Good grief.

Thanks heavens some US Senators are speaking out about this incredibly sanitized, downright false characterization of Major Hasan’s intentions when he began to shoot down unarmed soldiers in the name of Allah. Here is more on this issue:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

It is just mind boggling that our government is attempting to sanitize to the point of absurdity the horrific attack by Major Hasan at Fort Hood. Senator Collins is correct, this is taking political correctness to an extreme that is downright dangerous.

And that denial is dangerous not just to the nation, but to our military, specifically:

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

“The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists’ scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,” Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday’s hearing.

In June, two men allegedly plotted to attack a Seattle, Wash., military installation using guns and grenades. In July, Army Pvt. Naser Abdo was accused of planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And in November, New York police arrested Jose Pimentel, who alleged sought to kill service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. (Click here to read the rest.)

And yet, knowing this, our government, in their infinite wisdom (cough, choke), has decided to redefine radical Islamic attacks as “workplace violence.” Wow. This is up there with Napolitano’s “man made disasters” term. But both are disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worse.

Of course, radical Islam is not the whole of Islam, but to deny its existence in this country is doing a tremendous disservice to those killed at 9/11, those killed at Fort Hood, those killed at bases overseas, those killed in the attack on the USS Cole, and so, so many more instances too numerous to mention here. Why our government seems more concerned with insulting these groups than naming them for what they are is just beyond me. This revisionist history must stop, and must stop now. Call it what it is by name. Nothing less will do.

The warning comes after Kenya sent troops across the border into Somalia to pursue Islamist Al-Shabaab militants. The terror group has threatened Kenya with retaliatory attacks, saying it considers the forces’ incursion an affront to Somalia’s sovereignty.

Al-Shabaab, which is linked to al Qaeda and has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, is fighting to impose its own interpretation of Islamic law, or sharia, on Somalia.

Wow, yes, I can understand why they would be concerned about this danger, especially since two days after this alert was made, a grenade was detonated at a Kenyan pub. Yikes.

What I cannot understand, given the above and a host of similar dangers, is why our DOJ felt compelled to take back their current training manuals on terrorism. As one might expect, the manuals included information on Islamist terrorists. Well, CAIR, the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood connected organization in America, along with another Muslim organization, threw a hissy fit about the US mentioning Islmaist terrorists in their manuals. So, what did the Obama Administration do? They kowtowed to CAIR:

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

The DOJ is removing ALL references to Islam in these manuals. I am sorry, but this is just insane. This nation has suffered attacks at the hands of Islamists, and is under threat from Islamists around the globe even now. How dare our DOJ capitulate to an organization associated with the Muslim Brotherhood which has waged jihad against the United States!

Oh, but wait – there’s more:

Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.

Multiple online sources detail MPAC’s close alignment with CAIR.

In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new “interagency task force” to review the training materials — a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So let me make sure I understand this. The very groups who have ties to Islamist radicals are making demands on just how our government goes about finding these groups, and how they deal with these threats? And the DOJ is acquiescing to this? Are you kidding me with this?

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it precisely this kind of political correctness that allowed Major Nidal Hasan to stay in the Army? Despite his preaching radical Islam, associating with known terrorists (Anwar al-Awlaki),and poor performance reviews, he was allowed to stay in the Army. As a result, he was able to gun down a number of soldiers in cold blood at Fort Hood. Had it not been for the actions of a couple of people, there is no telling the amount of carnage he could have waged.

How CAIR, an organization the FBI determined was an organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, has amassed so much power in the United States is beyond me. What is even more startling is that it is not held in high regard by the majority of Muslims in this country: Although widely publicized in the media, CAIR is regarded as a leadership group by only 12 percent of Muslims in America, according to an August 2 report by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center. Muslim groups that separate politics from religion, such as the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, do not ally with progressive groups and get little media attention.

That said, considering high officials are submitting to them makes it clear that this DOJ needs a massive overhaul. From the top on down, including Eric Holder, and Deputy AG Cole, who acknowledged that these materials had been returned (at taxpayer expense to placate these groups, they need to go. They do not have our best interests at heart, and are putting us in danger by their caving to groups like CAIR. We have been attacked by radical Islamists, and those same groups are planning to do us harm even now. To deny this, to put US citizens at risk, is downright criminal, or it should be.

How many more American lives are we willing to lose in the name of political correctness? Naming an enemy and preparing for that enemy are not the same as being intolerant or biased, it is just the reality in which we live.

To ignore known and real threats as the DOJ is willing to do lest they offend is sheer insanity. At least that’s what I think. What do you think?

In case you missed it somehow, this is to what I am referring:

Click here to view the embedded video.

First up – and I am sure you knew this was coming – is this old fave:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Except, of course, Obama can’t dance. But you know what I mean.

And I have to hand it to Senator Jon Cornyn (R-TX) for coming up with this one as a result of Obama’s “If You Love Me…” manipulation:

Click here to view the embedded video.

How funny is that? He mentioned it in a press conference. Hilarious.

And if I can digress for a moment, as many of you know, there is a video making the rounds of President and First Lady Obama at the 9/11/11 commemoration. In it, the First Lady seems to be making a derogatory comment about the ritual of folding the flag, and the President appears to agree with her. If indeed the First Lady made such a comment, allow me to highlight for her the meaning behind each fold, and why the flag of the United States is done the way it is:

The first fold of our flag is a symbol of life.

The second fold is a symbol of our belief in eternal life.

The third fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks, and who gave a portion of his or her life for the defense of our country to attain peace throughout the world.

The fourth fold represents our weaker nature; as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace, as well as in times of war, for His divine guidance.

The fifth fold is a tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, “Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right, but it is still our country, right or wrong.”

The sixth fold is for where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The seventh fold is a tribute to our armed forces, for it is through the armed forces that we protect our country and our flag against all enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of our republic.

The eighth fold is a tribute to the one who entered into the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor our mother, for whom it flies on Mother’s Day.

The ninth fold is a tribute to womanhood, for it has been through their faith, love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great have been molded.

The 10th fold is a tribute to father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of our country since he or she was first born.

The 11th fold, in the eyes of Hebrew citizens, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The 12th fold, in the eyes of a Christian citizen, represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost.

When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, “In God We Trust.”

After the flag is completely folded and tucked in, it has the appearance of a cocked hat, ever reminding us of the soldiers who served under Gen. George Washington and the sailors and Marines who served under Capt. John Paul Jones and were followed by their comrades and shipmates in the U.S. Armed Forces, preserving for us the rights, privileges and freedoms we enjoy today.

Regardless of what she actually said, one would think the First Lady of the United States might act with a bit more decorum during such a solemn rite than rolling her eyes, but even more so the PRESIDENT of the United States. At such a momentous occasion, nothing but the most respect and gravity for the rites and rituals of the day will do.

And this is how it is done:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I couldn’t possibly roll my eyes at this ritual – I was too busy crying at the beauty, the solemnity, the care, and the precision with which they care for the flag. Roll my eyes? No. Not even close. Rather, it makes me proud.

Okay – it’s your turn, friends. Talk about this or anything else on your mind, post some videos, whatever. After the week we have had, it’s time for a break, don’t you think?

The world focused on the Northern areas of Pakistan to capture or kill the al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives. But the harsh reality is that even if these operatives are eliminated, there are other outfits in the rest of the southern part of Pakistan that have the same aims, will and training as that of al-Qaeda or Taliban.

After 2001 Pakistanis were spoon fed the propaganda that the violence in Pakistan is due to America’s presence in Afghanistan. As a result, many hate the U.S. intervention and see Islamists as the defenders of Pakistani sovereignty. Those who support the Islamists for their religious beliefs are relatively few in number, but they are better organized. The arrests of extremists depends on the willingness of Pakistan’s secret agencies and/or the influence of the Saudi government.

The dual policy of keeping the U.S. happy while supporting the terrorist outfits was charted out by the then-President of Pakistan Gen. Pervez Musharraf. He half-heartedly banned some 23 organizations but failed — deliberately — to bring their sponsors to justice.

The story of Southern part of Pakistan is much scarier than the Northern part. Just as the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached, those “banned” outfits were on the rise, exploiting the anti-Americanism in the country and misusing the name of religion.

Jaish-e-Muhammad, the group blamed for an attack on the Indian parliament, is the second largest jihadi group in Southern Punjab. It carries out regular public gatherings and has strong influence in the U.K., Europe, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and even in the U.S. Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi was their financial patron-in-chief at one point. Another major financer is Saudi Arabia.

JeM changed its name a few times because of the “ban.” It went from Khudam-al-Islam to Al Rehmat Trust International to Usman Trust. Currently it is operating under the banner of Al Shafi Islamic Medical. Its publications were never out of print.

The failed Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, spent much of his time at a JeM madrassa in Karachi. He was transported to the North later by Laskhar-e-Jhangvi for further training.

LeJ’s parent organization — Sipah Sahaba Pakistan — changed its name from Millat-e-Islamia to International Quran Movement to Ehle Sunnat wa Jamaat. Its propaganda organ publications were available to the masses outside mosques and various market places.

The LeJ formed and operated its new wing, also known as Lashkar e Jhangvi al Almi (LeJ International). With its headquarters in Pakistan, it covers Europe and the U.K. The LeJ is organized into small cells of around eight cadres each, who operate independently of the others.

LeJ leader Malik Ishaq told an Urdu newspaper about his involvement in the killings of 102 people. He was allowed a stipend and provided a mobile phone in jail. Ishaq was released this year after the courts found no evidence against him.

Gen. Musharraf’s government carried out just one operation against the Islamic fundamentalists, under pressure from the Chinese government, when he ordered the Red Mosque Siege. Pakistani intelligence officials said they found letters from Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to the leaders of the mosque, directing them to conduct an armed revolt. One of the leaders was released by the courts later.

The LeJ, JeM and Harkat ul Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) formed a common front called Lashkar-e-Umer with countrywide branches for close cooperation and pooled resources. These groups still support each other in one form or another.

The Karachi-based Al Rasheed Trust, was “banned” and listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department on September 22, 2001. The group is still operating and its chief was one of the few who had direct access to bin Laden.

Similarly, another group, the Falah-e-Isnaniyat Foundation (FIF) is linked with Lashkar and Jamat-al-Dawa and protected by the security establishment. These groups are also supported and funded by the Saudis.

The freehand operations of these groups have radicalized Pakistani society. Anti-Americanism spreads while Arabization has taken hold.

There are more and more mosques in each city, many run by such outfits. In some places three separate mosques of different sects are built next to each other. The sermons delivered there go unchecked and ultimately fuel the hatred and twisted ideology of dividing Muslims and bringing ‘sharia’ of their liking to the world. Public Billboards promoting jihad and hatred of America are everywhere cloaked as appeals for “charity.”

Pakistan’s internal crises include a deep cynicism that has seeped into every nook and cranny of everyday life. Politically, the army continues to run the popular narrative. Socially, if liberals talk about rapprochement with India, they’re accused of being controlled by RAW, the C.I.A. or the Zionists — or all three. The radical view that it’s acceptable to kill Shi’a, Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians and destroy their places of worship is widespread.

Because of this chaos, ordinary Pakistanis who want to travel, work and study abroad are finding it harder to do so. In the eyes of many immigration officials around the world, to be Pakistani is synonymous with being a criminal.

It’s been said many times that 9/11 changed the world. After the attacks, Afghanistan and Pakistan felt the heat.

Ten years later, the diseases that had been contained in Pakistan metastasize more rapidly than ever. Pakistan’s militants, all of them, are a threat to international peace. If the West’s strategy for combating radicalism continues on its present parochial course, the world will feel the heat.

In the midst of commemorations for 9/11/01, a day on which we remembered those who were killed, and reaffirmed the commitment to keep our nation safe, the Taliban was busy in Afghanistan. Our officials were concerned about a 9/11 attack – but we thought it would be on our shores, in an area already hit.

And in a way, it was. The Taliban attacked our soldiers at a military base:

The massive Taliban truck bomb that exploded outside an American military base in a restive eastern district injured nearly 80 U.S. troops and killed five Afghans, Western and Afghan officials said Sunday.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which took place Saturday evening in the Sayedabad district of Wardak province. That is the same district where insurgents last month shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter, killing 30 American troops, the majority of them Navy SEALs, including some from the unit responsible for killing Osama bin Laden.

The Chinook crash, which remains under investigation, was the worst single loss of American military lives in the nearly decade-long war.

Although no Americans died in Saturday’s blast, it appeared to be one of the biggest casualty counts in an insurgent strike on a Western military installation. The bombing also carried symbolic weight, coming on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. [snip]

Thank heavens none of our soldiers were killed, but for almost 80 of them to have been injured, is significant enough. That said, it is very sad that others did die in this attack on our base. And, thank heavens that the base was so fortified that more damage was not done to our troops or the base.

The article continues:

[snip] Hours after the attack, a solemn ceremony was held at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul on Sunday morning to remember the victims of Sept. 11. Before an audience of several hundred embassy employees, military officials and Afghan dignitaries, the American flag was lowered to half-staff and a lone bugle sounded taps. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It was that very embassy in Kabul that the Taliban attacked on Monday. Though the New York Times seems loathe to cloak the attackers with that moniker:

Insurgents launched a complex assault against the American Embassy and the nearby NATO headquarters on Tuesday, pelting the heavily guarded compounds with rockets in an attack that raised new questions about the security of Afghanistan’s capital and the Westerners working there.

At least 10 explosions — apparently from rockets launched by militants — and waves of automatic weapons fire were reported amid the drone of sirens and English-language warnings telling Americans inside the embassy to take cover.

[...]

It was unclear precisely how many assailants were behind the assault or whether they were attacking from a single or multiple locations. The attackers were holed up on several floors of a tall, partly built concrete building that offered a bird’s-eye view of the secured diplomatic and military compounds about a half mile away. Flashes from gun barrels could be seen as the militants fired from their perch. Afghan security forces returned fire from the ground, sending puffs of concrete dust into the air as bullets slapped the building. [snip]

So far, no Americans have been killed, but the Taliban is taking credit for this assault, which the Times has not yet verified, hence their hesitancy to label it as such. Other news organizations are claiming this is indeed the continuing actions of the Taliban insurgents.

Regardless who is responsible, these attacks, the third since June, cannot stand:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. will do everything it can to combat those who committed a “cowardly attack” on the U.S. Embassy and other buildings in Kabul.

Clinton said the U.S. was moving to secure the area in Afghanistan’s capital and “ensure that those who perpetrated this attack are dealt with.”

I would certainly hope so. For live updates of the situation in Kabul, click here or here.

I suppose this shouldn’t be a big surprise, considering what happened outside our embassy in England on 9/11:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I am pretty sure they were chanting, “Burn, Burn, USA.” We are mourning the loss of life and liberty in our country, and on that very day, this group is marching against us in England. Wow. It is all a matter of degrees.

Meanwhile, rioters attacked the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, Egypt over the weekend. Yikes. This is not good. Especially since these rioters then turned on some of those who were reporting this attack, notably, CNN:

An angry crowd lingering near the Israeli embassy in Cairo after an attack on the building a day earlier turned on journalists reporting the incident Saturday, accusing at least one of being an Israeli spy.

As a CNN crew filmed the embassy from across the street, another crew from American public television — led by Egyptian television producer Dina Amer — approached the building.

[...]

“There was this older lady who decided to follow me and rally people against me,” Amer recalled. “She said ‘you’re a spy working with the Americans.’ Then they swarmed me and I was a target.”

A growing crowd surrounded Amer and her colleagues, as they tried to leave the scene. Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, a producer working for CNN, rushed to help escort Amer through the angry crowd. But suddenly the two reporters were pinned against the railing of an overpass by young men who were accusing Amer of being an Israeli spy.

Yelling “I’m Egyptian,” Fahmy managed to pull Amer another 10 meters down the road, until the pressure from the mob overwhelmed the pair. Amer screamed as she and Fahmy were knocked to the ground and the crowd started to trample them.

[...]

“I was thinking, how powerless I was because there was no police to save us,” Fahmy said. “I was worried that they were going to rape her.”

[...]
Amer had few words to describe the terrifying ordeal. “They were animals,” she said.

I would say that sums it up. But the CNN reporter and crew were not the only ones:

[snip]

Other Egyptian journalists told CNN they were also attacked Saturday while trying to report near the Israeli embassy.

Ahmed Aleiba, a correspondent with Egyptian state television, said he was pursued by civilians and soldiers. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy cow, that must have been terrifying, especially for Amer. I cannot help but think of Lara Logan and her ordeal as she tried to report on the uprising in February. This is all just disturbing as hell, especially now that the soldiers are joining in with the civilians.

I hope and pray that those inside these embassies in both Afghanistan and Egypt remain safe, but that those who are trying to report on these attacks do, as well. These are uneasy days, to be sure, and highlight that the lessons of 9/11 cannot be forgotten. Uneasy days are ahead, no doubt…

UPDATE: My buddy, Nunly, provided the link to this story, which is disturbing in light of the recent attacks: U.S. Backs Move To Let Taliban Open Headquarters In Qatar In The Hope Of Ending War In Afghanistan.

Draw your own conclusions.

Huh?

If you can explain that to me, I’d appreciate it, because I sure as hell do not understand it. How can he NOT invite the very people who ran into this horrific situation with radios that didn’t work, doing whatever they could to save lives? There is no doubt that without them, more souls would have perished. But Bloomberg says there isn’t enough room for them.

Riiigghhhtttt…

There is no explanation, no rationale, no justification, no excuse good enough to explain how these brave people, firefighters, police officers, are to be left out of the tenth anniversary of this horrific attack on our country when they were the ones there, day in and day out.

This is for them, those courageous men and women who served this nation so well on that day, one seared into the national consciousness, one that changed our lives forever:

Click here to view the embedded video.

For our nation, as we remember this day, truly a day seared into our national consciousness, we must never forget what happened this day in New York City, in a field in Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. We can never forget that there are those who wish to do America harm.

For all those who were lost that day, workers at the Towers, in the Pentagon, and passengers on a flight, the first responders who ran into harm’s way when everyone else was trying desperately to run as far away as possible from the danger, we will not forget you. No matter the ridiculous decisions by those in power to leave out these brave souls, we will not forget you. Nor will we forget the pain and suffering of the families and friends who lost loves ones that day.

It is the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11. And we will never forget…

Nope. The Arab World. Yep, that’s right, even after Obama’s bowing and scraping to them, whether it was to Saudi King Abdullah, or the Egyptians after his Cairo speech. Yes, we have lost even more standing in the world now. (Photo found at Atlas Shrugs.)

Indeed, despite Obama’s numerous overtures to the Arab world, seems they aren’t too happy with us. Glenn Greenwald had this article in Salon, US More Unpopular In Arab World Than Under Bush:

I’ve written numerous times over the last year about rapidly worsening perceptions of the U.S. in the Muslim world, including a Pew poll from April finding that Egyptians view the U.S. more unfavorably now than they did during the Bush presidency. A new poll released today of six Arab nations — Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco — contains even worse news on this front:

The hope that the Arab world had not long ago put in the United States and President Obama has all but evaporated.

Two and a half years after Obama came to office, raising expectations for change among many in the Arab world, favorable ratings of the United States have plummeted in the Middle East, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby International for the Arab American Institute Foundation.

In most countries surveyed, favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped to levels lower than they were during the last year of the Bush administration . . . Pollsters began their work shortly after a major speech Obama gave on the Middle East . . . Fewer than 10 percent of respondents described themselves as having a favorable view of Obama.

What’s striking is that none of these is among the growing list of countries we’re occupying and bombing. Indeed, several are considered among the more moderate and U.S.-friendly nations in that region, at least relatively speaking. Yet even in this group of nations, anti-U.S. sentiment is at dangerously (even unprecedentedly) high levels.

Yikes. That is not good. If we were talking Libya, or Iran, this would not be surprising news. But that some of the ones who think less of us now among our friendlier nations is disturbing on a number of levels.

Greenwald continues:

In one sense, this is hardly surprising, given the escalating violence and bombing the U.S. is bringing to that region, its ongoing fealty to Israel, and the dead-ender support the American government gave to that region’s besieged dictators. Though unsurprising, it’s still remarkable. After all, one of the central promises of an Obama presidency was a re-making of America in the eyes of that part of the world, but the opposite is taking place.

More significantly, as democracy slowly but inexorably takes hold, consider the type of leaders that will be elected in light of this pervasive anti-American hostility. When the U.S. propped up dictators to suppress those populations, public opinion was irrelevant; now that that scheme is collapsing, public opinion will become far more consequential, and it does not bode well either for U.S. interests (as defined by the American government) or the U.S.’s ability to extract itself from its posture of Endless War in that region. Given that it is anti-American sentiment that, more than anything else, fuels Terrorism (as the Pentagon itself has long acknowledged), we yet again find the obvious truth: the very policies justified in the name of combating Terrorism are the same ones that do the most to sustain and perpetuate it.

That is precisely the issue, as we have seen in Egypt already. All of the jubilation that this small band of people were able to stage a coup (still don’t know how that happened), and that democracy was coming to Egypt, downplayed the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to be a big part of the new government. Guess what, they are. And now, our esteemed Secretary of State would welcome dialogue with this group:

“We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency,” she told reporters in Budapest, Hungary. “And we welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.” [snip]

Um, the Muslim Brotherhood has waged jihad against the United State, which spawned Hamas`, which works to impose the law of the Quran (that would be Sharia Law), and which treats women as worse than shit. To characterize it as a “committed to nonviolence” is laughable on its face. And now we are giving it legitimacy. Great job, everyone. Wow.

Believe it or not, there is more:

UPDATE: The full report on the new Middle East poll highlights several other additional striking findings:

In five out of the six countries surveyed, the U.S. was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France — or Iran. Far from seeing the U.S. as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed “U.S. interference in the Arab world” as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation. . . . President Obama’s favorable ratings across the Arab world are 10% or less.

While Americans are continuously inculcated with the message that Iran is the greatest threat to that region, the people who actually live there view the U.S. in that light. And as the above-referenced links to other polls demonstrate, that is a routine finding in surveys of Arab and Muslim opinion in that part of the world.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Good grief. You know it is bad when Iran is thought of more highly than the United States. That just boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

Two and a half years after the president who has alienated Israel, our ally; threw former ally Mubarak under the bus; and literally bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the United States has lost standing with Arab Nations. I admit, I did not see this one coming. How about you?

Pakistan had received about $1.9 billion in military assistance from the U.S. in fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30, including about $300 million in grants to buy U.S. defense equipment.

U.S. officials hoped the new aid could effectively eliminate Pakistan’s objections that it doesn’t have the equipment needed to launch more operations in the tribal areas.

By July 2011, the U.S. had taken unilateral actions to kill Osama bin Laden and a number of different high level targets through drone strikes. The apparent non-cooperation or push back from the Pakistan military to attack al Qaeda operatives in the northern areas angered U.S. lawmakers. Meanwhile, relations between the two countries soured and hit all-time low — or did they?

Despite the anger expressed by Washington lawmakers, a bill to freeze the $2 billion aid package to Pakistan failed to pass Congress. Now comes news that the Obama administration, in an attempt to appear tough on the Pakistan military, has canceled $800 million of the said aid, purportedly to persuade Islamabad to do far more to combat terrorism.

This cancellation might satisfy Pakistan’s critics, most of whom pushed the administration to press Pakistan to fight militants effectively. But at some point the U.S. has to decide whether paying the Pakistan military is helpful or not. When the aid was initially approved, officials from both the U.S. and Pakistan rejected the notion that the military assistance was a quid pro quo, arguing that they are trying to build a partnership, not cut a deal.

Subtract $800 million from $2 billion and what’s left is the partnership.

The military aid was approved to pressure Pakistan to start operations against militants in the northern areas, which it did not. Now at the time when this aid is being “canceled,” the Pakistani military has already launched a full-fledged operation in central Kurram Agency.

The cancellation of the $800 million plays well in an election year. The American public has grown increasingly concerned about the deteriorating economic situation in the U.S.; add to that the perception that the Pakistan army is less than honest about its sincerity to fight terrorism. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. had no option but to cancel this military aid, which funds the military equipment and the U.S. trainers that Pakistan military refused to accept.

In simple words, the U.S. was not going to hand this amount to Pakistan in cash. The aid is being held back because of training cutbacks including intelligence, surveillance, arms and ammunition and other support equipment. The U.S. had to spend this on its own soldiers, and its own equipment. Since the Pakistan military refused to budge, the U.S. has this money as a little flag on its ledger.

This explains why the Pakistan military announced that suspension of aid would not affect its ongoing campaign against militants in the tribal areas.

The “pause in the military aid,” as the Pakistan ambassador to the U.S. puts it, or “delay” as the U.S. defense department called it, does include a $300 million reimbursement, but the Pakistan army can take advantage of this non-payment to fan the flames of anti-Americanism by claiming that the U.S. is not a reliable partner. This is an $800 million game that Pakistan played, putting the U.S. in a situation where it is left with no option but to follow.

President Lyndon Johnson once asked, “Did you ever think that making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg?” Then answered, “It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else.” It seems that in this case, this situation has reversed and it seems hot to everyone else but to you.

It’s an open secret that hundreds of Saudi families and nationals were flown out of the States during the days after the attacks. The exodus was organized by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sulan bin Abdul Aziz, also known as “Bandar Bush” due to his closeness to the Bush family. The ambassador expedited the departures of two families: The Saudi royals and the bin Ladens. But not even the notoriously charming prince could adequately explain why or how 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from a country the U.S. had always claimed as a close ally.

It should, then, be safe to call the Saudi-U.S. relationship a “secret” marriage. Not many Americans know how strong or weak this marriage is, mostly because the Saudis spent billions — and more billions — to spruce up their image or stay hidden from the general public.

The Saudis’ initial attempts at post-9/11 damage control backfired — badly. Exhibit A: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s public show of contributing $10 million to New York for disaster relief. Unfortunately for the Kingdom, the prince had the poor judgment to use the opportunity to lecture the U.S. about its foreign policy at the same time. Then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani made it clear that New York had no need for his money.

Realizing that their image needed bolstering, the Saudis did what troubled totalitarian regimes the world over do: They hired a PR firm and a gang of high-powered Washington lobbyists. The PR blitz was a flop.

But this did not stop the Saudis, and now, in an ironic twist, the prince is the second-largest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corps, the parent company of Fox News Channel, a notorious source of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The Kingdom’s ongoing image woes have long been exacerbated by reports of a barbaric judicial system, beheadings, the second class citizen status of women and the complete absence of human rights and religious freedom. The flow of Saudi petrodollars into the coffers of terrorist groups around the world has been reported on, analyzed and criticized for years, to little effect.

It is no secret either that Saudis have also been instrumental in bankrolling and backing discrimination and violence against the Shias, as described by Khaled Ahmed in his book Sectarian War: Pakistan’s Sunni-Shia Violence and Its Links to the Middle East:

According to Barnett Rubin, in 1989, the Afghan mujahideen government-in-exile came into being in Peshawar after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. At the behest of Saudi Arabia, the exiled Shia mujahideen of Iran were not included in this government. The Saudis paid over $26 million a week to the 519-member session of the mujahideen shura (council) as a bribe for it. Each member of the shura received $25,000 for the deal which was facilitated, according to Rubin, by the ISI Chief Hamid Gul.

But as the world is watching the developments in the war on terror, the Saudis are out to burnish their image as humanitarians. They know that the someone somewhere might mention the fact that Afghanistan was the training ground and Pakistan was the facilitator, but the majority of the hijackers were the nationals of the Kingdom. Over the last ten years, the situation is Pakistan and Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse, while a major player of this ‘great game’ has kept itself at a distance with its petrodollars.

Given the Saudis’ penchant for funding and exporting extremism and meddling throughout the Muslim world, how would you react if you heard a Saudi prince had bankrolled an expensive research project to create a genetically modified strain of corn that could eliminate world hunger?

The prince does this not for financial gain, but as a gesture of goodwill. The prince also speaks perfect English, appreciates female arm candy and is a target for Islamic extremists at home.

Apparently, the Saudis have found a way to uplift their image.

This prince is a hero, not in a real life of course — but in a Hollywood movie, Unknown. As America prepares to mark the ten year anniversary of 9/11, this pop culture moment is nothing short of extraordinary. The Saudis have achieved a PR coup: Positive product placement. The Kingdom is re-branding.

There’s nothing particularly original about the plot, which consists of a series of predictable spy scenarios — a foreign city, inclement weather, amnesia, car chases, the Cold War, evil multinationals. It’s been done a million times.

But what is totally unexpected is the depiction of a Saudi royal as a generous benefactor, a plot point that is so rare it captures the attention. Even more remarkable is that there have been no debates, no protests, no boycotts, no outrage. The movie came and went without a peep.

Even more intriguing: The film Unknown is based on the novel Out of My Head by Didier van Cauwelaert. There is no benevolent Saudi prince in the original version of the story. So how did this plot twist come about?

Since no one in the press or the world of politics seems to care, it may be a while before we find out.

You know, I really should stop being astonished at the news, the sheer upside-down-ness of the world in which we live. But, no – I suppose I still expect a modicum of sanity to prevail. Sadly, that expectation fell far short when I saw some of the following news stories.

For instance, WHO would have ever thought that North Korea – NORTH KOREA – would head the UN Disarmament Council? No one, because it is insane. Yet, that is the reality:

Nuclear-armed North Korea has assumed the presidency of a key United Nations disarmament body — despite facing UN Security Council sanctions over its weapons programs.

The development comes in the same week the UN defended its decision to support Iran’s holding of an international “anti-terrorism” conference — which saw participants declaring that Western powers were the international terrorists.

UN officials point out that North Korean ambassador So Se Pyong takes on the presidency of the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament under rules that say the chair will rotate among all 65 member states in alphabetical order.

But critics said Wednesday the rules should be changed when they allow the body — whose mandate is in part to push for world nuclear disarmament — to be led by a country that the West considers to be an international nuclear renegade.

“No system should tolerate such a fundamental conflict of interests,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, which also led protests against the UN’s input at the Iranian “anti-terrorism” conference. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Who could really be surprised, though? This is the same “august” body that put Iran on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Does it surprise anyone that IRAN is happy about this? Yeah, I didn’t think so.Yet another institution for which I have lost all respect.

Meanwhile, the US, in its infinite wisdom in Insanity Land now recognizes the Muslim Brotherhood:

The U.S. has decided to formally resume contact with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group – which does not recognize Israel – in a move that could further alienate some Jewish voters already skeptical of President Barack Obama, it was reported.

One senior U.S. official said the Brotherhood’s rise in political prominence after the forced departure of former President Hosni Mubarak earlier this year makes the American contact necessary.

“The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing… It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency,” said the official, who confirmed the news to Reuters on condition of anonymity. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Do I really need to remind everyone of who and what the Muslim Brotherhood is? You know, “The Quran is our law; Jihad is our way,” including against the United States, Hamas-spawning, and Israel hating formerly outlawed in Egypt organization? Yeah, that one. The same one Obama invited leaders from to hear him babble on in Cairo while they were still outlawed. Yeah, we saw this one coming.

And as if this is not bad enough, the United States, in its infinite insanity, has designated Israel – ISRAEL – as a country that produces terrorists (h/t Gina). Just to be clear – we are engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood, a TERRORIST organization, and calling one of, hell, our ONLY, Middle East ally, a terrorist sponsoring organization:

In an implicit admission that Israel is so threatened by terrorism that it is not only surrounded by countries and territories that produce terrorists but also unwillingly harbors terrorists within its own territory in a way that most other nations in the world do not, the Obama administration is currently listing Israel among 36 “specially designated countries” it believes “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” {snip} (Click here to read the rest.)

Seriously, are these people out of their freaking mind? And how in the HELL can the Hillary Clinton, as head of State, support this? Don’t even get me started.

But really, what can one expect from someone like Obama, who not only plays fast and loose with the facts, but is a huge bully while doing so. I cannot go through them all, but let’s just look at Obama’s big comparison between corporate jet taxes, and student loans:

[snip] In a bit of class jujitsu, the president six times mentioned eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, frequently pitting it against student loans or food safety. It’s a potent image, but in the context of a $4 trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years.

Meanwhile, student financial assistance, just for 2011, is about $42 billion. So the corporate jet loophole — which involves the fact that such assets can be depreciated over five years, rather than the seven for commercial jets — just is not going to raise a lot of money. It certainly wouldn’t save many student loans. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You know it’s bad when even the Washington Post is calling Obama a liar. But hey, if the shoe fits, as they say, and it surely does with Obama.

Blech. I wish this was all, but this is all I can handle without my head exploding.

Thank heavens, though, at least there is one bright spot in the world – it is Canada Day! The newest royal couple, William and Kate, are in Canada for the big day, delighting the Canadians with their charm:

[snip] Friday also would have been the 50th birthday of William’s mother, Princess Diana, who died in a 1997 Paris car crash. In London, her admirers gathered to leave gifts outside Kensington Palace, which was her official residence.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, as William and Kate are formally known, arrived Thursday to cheering crowds of thousands. Poised and confident, they thrilled crowds with warm, unscripted gestures, wading into throngs of well-wishers to shake hands and accept flowers and other gifts.

To cheers of delight, William addressed his hosts in both English and French, then cracked a joke about his language skills. “It will improve as we go on,” the prince quipped, then noted how much he and Kate were “truly looking forward to this adventure.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And this is for our neighbors to the North:

I hope the Royal Newlyweds continue to enjoy their trip, and that Canada has an excellent day of celebration.

Personally, I thank Canada for diffusing the explosion in my head from the other news of the day. How about you – what news stories hit you today?

UPDATE: In response to Obama’s chiding and bullying on Weds., insisting that others should get to work, and claiming HE had been working, the NRSC came out with the following ad:

Oh, snap!

No serious attempt has been made to analyse this phenomenon even though the transformation of Pakistani society over the last three decades pints to this trend.

This new breed of Taliban supporter is overwhelmingly comprised of the upper-middle class that sprang up out of the villages or suburban areas thanks to the enormous flow of American cash that washed through the region after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and later the U.S. invasion.

The corruption in foreign aid distribution, the secret funds for Afghan Mujahideen and the generous bounties to kill or capture extremists sent the price of real estate sky-rocketing in Pakistan, making the farmers living around big cities rich. Flush with cash, the newly-rich farming class left rural life behind and moved to cities.

This is a major transformation in Pakistani society. Usually population shifts of this magnitude happen over an extended period of time. In Pakistan, it happened over two to three decades, drastically changing a social order that had been in place for almost two thousand years.

Around 322 b.c. a Mauryan ruler, Chandragupta Maurya and his successors expanded his power westwards across central and western India, enforcing principles of governance and laying down rules of administration, including tax collection, maintaining the army, completing irrigational projects, enforcing law and order, devising rates of taxation, and reviving the way of life in the cities and villages. Villages became so self-contained that travel became unnecessary.

The great Mauryan Empire ended in 185 b.c., but the system the King Ashoka put in place remained in place and for the most part untouched, even by the British rulers. Village life remained unchanged until the advent of new technologies. The introduction of mechanized farming and harvesting eased the arduousness of farm work and led to an increase in productivity. But on the other hand it rendered a big chunk of the society unemployed. The void created by idleness was filled with religion. New classes emerged, new rites were formed.

A similar phenomenon was occurring in India, but was countered by the development of industry. Residents of rural areas in search of jobs moved to cities, worked in factories and united under labor unions, forming a new working class fighting for equal rights and better opportunities. In Pakistan, however, attempts to build industry were interrupted time and again by dramatic swings from martial law to democracy and back again. Unstable governance rivalries among industrial barons also slowed or disrupted the building of an industrial worker class.

The segment of the new city dwellers brought with them the customs of village life, including myths, superstitions and family structure. The new urbanites were also largely uneducated and taken aback by the bustle of city life and the ways of residents whose worldview was shaped by modern conveniences. The overwhelming majority of these new city residents have become part of the new middle and/or upper middle class trying to fit into a Westernized lifestyle but with poor results. It is this segment of the population that wants to drink alcohol and travel while at the same time supporting the Taliban as holy warriors. They do not want to let go of their old world values and virtues. They form the base of support for politicians like former cricket legend Imran Khan, whose confrontational attitude towards the West boosts their sense of patriotism.

These new urbanites would fall into one of two extreme categories. If the family had strong but backwards religious beliefs, they spent their money building a mosque or supporting religious organizations – their own way of thanking the Almighty for their unexpected good fortune. If the family had cut its ties with such religious dogmas they choose instead to engage in conspicuous consumption — purchasing high-priced houses, acquiring personal booze collections unmatched in most bars in the West, importing expensive cars and moving money to foreign banks. More important is what they didn’t do with their new found wealth: Reinvest the money into the local financial system.

The way out of this alarming state of affairs for Pakistan is to reform the education system that matches to the needs for the modern industrial era coupled with the formation and development of an industrial and manufacturing sector.

The vast majority of foreign aid provided by the international community is still being targeted at state security agencies, as is a disproportionately large percentage of the country’s budget. The Saudi government discovered long ago that paying to mould the minds of the youth in Pakistan was an excellent investment. The results – the rise of totalitarian Islam, contempt for democracy, romanticizing violent Islamist movements, and sectarian violence – are all too evident. It’s time for the West to become a counterbalance and seriously support civilian governments instead of relying on military dictators to further their agendas. The West should also keep on pressing the civilian administration for good governance if they want Pakistan free of extremists.

Oh, my – that is freaking HILARIOUS! Here is part of the article:

The cyber-warfare operation was launched by MI6 and GCHQ in an attempt to disrupt efforts by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular to recruit “lone-wolf” terrorists with a new English-language magazine, the Daily Telegraph understands.

When followers tried to download the 67-page colour magazine, instead of instructions about how to “Make a bomb in the Kitchen of your Mom” by “The AQ Chef” they were greeted with garbled computer code.

The code, which had been inserted into the original magazine by the British intelligence hackers, was actually a web page of recipes for “The Best Cupcakes in America” published by the Ellen DeGeneres chat show.

Written by Dulcy Israel and produced by Main Street Cupcakes in Hudson, Ohio, it said “the little cupcake is big again” adding: “Self-contained and satisfying, it summons memories of childhood even as it’s updated for today’s sweet-toothed hipsters.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Isn’t that, um, rich, that they used a recipe from the Ellen Degeneres Chat show? C’mon, that is FUNNY! Use a recipe in a magazine for Al Qaeda Would-Be Terrorists from an out-lesbian’s show? That is fabulous! You know that had to make their little terrorist heads explode. Gotta love MI6! Well done!

Speaking of Al Qaeda, here’s an interesting little tidbit that slipped by. Guess who invited the Libyan “rebels” new National Transitional Council to open an office in Washington, D.C.? Did you guess Obama? Well, then, you would be right. Yes, these are the same people whose connections are still unclear, though they CLAIM none of the people on the council have ties to Al Qaeda…Uh huh. Oh, and this is the same group that demanded Qatar return a rape victim, Eman al-Obeidy, to them, which Qatar did:

[snip] She said that, besides beating her and forcing her onto the plane, the Qataris had taken everything from her and her parents, including cell phones, her laptop, and money.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, yes – I can see why President Obama would offer to allow the NTC to open an office in DC. Oh, wait, no I can’t. It is ludicrous. It is obscene.

Speaking of obscene, now it is time for a PSA from Monica Hesse of the Washington Post: Listen up, fellas: Naked man-parts? Not so sexy. Ms. Hesse is referring, of course, to the alleged tweet from Rep. Weiner (oh, wow) a leading Democrat from NY of a, well, um, how shall I say this – weiner. Weiner, of course, denies any such allegation, though – and this is just one of those, WTH kind of moments – he cannot say with certainty that the photo is NOT him.

Whaaaa? I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell would know if somehow there was a photo traveling around of my private parts. How in the hell cannot he NOT KNOW FOR SURE??? I think that says a lot, and what it says is: EWWWWWWWWWWWW.

Back to Hesse’s article. She has some suggestions from women in America about what they WOULD like to see:

[snip] “I would like a photo of a made bed,” says Kathryn Roberts, who works at a law firm in Washington. “I would take rose petals, but I want them on top of a made bed.” And not that fake kind of made, either, where the comforter is smooth but the sheets are a jumbled mess.

“Or laundry,” adds her friend Andrea Neurohr.

“Folded laundry,” elaborates Roberts. “Maybe in a wicker basket.”

Over the years, a handful of famous men — and a boatload full of unfamous, Craigslisty men — have landed in the news for sending women photos of their artfully framed packages. Brett Favre allegedly had a special delivery for Jenn Sterger, a sideline reporter for the New York Jets. Kanye West allegedly provided some of his female MySpace friends with some extra-friendly pictures. There are entire Web sites, aimed at men, teaching them the etiquette for public displays of private parts.

Men! Broaden your seduction techniques!

How about you move away from the below-the-waist close-up? How about you try going naked from the waist up? How about a picture of you, sweaty, cleaning out the storm drain? How about a photograph of you gently caressing the yogurt, as you rotate the soon-to-expire food to the front of the refrigerator? So sexy!

“The refrigerator,” says Gretchen LeMaistre. “That’s a big scenario.” LeMaistre is a San Francisco-based photographer who has worked on the “Porn for Women” series, tongue-in-cheek books purporting to tap into women’s most intimate pleasure zones. In the yet-unpublished “Porn for Working Women,” an attractive man cleans out the office fridge and asks, “Am I the only one who cares if we have a clean breakroom?” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah. I am guessing that would work.

I suppose at some point we will get to the, uh, bottom of all of this, though so far, for my money, Weiner seems a bit creative in his deflections. I’m thinking he did SOMETHING he shouldn’t have. Oopsy daisy.

Speaking of someone who did something he shouldn’t have, it looks like former NC Senator, VP candidate, and presidential candidate, John Edwards can anticipate criminal charges being filed against him. Again, oopsy daisy. I reckon that’s what happens when you funnel campaign cash to your mistress and your love child. Seems that’s against the law. You’d think an attorney would know that. Apparently not:

[snip] Edwards, a trial lawyer who represented North Carolina in the Senate before his 2004 and 2008 runs for the White House, met last week with benefactor Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, the donor believed to have funded Edwards’s attempt to cover up his affair and child with Rielle Hunter, ABC News reported. Mellon is said to have given Edwards $700,000 for the purpose. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley, that’s a lot of green. I guess Ms. Hunter likes the finer things in life, huh?

I doubt that will be the color of the jumpsuit Edwards will be wearing if convicted. Ahem. I’m thinking orange. Sure hope it was worth it…

Oh, ick. I feel the need for a metaphorical shower, don’t you? Hey, it is Friday, after all. Here is something just for fun. I hope it brings a smile to your face:

Thank Goodness It’s Friday…

So why did Charlie Brown keep trying? To quote Samuel Johnson, Charlie Brown’s determination was an example of the triumph of hope over experience.

Like the relationship between the United States and Pakistan for the last 60 years.

Following 1947″s bloody partition from India, Pakistan followed a more pro-Western policy whereas the Indian government defined its foreign policy as more leftist. Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Pakistan were established shortly after Pakistan’s independence. In May of 1950, Prime Minister Liquiat Ali Khan made the first state visit to the United States, stopping in New York, Washington, Houston and Kansas City. The prime minister was seeking financial and military assistance. The U.S. did not see the usefulness of a strong relationship with Pakistan and her interests in Pakistan were limited.

1954 marked a turning point in the history of relations between the two countries, as the U.S. began providing Pakistan with military aid, which would increase over the years. It was in the same decade that Pakistan experienced its first military coup, when its Army Chief Ayub Khan took power in 1958.

It was at that point that the football, in the form of aid, support of civilian government and cooperation in the war on terror entered the picture. Over the years, the U.S. and Pakistan’s relationship would improve and worsen in increasingly dramatic cycles.

The U.S. refused to provide military assistance to Pakistan during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. In April of 1979 the United States suspended all economic assistance to Pakistan (with the exception of food assistance) over concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear program.

The tide shifted in 1981, when Pakistan and the United States agreed on a $3.2 billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs. With U.S. assistance — in the largest covert operation in history — Pakistan armed and supplied anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Weapons flowed through Pakistan to arm the mujaheddin through General Zia Ul-Haq, another military dictator who rose to power through a coup.

But the relationship’s cracks were becoming more obvious. As Lawrence Wright wrote in his New Yorker piece “U.S. Support for Pakistan: A Long Messy History;”

At the same time, Zia began giving support to an Islamist organization, Jamaat-e-Islami, the forerunner of many more radical groups to come. In November, a mob of Jamaat followers, inflamed by a rumor that the U.S. and Israel were behind an attack on the Grand Mosque, in Mecca, burned the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to the ground, killing two Americans and two Pakistani employees. The American romance with Pakistan was over, but the marriage was just about to begin.

After 9/11, Pakistan, led by General Pervez Musharraf, reversed course under pressure from the United States and joined the “War on Terror” as a U.S. ally. This alliance began rather dramatically. According to Musharraf’s biography, In the Line of Fire, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage threatened to “bomb Pakistan into the stone age” if the country didn’t get with the program. It was an “offer” that Pakistan was in no position to refuse. General Musharraf was strongly supported by the Bush administration.

In return for their support, Pakistan has received about $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001, primarily military.

Where did the money go? According to Military Inc., by Ayesha Siddiqa, Pakistan’s army, which has never won a war, found creative ways to take advantage of Western largesse, investing in hotels, real estate, and shopping malls. According to a 2008 GAO report, more than a third of U.S. funds provided Pakistan since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were subject to accounting problems, including duplication and possible fraud.

And then there’s the thorny topic of A.Q. Khan, the father of the “Islamic Bomb.” While Khan was operating a nuclear bazaar, the government of Pakistan argued that if there had been wrongdoing, it had occurred without the military’s knowledge or approval. Critics noted that virtually all of Khan’s overseas travels, to Iran, Libya, North Korea, Niger, Mali, and the Middle East, were on Pakistan government aircraft.

Then comes Osama saga.

For decades, the United States has made the mistake of equating “Pakistan” with its army and supporting military governments. The U.S., in the role of Lucy, has turned aid into a football. Unlike Charlie Brown, the Pakistani people, who do not benefit from this aid, have stopped trusting Lucy.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has also played the role of Lucy, offering assistance in the war on terror. While Pakistan has been helpful and the country’s people have suffered immeasurably as a result of brutal and ongoing terrorist attacks, the army and the ISI, like Lucy, have at times been too clever by half. Despite outward signs that aid will continue to flow to Pakistan’s military, there are growing signs that the U.S. is tired of playing the Charlie Brown role.

Charlie Brown never stopped trying to kick the football. Hope triumphed over experience. Can the same be said for the future of U.S. – Pak relations?

Wow. I am not surprised by this news, though, in all honesty. The photo released by the White House as the Powers-That-Be watched the mission unfold (or at least some of it), made that abundantly clear:

From the get-go, it looked to me like Obama was sitting in the “Kid’s Chair,” while the adults were around the big table. If the White House Insider is accurate, and Larry Johnson is now stating after intel he’s received that the insider is at least 80% accurate, that’s exactly what was going on here. The decision had been made, and not by Obama. As the Insider stated in a previous interview, it was a coup, a term the insider stands by in the update on May 3, 2011 to SocyBerty.

Make no mistake – this is huge. Huge.

So, who did give the order to go after Osama bin Laden? It was Leon Panetta, backed by Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. Not Barack Obama, despite his taking credit for it (though that is not a surprise, either – that has been his MO for years and years). If you have not had your fill of Obama BS, just watch his “60 Minutes” interview in which he blathers on and on about his “plan.” As you will read below, there was no such plan, at least not from him.

There is so much to this interview, and I urge you to read the complete post, but here are some key components:

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president. (Emphasis mine.)

I mentioned above who was doing the overruling – a star-studded group if ever there was one (well, except for maybe Jim Clapper – you remember him – the Director Of Intelligence who seemed woefully ignorant of Intelligence, who claimed the Muslim Brotherhood was “largely secular.” Yes, that guy.). Anyway, it was this group against Valerie Jarrett, and her puppet, Obama:

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Wow. Yes, those should be our primary concerns when it comes to National Security, would it make Obama look bad, and angering Muslims? Good grief. That does confirm what many of us have thought, though. Our National Security has been couched by how it will appear to Muslims around the world, not about what is best for the United States of America. There is something seriously, seriously wrong with that.

The interviewer then asked about how they got Obama to change his opinion, to which the insider said they didn’t – Obama didn’t HAVE an opinion. The complete response is too long to include here, but the term “masterful manipulation” was used to describe how Leon Panetta made this happen. Here is just part of the response by the Insider:

[snip] Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval (emphasis mine). Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

At this point, you may be wondering just who Valerie Jarrett is, and why she has so much influence over Obama, more so than a number of top Cabinet officials. Well, she is the Senior Advisor to the President now, but prior to that worked for Mayor Richard Daley, and hired Michelle Obama as an assistant to the mayor. Oh, but get this – only after “…re-assuring Michelle’s fiancé, Barack Obama, that the job was right for her.” Gee, sexist much?

Anyway, here are some of the ways in which she has been described:

Chicago businesswoman Valerie Jarrett has earned all sorts of nicknames as an aide to President-elect Barack Obama — from “First Friend” to “big sister” to “the other half of Obama’s brain.” As co-chair of his transition team, Jarrett has spent the past week denying rumors, parsing policy changes and insisting that she doesn’t know where she’ll end up in the new administration (although Beltway gossip suggests she may be appointed to Obama’s seat in the Senate). Of her relationship with the 44th commander-in-chief, Jarrett says simply: “He is my dear friend. I would do anything the President of the United States asked me to do.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And apparently, she has a tremendous amount of sway over Obama in terms of policy, foreign and national. That is quite something for someone who was not elected, or had to pass Congressional scrutiny.

But that is not all there is to Valerie Jarrett (or Michelle Obama). There is more that is not so glowing:

[snip]But not a word about Jarrett’s involvement in Michelle Obama’s patient-dumping scheme at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Jarrett sat of the board of directors.

And not a word about Jarrett’s involvement in Grove Parc — the Chicago slum complex managed by Jarrett’s company, Habitat, Inc. To this day, Jarrett refuses to answer questions about the dilapidated housing development. [snip](Click here to read the rest.)

Yeah, she’s a piece of work, the embodiment of a Chicago-style politics. But she also is someone who has WAY too much power in the White House, and way too much power over affairs of State.

Again, if only 80% of what the White House Insider says is true, this is damaging stuff, indeed. It explains a lot, though, including Obama’s look while sitting in the Kiddy chair while the mission unfolded, and how fortunate we are that there are actual grown ups in this Administration willing to stick their necks out to protect our nation. One thing is for sure – that does not include Obama or Valerie Jarrett. When push came to shove, Obama continued to cave to Jarrett rather than listen to the people in positions to know better. His incompetence is dwarfed only by his narcissism for taking credit for results for which he had no involvement whatsoever.

One thing is crystal clear – Obama is not presidential material, and he sure as hell should not be president again. At least that’s what I think. How about you?

Yep, Hamas has “condemned” the killing:

While many Middle East leaders welcomed America’s military action, the mixed reaction across the region cast a shadow over both the “Arab Spring” and the future of talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

[...]

The Hamas prime minister of the Gaza strip, Ismail Haniya, said: “We condemn the assassination of a Muslim and Arab warrior and we pray to God that his soul rests in peace.

“We regard this as the continuation of the American oppression and shedding of blood of Muslims and Arabs.”

The Hamas reaction put it immediately at odds with Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, with which it is due to sign a unity deal today to join the Palestinian government.

Oops. Still, good to know where they stand, isn’t it? Not that I really expected anything different from Hamas.

And how about its parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood? (And yes, Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood as its “political arm in December 1987…“) Well, this headline pretty much says it all:
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Sticks With Bin Laden Uh, yeah. That does pretty much say it all, but of course, you know there is more, beginning with the lovely slogan behind the head of Mohamed Badie below:

Mohamed Badie, the leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, talks during a news conference in Cairo on November 30, 2010. The banner in the background reads: “Islam is the solution.” By Amr Dalsh/Reuters

Oh, yes – they are such a moderate group, that Brotherhood, aren’t they? Ahem.

Back to the article:

[snip] Most of yesterday’s headlines proclaiming the death of Osama bin Laden used epithets like “terror mastermind” or “bastard” to refer to the internationally feared mass murderer. (That latter headline is from the New York Post.) But in its first public statement on the killing of bin Laden, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood used the honorific term “sheikh” to refer to the al-Qaeda leader. It also accused Western governments of linking Islam and terrorism, and defended “resistance” against the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as “legitimate.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s response to bin Laden’s death may finally end the mythology — espoused frequently in the U.S. — that the organization is moderate or, at the very least, could moderate once in power. This is, after all, precisely how Muslim Brothers describe their creed — “moderate,” as opposed to al-Qaeda, which is radical. “Moderate Islam means not using violence, denouncing terrorism, and not working with jihadists,” said Muslim Brotherhood youth activist Khaled Hamza, for whom the organization’s embrace of “moderate Islam” was the primary reason he joined.

Yet the Muslim Brotherhood’s promise that its “moderation” means rejecting violence includes a gaping exception: the organization endorses violence against military occupations, which its leaders have told me include Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, and Palestine — in other words, nearly every major conflict on the Eurasian continent. “I never fought in Afghanistan,” Mehdi Akef, the former Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, told me in January, just before the revolt. “But I encouraged them and sent money to Bosnia and Palestine until now.” Muslim Brotherhood leaders have endorsed attacks on Israeli civilians as an exception to their no-violence-except-against-occupation exception, viewing all of Israel as an occupation. “Zionism is gangs,” said Akef. “It’s not a country. So we will resist them until they don’t have a country.”

Huh. So, let’s recap – the Muslim Brotherhood fancies itself “moderate” because they are not “jihadists,” yet they have a jihad against the United States, and think it is A-Okay to target Israeli civilians. But they are “moderates.” Got it.

Get this, though – there are even more contradictions for the Muslim Brotherhood to deal with in its propaganda attempts. Oops, I mean, in stating their credo:

The attacks of September 11, 2001, however, created a real problem for the Muslim Brotherhood’s paradigms, since it was a violent attack against civilians on territory that could not be considered occupied. Rather than denounce the attacks, however, the organization chose to argue, outrageously, that Islamists were not responsible.

In some cases, Muslim Brothers have simply expressed doubts about the “theory” that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. “I don’t believe it was jihadists. It was too big an operation,” said Abdel Monem Aboul Fotouh, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Office who is often touted as one of the organization’s reformers. “This was done by a country, not individuals. It’s not a conspiracy theory — it’s just logical. They didn’t bring this crime before the U.S. justice system until now. Why? Because it’s part of a conspiracy.”

Uh huh. So, even though Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda took credit for 9/11 (and a bunch of other attacks), we aren’t to believe them, or retaliate for them because the Muslim Brotherhood thinks it’s some cockamamie conspiracy theory? Hmm. How do I respond to that? Oh, I know – they can bite me.

Oh, but wait – it gets worse. Guess who they actually blame? This should not be a surprise:

More frequently, Muslim Brotherhood leaders blame a more predictable target. “The Jews and the Zionist lobby,” Muslim Brotherhood legal thinker and former parliamentarian Sobhi Saleh declared to me one March afternoon in his Cairo office, when I asked him who was responsible for the attacks. “And this study is well-known in America and it’s on the Internet. And a Christian preacher in Lebanon gave me a book on this at a conference. And it was a scientific research.”

But of course, it’s all Israel’s fault. That’s right. Sure it was. I mean, really, how can one disagree with such blinding logic? I jest – this is not logic. It’s something (fill in the blank), but logic it ain’t.

Finally, check out the Muslim Brotherhood’s statement on the death of bin Laden. Pay close attention to their victim-hood claims:

[snip]“The whole world, and especially the Muslims, have lived with a fierce media campaign to brand Islam as terrorism and describe the Muslims as violent by blaming the September 11th incident on al-Qaeda.” It then notes that “Sheikh Osama bin Laden” was assassinated alongside “a woman and one of his sons and with a number of his companions,” going on to issue a rejection of violence and assassinations…

[...]

In a way, the Muslim Brotherhood’s statement is vintage bin Laden: it’s Muslim lands, not America, that are under attack; it’s Muslims, not American civilians, who are the ultimate victims; and, despite two American presidents’ genuine, effusive promises to the contrary, Islam is the target. It’s an important indicator that despite its increased responsibility in post-Mubarak Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood may well remain deeply hostile toward even the one of the most basic and defensible of American interests in the Middle East — that of securing Americans from terrorism. (Click here to read the rest.)

Indeed. Poor pitiful things – everyone is SO mean to them. Blech.

Their claims against violence are a bit of a stretch, are they not? Especially when Hamas is a part of this very organization, and they have declared Jihad against the USA, as well as violence against Israeli citizens. Honestly, though, it still boggles my mind how many Americans happily went along with this group taking over Egypt, and how many were even DEFENDING them. But you know, you just can’t make some people see reason or accept facts. One would think, though, that as long as groups like this keep speaking up, those Americans who had/have no problem with the MB might just think again.

Hey, a woman can dream, can’t she?