Everyone who pays any attention at all to the news and has an objective point of view is well aware the International Left, including the Left in the USA, has joined with Jihadist Islam in Unholy Alliance to prevent America from defending itself in the Third World War.
I call this the "Nazi-Soviet Pact Of 2007." If you'll recall from from your high school history books, prior to launching his attacks against Poland and France, Adolf Hitler signed a non-aggression treaty with Stalin in August, 1939 to divide Europe between the Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
The big pay off for Hitler came in May, 1940 when he threw his entire military machine at France and crushed it in a Blitz of only six weeks while Stalin did not take the golden opportunity of attacking Germany from the rear while Hitler's army was involved in a maximum effort over one thousand miles from the Soviet border with Germany in jointly occupied Poland: The Second World War II could have ended quickly in an Allied victory, but it was unacceptable to Stalin that Western Democracy would have been saved.
Today we have the same dynamic in operation: Two collectivist ideologies, in this case Western international socialism and fascistic Islam, have joined together in an Unholy Alliance to crush Western style representative democracy. Thus we are treated to the obscene spectacle of the Democrat Party, the standard bearer of the Left in the USA, joined by their willing allies in the Leftist MSM, engaged in a ruthless campaign of lies, half truth and propaganda to end American military efforts in the Middle East, which have been very successful to date with the removal of power of Islamofascists from two key Muslim countries.
The dirty little secret is that the American Left, and their internationalist socialist friends in Europe, want to see representative democracy ended everywhere. Hence, like their grandfather Reds, they see the opportunity for this to occur be means of an attack from within the countries like the USA while on the international stage, the Islamic Nazis continue their attacks outside the country. At some stage the two collectivist ideologies will have a falling out: Hitler finally attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 -- So pushing the International Left into the Allied camp.
The question in many minds is that when this falling out happens between two rival collectivist ideologies who have nothing in common aside for hatred of Western Civilization will there be any thing left of representative democracy?
The Leading News Stories Of The Day From An Infidel Blogger:
Hence the "symbolic"
vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposing the surge. Senator Richard
Lugar highlights the irresponsibility and destructiveness of this vote:
Usually, nonbinding resolutions are designed to show unity on an issue or to highlight an issue that few members know about. In this case, we are laying open our disunity without the prospect that the vehicle will achieve meaningful changes in our policy. This vote will force nothing on the president, but it will confirm to our friends and allies that we are divided and in disarray.
As Daniel Henninger argues below, the left has finally managed to induce an un-American malaise of defeatism that could cause a complete collapse in American action, just when we need to be taking bolder, more aggressive action.
"
Talking Ourselves into Defeat," Daniel
Henninger, Wall Street Journal, January 25 The United States is talking itself into defeat in Iraq. Its political culture is now in a downward spiral of pessimism. In the halls of Congress, across endless newspaper columns, amid the
punditocracy and on Sunday morning talk shows—all emit a Stygian gloom about America.
Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price….
One reason the negative mood in politics is so disconcerting is that the opposition's alternative vision is nonexistent. On joining the opposition recently, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman announced, "I can't tell you what the path to success is."…
The mood of mass resignation spreading through the body politic is toxic. It is uncharacteristic of Americans under stress. Some might call it realism, but it looks closer to the fatalism of elderly Europe, overwhelmed and exhausted by its burdens, than to the American tradition.
2.
Terms of Surrender The irony of the current surge of defeatism is that it is occurring just as the surge in troops is achieving its first concrete results in Baghdad, Even before the extra US troops arrive,
Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is approaching the Iraqi government and offering to negotiate terms of surrender.
But in all such cases, we have to make sure that we are negotiating the terms of our enemy's surrender—not the terms of our own surrender. The Mahdi Army knows from bitter experience that it can't stand and fight against US troops, so it hopes to negotiate a deal in which it avoids the current fight but keeps its strength and its influence, which it can then wield later, after US troops withdraw.
The lesson of the last year, however, is that military solutions have to precede "political solutions." Negotiations won't work until the enemy has been defeated militarily. We have to defeat the militias first, before we can then talk to them about the process by which they will surrender.
"
Iraqi Official Offers Terms From Militia to Avoid Fight," Sabrina
Tavernise, New York Times, January 25 An Iraqi official authorized to speak on behalf of field commanders for the country’s most powerful militia has approached Western military officials and laid out a plan to avoid armed confrontation, senior Iraqi and American officials said this week….
During the meetings, which took place on Jan. 17 and, most recently, on Monday, Mr. Daraji laid out a proposal from what he said were all the major political and militia groups in Sadr City, the senior Iraqi official said. The groups were eager to head off a major American military offensive in the district, home to two million Shiites, as the Americans begin a sweeping new effort to retake the streets of Baghdad.
Mr. Daraji said in an interview that field commanders would forbid their foot soldiers to carry guns in public if the American military and the Iraqi government met several basic demands….
Even so, it was far from clear whether Mr. Daraji, who said he was not related to Abdel Hadi al-Daraji, the former spokesman for Mr. Sadr who was arrested on murder charges last week, was even able to speak for the sprawling, grass-roots militia, which, according to American military estimates, numbers at least 7,000 in Baghdad alone….
Some of the actions Mr.
Daraji said he had requested in exchange for the promises from the militias seemed likely to draw stony stares from American military officials, namely to stop conducting raids in Sadr City and to release a number of those who had been arrested.
3.
Iran's Acts of War The most surreal aspect of the current wave of defeatism is that it is taking place at the same time that mainstream media sources are openly reporting that Iran is engaging in acts of war against the United States, as in this Newsweek report on Iran's role in providing technology and training to insurgents who are killing US troops in Iraq.
But we should not be surprised. To refuse to fight back against foreign governments who are committing acts of war against us—isn't that the decades-long stance of the entire foreign-policy establishment?
"
Deadly Triggers," Michael
Isikoff and Mark
Hosenball, Newsweek via
MSNBC, January 24 Why is the Bush administration escalating its accusations that Iran is backing Shiite extremists inside Iraq? One reason: mounting intelligence indicating Tehran has been supplying insurgents with electronic sensors that trigger roadside bombs used against US troops….
Bruce Riedel, a senior intelligence official who retired from the CIA only two months ago, told NEWSWEEK he too was aware of reports that serial numbers of sensors retrieved from IEDs in Iraq have been traced to orders from Iran placed with infrared-sensor manufacturers in Taiwan and Japan.
The infrared devices are particularly deadly as triggers for homemade bombs. Unlike cell phones, radio-control systems or garage-door openers—some of the other devices that have been used by Iraqi insurgents to trigger IEDs—the infrared devices do not emit a signal that can be detected before they go off. As a result, it is particularly difficult for US forces to locate and defuse IEDs rigged with such triggers.
The presence of the infrared sensors is not the only intelligence pointing to an Iranian role in the construction of IEDs…. US officials say they believe the supply of equipment and components to insurgents inside Iraq is being arranged in Iran by the Al-Quds brigades. This group is an offshoot of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a national militia organization charged with protecting Iran’s theocratic government from counterrevolutionary forces. The corps is believed to operate under the direct authority of Iran’s outspoken and controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who himself originally rose to prominence as a member of the organization….
[O]
ne of the biggest open secrets in Iraq is the identity of the station chief of Iranian intelligence. According to former CIA official
Riedel, he is one of the "most important figures in Baghdad." But this person operates from the Iranian Embassy, almost certainly under cover of diplomatic immunity. While his identity is known to intelligence agencies and his activities may be watched, there is little if anything—short of a violation of diplomatic conventions that could amount to an act of war—that US forces can do to shut him down.
4.
The Monster from the Conservative Id I recently described
Dinesh D'Souza as the monster from the conservative id. While many conservatives have reacted to the Muslim threat by explicitly declaring themselves to be defenders of the legacy of the Enlightenment, attempting to ally themselves with the civilized heights of Western Civilization,
D'Souza reveals the underlying truth: the religious
right's latent sympathy with Islamic fundamentalism.
D'Souza has been pushing his thesis in recent days, with the op-ed linked to below and
another one in the Philadelphia Inquirer which ends with the declaration that "Secularism…is responsible for producing a
blowback of Muslim rage."
D'Souza is desperately trying to stir up a firestorm of controversy, which would also be a firestorm of publicity for his book.
It is interesting to note who has not yet taken this bait: the conservatives. At National Review Online, a paid ad from D'Souza's publisher declares, "let the debate begin." But after a brief flurry of negative comments on an NRO blog, the conservative establishment has been silent, as far as I can tell. It's starting to look like they're embarrassed by the book and are hoping that if they ignore it, it will just go away.
"
War on Terror's Other Front: Cleaning Up US Pop Culture,"
Dinesh D'Souza, Christian Science Monitor, January 25 As an Iranian from
Neishapour told journalist
Afshin Molavi, "People say we want freedom. You know what these foreign-inspired people want? They want the freedom to gamble and drink and bring vice to our Muslim land. This is the kind of freedom they want."…
In one of his post-9/11 propaganda videos, Osama bin Laden said that Islam faces the greatest threat it has faced since the time of Muhammad. How could he possibly think this? Not because of US troops that were in Saudi Arabia. Not even because of Israel. The threat bin Laden is referring to is an infiltration of American values and mores into the lives of Muslims, transforming their society and destroying their traditional values and religious beliefs….
These concerns prompt a startling thought: Are the radical Muslims right?...
To many American liberals, pop culture reflects the values of individuality, personal autonomy, and freedom of expression. Thus, it is seen as a moral achievement. But viewed from the perspective of people in the traditional societies of the world, notably the Muslim world, these same trends appear to be nothing less than the shameless promotion of depravity….
The best we Americans can do is to show Muslims, and traditional people around the world, the "other America" that they often don't see. Bush and his administration spokespersons should in their speeches do more to highlight the values of conservative and religious America. They should not be afraid to speak out against American cultural exports that are shameless and corrupting….
As citizens, we should not hesitate to tell traditional Muslims and others that there are many of us who are working to reverse the tide of cultural depravity in our society and around the world.
5.
Omelets and Eggs A college friend of mine once told me about how, during the fall of Communism, an Eastern European professor described to his students the dilemma faced by the newly liberated nations of his homeland.
Playing off of the old Communist excuse that "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs"—their rationalization for breaking skulls—the professor replied: "When you have eggs and you want an omelet, it's very easy. When you have an omelet, and you want the eggs back, it's very difficult."
This describes the quandary of any nation moving away from tyranny and struggling to rebuild (or build for the first time) the institutions that have been broken and scrambled by dictatorship.
Here is an example from China, where the press is beginning to push for greater freedom from government censorship. It has not managed to secure much freedom to discuss larger political issues, but it is making headway on one issue: the freedom to report on official corruption at the local level.
But there is one catch: the Chinese press has been debased by decades of government controls, and by the reporters' complicity in those controls. And so Chinese newspapers are struggling to keep their own reporters from cashing in on the corruption by demanding bribes to cover up embarrassing stories.
The real news, however, is not that this kind of corruption is happening. The news is that it is being reported on and discussed, and some crusading editors are trying to stamp it out.
"
Blackmailing By Journalists In China Seen As 'Frequent'," Edward Cody, Washington Post, January 25 "It's very, very frequent," said Ma
Yunlong, an editor whose newspaper exposed an instance of extravagant extortion in central
Henan province in 2005. Ma said the case involved 480 reporters and others pretending to be reporters who asked for "shut-up fees" to keep news of a mine flood out of the public eye.
In many ways, blackmail journalism grew naturally out of a system in which Communist Party censors control the news rigorously, barring reports that could be seen as unfavorable to the party or contrary to the government's political goals. If the ruling party distorts the news for political reasons, blackmailing reporters have concluded, why wouldn't they do it themselves for financial reasons?
In addition, local party officials, long used to manipulating information, have been complicit in the payoff system when it suits their needs. In the everybody-does-it atmosphere, even non-reporters have found ways to get in on the take by posing as journalists.
After the August 2005 mine disaster, for instance, reporters and their friends in Henan province dispatched a flurry of cellphone messages as soon as they heard the news—not because they were eager to report on it, but because they knew local officials would be eager to hush it up…. Over several days, the extortionists carried away 200,000 yuan, or more than $25,000, he reported….
After investigating, Gou told his reporters that he was convinced this was a unique case; he threatened to fire any others caught engaging in such conduct. "If anyone feels he can only make a living by blackmailing people, he should leave," Gou said, according to the record. "This is not the place for you."
But he also acknowledged that Shenzhen has an "unhealthy environment" in which such corruption can flourish.
