it through the day....

DeMint & Ros-Lehtinen on Honduras vs Obama

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, made the following statement about the ongoing situation in Honduras:

Excerpt - "The people of Honduras have struggled too long to have their hard-won democracy stolen from them by a Chavez-style dictator...

“For weeks leading to his arrest, Zelaya flouted the constitutional authority of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court... Zelaya’s open defiance of democratic norms has set Honduras on a path toward violence, instability, and tyranny.

“I am hopeful that as President Obama grows in office, he will eventually turn away from despots like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Zelaya, and give the United States’ full-throated support to the people of any country who are fighting for the same values we cherish and defend in America. The people fighting for freedom around the world, in Iran and Honduras, should never have to wonder which side America will choose between freedom and tyranny.

“President Obama’s call for the reinstatement of Zelaya is a slap in the face to the people of Honduras. And the resolution written by the Organization of American States tramples over the hopes and dreams of a free and democratic people.

“The rule of law is working in Honduras. President Obama should not undermine the democratic institutions that guarantee freedom by forcing an illegitimate President back into power."

“This is not an ideal transition, but Hondurans are adhering to their constitution. The United States should support the Honduran people and their legitimate leaders in their brave and heroic stand for freedom and the rule of law.”

Read full statement.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen penned a letter to President Obama asserting that the administration's failure to respond to Manuel Zelaya's "violations of Honduran rule of law," well before Mr. Zelaya's ouster, "marked a serious failure in U.S. diplomacy and democracy advocacy." And "as such, many would argue,"that the administration "is complicit in... the constitutional crisis in Honduras."

Excerpt - Dear Mr. President:

"I would like to take this opportunity to raise growing concerns about... your Administration’s response to the constitutional crisis in Honduras...

"I expected the Administration to adopt a deliberative, responsible approach to developments in Honduras. However, the U.S. stance from the onset appears to have been focused on supporting one individual, President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, irrespective of the Honduran constitution, rule of law, and democratic institutions...

"Mr. President, the constitutional crisis in Honduras did not commence on Sunday, June 28th but, at least, three months earlier, when Mr. Zelaya... [called] for a referendum to extend his presidential term.... Despite the clear limitations established in.. the Honduran constitution concerning the presidential term, the United States appeared to unconditionally embrace Mr. Zelaya’s plans.

"The Honduran Supreme Court, the Administrative courts etc. all declared the referendum to be illegal. Additional legislative action was taken by the Honduran National Congress on June 23rd to prevent Mr. Zelaya’s violations of Honduran rule of law... The U.S. failed to take effective steps, bilaterally or through the Organization of American States, to support these legitimate efforts...

"On Friday, June 26th, Mr. Zelaya issued another decree ordering government employees to participate in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly,” which would have reportedly triggered Article 239 of the Honduran constitution requiring he be relieved of his duties and office. The U.S. failed to respond. This marked a serious failure in U.S. diplomacy and democracy advocacy. As such, many would argue, that the U.S. is complicit in the escalation of the constitutional crisis in Honduras.

"At the OAS and the UN General Assembly this week, the U.S. accepted resolution texts drafted by Mr. Zelaya... and agreed to proposals put forth by the leaders of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia—all for the sake of consensus. Joining the “race to the bottom” or serving as an echo chamber is not helpful to our political, economic, or security interests in the region...

"Mr. President..., we must work together to advance core U.S. principles and achieve the stated goal of consolidating and strengthening the rule of law and democratic institutions in our Hemisphere..."

Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage, "shared responsibility payments"

From the AP:

Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority...

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties...

Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation...

In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey...

In a statement, [President] Obama welcomed the legislation, saying it "reflects many of the principles I've laid out..."

In a conference call with reporters, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn said the revised bill had brought "historic reform of health care"...

Read full article

Anti Zelaya Demonstrators Turn Out in Droves!

The media is exclusively showing demonstrations in support of ousted Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya. As I mentioned earlier, Gateway Pundit noted that the crowds in those demonstrations were quite small, whereas the crowds in support of President Roberto Micheletti were massive.

Here's a couple of videos showing the anti Zelaya rallies.

Check out the massive crowds!




Here's Fox News trying to prop up Mr. Zelaya. But note the size of the crowd:

Put the Pedal to the 'Meddle', Mr. President!

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) - an international organization with a permanent delegation to the United Nations - issued a statement on Tuesday expressing support for the results of Iran's 10th presidential election and urging all countries to refrain from interfering [meddling] in Iran's internal affairs.

No 'meddling' in Iran's internal affairs, hmmm......

Earlier this year, the Secretary General of the OIC [which represents the 57 Islamic states] penned an open letter to Barack Obama expressing the need to forge a new partnership between the US and the Muslim world.

Obama penned a letter back to the Secretary General, expressing "his staunch confidence in the ability of the US and the OIC to work together in a spirit of peace and friendship for the sake of building a more secure world over the next four years."

And now that Obama has agreed to refrain from meddling in Iran's internal affairs, he and the OIC will undoubtedly work together to build "a more secure [despotic and totalitarian] world."

Meanwhile, according to the Guardian UK, a shopkeeper from south-west Iran, is alleging that one of his friends [an 18-year-old] was beaten and repeatedly raped after being arrested at an opposition rally.

And, from the LA Times:

Prisoners said... they were pummeled by Basiji militiamen who told them they were inspired to crack down by Khamenei's tears at a Friday prayer sermon...

"You have caused my beloved leader to burst into tears," another prisoner said he was told. "Now you deserve to be beaten."...

Prisoners were frequently singled out and pulled away for interrogation. They came back hours later with bruises or with blood in their urine... Some would be pulled out at 8 a.m. and returned 14 hours later, limping and exhausted...

Nevertheless, you can't help but be inspired by Obama's slogans: "A spirit of peace and friendship", "building a more secure world", "yes we can", "hope", "change", "it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling", "the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran's affairs."

But sadly, there is one slogan that even Obama can't match:

"Put the pedal to the 'Meddle'."

Mr President, you are the leader of the Free World, aren't you? And, these thugs are killing our troops too, aren't they?

Then put the pedal to the 'Meddle'!

Pronto!

OIC, 57 states, Obama, hmmm.......

Thousands of Hondurans Rally Against Manuel Zelaya

Update from Gateway Pundit: VIDEO PROOF-- US Media Is Propping Up Chavez Lackey Zelaya of Honduras:

The US media reported today on "continuing protests" in support of ousted President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras. FOX News reported:

"Demonstators on the streets of Honduras again today demanding that Manuel Zelaya be reinstated."

Look at the few dozen Marxist supporters who showed up to support Zelaya today:

Now, here's what the American state-run media didn't show you... There was a MASSIVE anti-Zelaya protest today.
Thousands of Hondurans demonstrated in support of President Roberto Micheletti and against Chavez/Obama -lackey, Manuel Zelaya. Photo from El Heraldo via Gateway Pundit.

Shame on you, Fox News!

Also, from Watching America, via Gateway Pundit: China's Huanqiu News confirms: Obama's economic policies are in conformity with the Marxist Doctrine .

[Hugo Chavez: "Come on, Obama, align yourself with us on the way to socialism!]

Gallup: More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”

From Gallup.com:

A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%...

The increasing perception of the Democrats as too far left comes as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have expanded the government's role in the economy to address the economic problems facing the country. Additionally, the government is working toward major healthcare reform legislation and strengthening environmental regulations....

Gallup forgot to mention Obama's foreign policy, namely, how he is cozying up to Hugo Chavez, reaching out to Iran [and Hezbollah], refusing to meddle in Iran's internal affairs while the despotic regime mercissley beats and murders its own citizens, refusing to meddle in Iran's external affairs while it trains and supports the militants who are murdering US troops in Iraq, joining together with Hugo Chavez to support the former Honduran President and thug, Manuel Zelaya. And the list goes on and on and on......

Obama’s budget under-reported national debt by trillions of dollars

The New American reports:

The Congressional Budget Office [on Tuesday] informed Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee, that President Obama’s budget under-reported (and the CBO itself) the national debt in Obama’s budget by trillions of dollars by predicting unrealistically low interest rates on the national debt in a June 30 letter...

Read the rest

Obama refuses to Meddle in Iran's EXTERNAL affairs?

From the AP:

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq on Tuesday accused Iran of continuing to support and train militants who are carrying out attacks, including most of the ones in Baghdad...

Like the attacks against four US soldiers who were killed in Baghdad on Monday.

"Iran is still supporting, funding and training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq. They have not stopped and I don't think they will stop," Gen. Ray Odierno told reporters at the U.S. military headquarters outside Baghdad. "I think many of the attacks in Baghdad are from individuals that have been in fact funded or trained by the Iranians."

Odierno said the attacks were mainly indirect fire — a term usually reserved for mortars, rockets and artillery — and EFP's. That last weapon, also known as an explosively formed penetrator, is designed to attack armored vehicles such as Humvees and is among the main killers of U.S. troops in Iraq. U.S. officials have said the main component of the EFP is manufactured in Iran.

Odierno directly implicated groups supported by Iran in recent rocket attacks against the walled-off Green Zone in central Baghdad.

"Those are being done by groups that have been trained in Iran, been funded by Iran. Usually their leaders are still in Iran and they have surrogates doing operations in Iraq," he said.

But... Odierno said work done by U.S. and Iraqi forces to go after Iranian surrogates, uncover weapons caches and control the flow of weapons across the border has made it much harder for Iran to maintain the explosives supply.

He also said intelligence hasn't detected any changes since Tehran has been gripped by massive street protests following charges of fraud in the June 12 presidential election.

"They have kind of maintained themselves in a steady state as we've moved forward," he said.

On Monday, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill said he was concerned about military reports showing that illegal arms continue to flow into Iraq from Iran...

"Certainly we've seen examples of this which are not consistent with a good neighbor policy," he told The Associated Press.

Hill also said that Iran was still trying to exert a "malevolent influence" over neighboring Iraq...

The U.S. military accuses Iran of backing Shiite militias in Iraq with training and weapons and says it remains a major threat to Iraq's stability as American combat troops pull back from cities in a first step toward a full withdrawal by the end of 2011.

Tehran denies allegations that it is supporting violence in Iraq.

Zelaya to address UN assembly on Tuesday

From the AP

Two days after his ouster as Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya will appear before the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday seeking support among its 192 member nations.

Zelaya plans to address the assembly that serves as a forum for world debate at 11 a.m. (1500 GMT), said Enrique Yeves, a spokesman for Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann...

D'Escoto invited Zelaya to make the address at U.N. headquarters...

President Barack Obama on Monday declared that the United States still considers Zelaya to be the president of Honduras and described the military coup that forced him into exile as "not legal."...

I wonder if Obama will make a special appearance at the UN Tuesday to demonstrate his solidarity with the corrupt former Honduran president. [and maybe Obama could invite Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro to join him]

On Sunday, Mr. Brockmann issued a press release, accusing Barack Obama of being behind the coup:

"D’Escoto is making a special appeal to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, who recently at the summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, announced a new policy towards Latin America. 'Many are now asking if this coup is part of this new policy as it is well known that the army in Honduras has a history of total collaboration with the United States. In order to eliminate any doubt, it is absolutely necessary that President Obama immediately condemns the coup against President Zelaya.'"

I wonder if Mr. Brockmann's press relase had any bearing on Obama's decision to denounce the coup.

Hmmm....

Enzi & Hatch request Hearing over Obama's Dismissal of AmeriCorps IG

Sens. Mike Enzi and Orrin Hatch on Monday asked Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, to conduct a congressional hearing over the recent firing of the National Service Agency's inspector general, Gerald Walpin:

"We have asked for information from the White House counsel and CNCS, but they have not been forthcoming to date nor willing to commit to a time frame," the senators said in a letter to Kennedy.

A Kennedy spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, said the senator's office was reviewing the request.

It is Time for Obama to Admit the Truth

Perhaps some of you were a bit skeptical upon reading a recent statement issued by Hezbollah Deputy Secretary, Sheikh Naim Qassem, indicating that the Obama administration had tried to reach out to Hezbollah. But I was not the least bit skeptical.

Clearly, President Obama has indicated a willingness in the past to talk with the Iranian regime and even to negotiate indirectly with Hamas. Obama unequivocally believes in the merit of talking with rogue regimes and their terrorist beneficiaries. He is, reluctant, though, to talk openly and directly with terrorist leaders until they've become part of an established government in the country in which they reside. Which is why he'll readily admit to reaching out to Iran, but won't admit that he has indirectly communicated with various terrorist organizations.

But several weeks ago, it was not yet clear who would win the elections in Lebanon. There was a strong possibility that Hezbollah could emerge with the majority of votes. Thus, prior to the elections, Obama, in all likelihood, communicated indirectly with Hezbollah, to pave the way for more direct negotiations in the event it would emerge victorious, and perhaps even without that stipulation, since Hezbollah is already officially part of the Lebanese government.

Obama's overtures to Hezbollah should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with his philosophy. In Obama's view, the terrorists are no different than anyone else, consequently, they can be cajoled into joining the civilized world by means of negotiation and by addressing their purported grievances.

For example, if the US were to guarantee the Mullocracy that it would not seek regime change in Iran, the Mullahs would no longer pursue their diabolical agenda of transforming the world into an extremist Islamic caliphate. That is the Obama doctrine in a nutshell. And that is why Obama and his minions have reached out, and may be still reaching out, to Hezbollah at this very moment.

There is only one exception to the president's madness: So far, Obama has shown no indication that he'd be willing to talk with Al Qaeda. Perhaps, because, unlike the other terrorist entities which he is so eager to cavort with, Obama perceives Al Qaeda as unbendable and unmalleable in its evil ideologies. Or, perhaps because Obama realizes that talking with Al Qaeda is the one line that even his Liberal constituents would never let him cross.

Nevertheless, as I've noted on several occasions, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been, and are still intimately connected to the Iranian regime, the very regime which Obama has been cozying up to.

According to the 9/11 commission's findings:

Between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001....

Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000....

Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S....

And then, of course, there is the following caveat from the State Department's annual report on terrorism, released last month:

Iran’s IRGC Qods Force provided assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Qods Force provided training to the Taliban on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives....

Iran continues to rely primarily on its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force to clandestinely cultivate and support terrorist and Islamic militant groups abroad... The Qods Force continued to provide lethal support to select Iraqi militant groups that target U.S., Iraqi and Coalition forces. Iranian weapons transfers to select Taliban members in Afghanistan in 2008 continued to threaten Afghan and NATO troops operating under UN mandate and undermine stabilization efforts in that country....

And today there is more evidence coming out of Azerbaijan that Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are all intimately connected:

The Court of Grave Crimes has today held hearing on the case of Lebanese and Azerbaijani citizens, who are accused of having links to Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps of Iran (IRGC) and attempting to commit terror attacks in Azerbaijan, APA reports...

According to the indictment, leaders of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah gave instructions to the citizens of Lebanon Karaki Ali Mahammad, Nejmeddin Ali Huseyn and sent them to Azerbaijan. They were ordered to commit terror attacks in Azerbaijan...

Thus, the question arises: When will Obama finally concede [to what George W. Bush had been trying to knock into his head the past 8 years] that Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime and other terrorist off-shoots are all intmately connected with one another and are all one and the same?

Sadly - knowing Obama - he probably never will concede!

Iraqis Concerned about their future, despite Obama's assurance that Iran will protect them

President Obama's decision to withdraw US troops from Iraq is not sitting well with many Iraqis, who are concerned about their country's future, despite Obama's pledge to enlist the help of the Iranian regime to stabilize Iraq.

From Reuters:

Sitting in his small room in northern Baghdad, a pistol nearby and assault rifles stacked under the bed, Khalil Ibrahim is worried over Iraq's future.

Six years after the U.S. invasion, Iraqis are contemplating the reality of life after a major milestone -- Tuesday's withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from urban centers.

Glancing at his seven-year-old son playing a war game on a computer in the corner, Ibrahim, a chain-smoking former military intelligence officer, [expressed his concerns].

"Iran has good relations with our political parties. They run militias. If the U.S. troops complete their withdrawal, Iran will do whatever it wants in Iraq," he said, scowling.

Shi'ite-ruled Iran is often accused of arming and funding Shi'ite militias who have killed Sunnis...

Needless to say, I'm a bit surprised at Mr. Ibrahim - for two reasons:

First of all, he should respect the Islamic Republic's sovereignty and refrain from meddling in Iran's external affairs.

Secondly, if President Obama believes that Iran has an important role to play in bringing stability to Iraq, who is Mr. Ibrahim to say otherwise?

Bear in mind that the Iranian government is doing a remarkable job in securing its own future by cracking down on the protesters who are trying to destabilize the brutal regime. Thus, I think Obama is correct in assuming that the Mullocracy is also quite capable of securing and stabilizing Iraq.

And, finally, who is better equipped to make decisions regarding the fate and security of Iraq? Mr. Ibrahim, a mere military intelligence officer? Or, Barack Obama, who has years of community organizing under his belt?

Don't even bother answering that one, it's a no-brainer!

Hezbollah working with Iranian Regime in post-election crackdown

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly on Monday told reporters that invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies around the world. However, after receiving heavy criticism over the matter, the Obama administration, on Wednesday, finally decided to rescind the invitation.

Yesterday, the AFP quoted the Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General as saying that the US officials close to the Obama administration had asked to speak with Hezbollah.

However, according to recent reports coming out of Iran, Hezbollah operatives are currently assisting the Iranian regime in its brutal suppression of Iranian protesters. Thus, the question arises: Will the Obama administration rescind its offer to meet with Hezbollah, or will it continue to reach out to the terrorist organization, and perhaps, even treat the thugs to a July 4 barbecue?

From UK reporter, Robert Tait:

The man, who has come from a small town in the eastern province of Khorasan and has never been in Tehran before, says he is being paid 2m rial (£122) to assault protesters with a heavy wooden stave. He says the money is the main incentive as it will enable him to get married and may even enable him to afford more than one wife.

Leadership of the volunteers has been provided by a man known only as "Hajji", who has instructed his men to "beat the counter-revolutionaries so hard that they won't be able to stand up".

The volunteers, most of them from far-flung provinces such as Khuzestan, Arak and Mazandaran, are being kept in hostel accommodation, reportedly in east Tehran. Other volunteers, he says, have been brought from Lebanon, where the Iranian regime has strong allies in the Hezbollah movement. They are said to be more highly-paid than their Iranian counterparts and are put up in hotels. The last piece of information seems to confirm the suspicion of many Iranians that foreign security personnel are being used to suppress the demonstrators....

Obama Administration Reaching out to Hezbollah? - Hezbollah insists it won't meddle in Iran's Internal Affairs

Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem revealed on Thursday that US officials close to the Obama administration have reached out to Hezbollah and have sought to initiate a dialog with the terrorist organization.

"Several US officials at different levels and more or less close to the administration have asked to speak with [us], but we have refused," he said. "It is useless to have any dialog with the Americans since they regard us as terrorists."

The Washington Times on Wednesday revealed that the Obama administration had recently "sent a letter to [Iran's] supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, calling for an improvement in relations." But apparently, the administration is also seeking to forge a more amiable relationship with Hezbollah.

Mr. Qassem also denied that Hezbollah was taking sides in the current conflict in Iran.

Perhaps, taking his cue from President Obama, who recently said that the US "respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran's affairs," Mr Qassem declared: "Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iran's internal affairs... We don't side with anyone. This is an internal Iranian issue." - Ahem

George W. Bush, Standing up for the People of Iran

Oh, how the Iranian people must be yearning for the days of old, when George W. Bush was president.

Excerpted from President Bush's address to the American Legion - Feruary 24, 2006:

Across the world freedom is on the march, and we will not rest until the promise of freedom reaches people everywhere across the globe...

It is, in large part, because people in the Middle East have been denied legitimate means to express dissent that radical extremism has flourished. And it's only by giving people in the Middle East the freedom to express their opinions and choose their leaders that we will be able to defeat radical extremism...

The international community is... speaking with one voice to the radical regime in Tehran. Iran is a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people, and denying them basic liberties and human rights...

We're also reaching out to the Iranian people to support their desire to be free; to build a free, democratic, and transparent society.

To support the Iranian people's efforts to win their own freedom, my administration is requesting $75 million in emergency funds to support democracy in Iran... These new funds will allow us to expand radio and television broadcasts into Iran. They will support reformers and dissidents and human rights activists..., so Iranians can organize and challenge the repressive policies of the clerical regime...

By supporting democratic change in Iran, we will hasten the day when the people of Iran can determine their own future and be free to choose their own leaders. Freedom in the Middle East requires freedom for the Iranian people, and America looks forward to the day when our nation can be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.....

The advance of liberty still faces determined enemies. [They] know the stakes in the struggle... And so they'll continue to fight freedom's progress...[They] know that the only way they can defeat us is to break our will and force our retreat. And that's not going to happen so long as I'm the President of the United States...

We'll continue to stand with people of the Middle East as they step forward to claim their freedom. We can be confident in our cause because we have seen freedom conquer tyranny and secure the peace before... And now the hope of freedom is stirring in the Middle East, and no one should bet against it.

‘Democracy’, a dirty word for Obama?

Excerpt from the Boston Globe:

According to the AP, Egypt’s ambassador to the United States [recently] expressed satisfaction “that ties are on the mend and that Washington has dropped conditions for better relations, including demands for ‘human rights, democracy and religious and general freedoms'. ’’ Just as Obama has downplayed democracy efforts in the Middle East, he has also done so with regard to China, Russia, and even Sudan...

And, of course, Iran too.

What?! You didn't know Mousavi was a thug?!

Ed Morrissey cites a post in CQ Politics which quotes several former US officials linking then-Prime Minister of Iran, Mir Hossein Mousavi, to the 1983 attack in Lebanon that killed more than 240 US marines.

From CQ Politics:

"The Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target U.S. personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a 'spectacular action' against the Marines," said [retired Navy Admiral James "Ace"] Lyons.

In 1983 Lyons was deputy chief of Naval Operations, and deeply involved in the events in Lebanon."He was prime minister [in the 1980'S]," Lyons said of Mousavi, "so he didn't get down to the details at the lowest levels. "But he was in a principal position and had to be aware of what was going on."...

But [Bob] Baer, a former CIA Middle East field officer whose exploits were dramatized in the George Clooney movie "Syriana," places Mousavi even closer to the Beirut bombings.

"He dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah," who ran the Beirut terrorist campaign and was "the man largely held responsible for both attacks," Baer wrote in TIME over the weekend.

Morrissey concludes:

"Yes, this could possibly be an “oppo dump,” but that would require us to question the integrity of Admiral Lyons, which I won’t do. I’d trust that he’s telling the truth, until someone proves him wrong."

Ed! What is there to question?

Last week I cited several sources that indicate just how much of a thug Mousavi really is. He was put in charge of Hezbollah operations by the late Ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini. Is there any reason not to believe Mousavi wasn't involved in the 1983 Hezbollah operation? Let me rephrase that question: Is is it even possible that Mr. Mousavi wasn't involved in the 1983 Hezbollah attack?

Let's recap what I wrote last week:

In an interview with the New York Times in 1981 Mir Hossein Mousavi defended the taking of American hostages from the US Embassy in 1979, saying “it was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution, it was after this that we rediscovered our true Islamic identity."

Mousavi was also one of the founders of Hezbollah. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini put him on the Hezbollah leadership council when the group was created in 1982-1983.

Mousavi coordinated the financing of Hezbollah and set up a scheme so that Hezbollah would get a share of Iranian oil sales.

Mousavi was also prime minister at the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 when tens of thousands of political prisoners were murdered in cold blood on the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Yes, Ed, this could possibly be an “oppo dump,” but that would require us to question the integrity of all those sources that I've cited, which I won’t do, because I'm sure I can find a dozen other sources saying the exact same thing.

Ed! Mir Hossein Mousavi was in charge of Hezbollah and all its terrorist operations! The man is a thug and he was responsible for the attack that killed more than 240 US marines. Period!

Nevertheless, Morrissey hits the nail right on the head with the following paragraph:

Does that make the uprising in Iran less legitimate? No. In fact, as I’ve written many times in the past week, it just points out the stupidity of the mullahs in fumbling the rigged election in the first place. Mousavi would have played ball had mullahs allowed him to take office — perhaps somewhat less enthusiastically than Ahmadinejad, but still Mousavi would have worked within the system. They’ve practically forced Mousavi to serve as a beacon for the opposition that wants the mullahs out of power...

And, that's the point! It's not about Mousavi, it's about toppling the Mullocracy, the regime, the miscreants that Obama insists on cozying up to. It's about standing up for the Iranian people, who yearn for freedom and Democracy, the very ideals that Obama scorns and refuses to propagate. It's about "Change", the very slogan that is slowly, but surely, wreaking havoc upon the entire free world.

Ed, I'm sorry about the hostile tone. I'm just a little bit piqued right now. No, you are not to blame. It's Obama.

I'm sorry.