Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Misfits in Our Universities

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Columbia University


A few days ago, I wrote a blurb about ex-Colorado University professor Ward Churchill, a left-wing radical who was fired by CU and has now lost his lawsuit in court. I called Churchill a misfit who basically hates his country. I stand by that comment. I also mentioned that he was far from being the only misfit in American universities. I would like to expound on that from the point of view of a part-time teacher (not professor) at a California university. I want to emphasize that my comments are not directed at all professors or even most of them. Yet, there is a sizable number of professors in American universities for whom the tag of misfit does apply. The issue in the physical sciences is not so big, but in the Humanities and Social Sciences, the left dominates almost completely. As a result, students get a lot of indoctrination instead of education.

As one who went to college in the 1960s, I witnessed the upheaval that spilled onto our college campuses. It was a decade of general upheaval in the US, and rare was the college campus that escaped turmoil. Many of my fellow students somehow came to the conclusion that they owned the campus. Thus, when some issue came along, they would take it upon themselves to take over and occupy university offices including those of chancellors and presidents. Any far-left cause would do, any grievance, real or imagined. Cal Berkeley and San Francisco State were most noted for such activities.

Many of these radical students eventually got on with their lives and forgot their college indiscretions. Others did not. Many of the latter group continued to hang around the university scene and obtain advance degrees-PHDs, in fact. Guess where they are today? They are professors and, in some cases, department chairs and administrators in our universities.

Remember people like Angela Davis, Bernadine Dohrn, and of course, William Ayres? From revolutionaries, they became college professors-distinguished professors and departmental chairs. Those are the most notorious, but there are so many others who preach the same message around the country on hundreds of campuses. And what is that message? America is an evil country that must be completely done over. America is still a racist country more than 30 years after the Civil Rights Act. America is an imperialist country.

And what is their solution? Many mask their solution in the guise of calling themselves "progressives". To some, that term means simply liberal thought. But it goes much farther. Fifty-sixty years ago, it was what the Communists called themselves in English. It was-and is today-a deliberately vague term designed to cover up a socialist or Marxist ideology. And make no mistake, there are a lot of Marxists running around our universities.

Let's take a look at some of the departments that universities have been forced to accept over the years and what these departments teach. Ethnic studies are specialists in the philosophy that the ethnicity being studied has been victimized by the dominant white American culture. True enough if you look at periods in our history, but when you teach that the same stuff is true today, it borders on propaganda (I am using the term "propaganda" with its negative implication in English). Women's Studies? same thing. These are departments loaded with feminists preaching the doctrine of male subjugation of women-especially in the United States-but interestingly enough, treading very softly, if at all, over the topic of subjugation of women in the Middle East. (We don't want to appear Islamo-phobic, you know.)

Then there are the Gay Studies departments, many of whose titles include the whole gamut of the Gay field such as Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual Cross-Gender Studies.

Note that I am not saying that there should not be courses in these topics-but entire departmental chairs?? What they have done is create entire career paths from student to departmental chair. And if you major in these fields, what else do you know after four years? What else are you qualified to do?

The University of California at Santa Cruz, possibly the most far-left university in the country, has a department called "Community Studies", where they teach young students how to go out and agitate for something called "social justice". Then there is the department called, "History of Consciousness", another left-wing activist department. These are not courses I am talking about but departmental chairs, designing a whole slew of courses designed to indoctrinate our kids about all the "flaws" in our society.

Then we have the political science departments, again dominated by liberals by something like a 9-1 margin. What message do you get out of that? The Republicans are bad-and in some cases, the Democrats are a little less bad because they are not sufficiently to the left to satisfy the professors.

Even English literature departments have been taken over and twisted by the lefties as they steer students to write about the evils of our country and Western Civilization.

How about journalism? We all know that the most prominent schools of journalism are the province of the left. As it was explained to me once by a dean of a university (not a journalism dean), the present goal of journalism schools is to mold a journalist who will be a crusader for "justice" more than anything else. Ring a bell?

And what are law students learning? In many cases, professors are putting out a message that all those tens of thousands of poor people in our jails and prisons are the victims of a racist and unjust society. They are innocent-or jailed for such trivial offenses as smoking a joint. Many professors assign projects for students to research certain cases to try and prove a convicted defendant's innocence. Cop-killer Abu Jamal comes to mind.

Want to study about the Middle East? Get ready for an onslaught of professors like Joseph Mossad from Columbia and Rashid Khalidi, who will explain to you about the evil that is Israel and the justness of the Palestinian cause. If you are a student in one of these classes, try and argue a point in Israel's favor. Absorb the angry ridicule you will get from the professors and their student clones.

The whole subject of Israel is one that has been fervently embraced by the academic left because it gives them another avenue to attack the US-Israel's historic ally. No wonder we have seen a linking of hands between radical Islamists and the academic left in this country.

This is what a student entering college has to face today. An oppressive climate of political correctness that seeks to intimidate those with opposing views. University hacks love to preach about the great level of diversity they have on campus. But what they are talking about is etbnic diversity. Diversity of opinion is another matter. They seem to feel that just because people on campus can criticize America, the president or our culture, that is diversity. That argument stopped holding water decades ago.

It is bad enough that a teacher can impose his or her views in a classroom. While some will give opposing opinions a voice, others will ridicule students with conservative views or views that defend America or Israel. Other teachers will punish their students with lower grades for not conforming to the "accepted view", either in class discussions or term papers.

And they get away with this because cowardly administrators either agree with them or are afraid to challenge their own faculty. (And if you think the university president is not afraid of his/her faculty-go talk to Lawrence Summers-formerly head of Harvard University-until he made some inane, speculative comment about women maybe not being as good in math as men because of their brain structure.)

It is no wonder that American corporations have been telling universities for years that they are not turning out graduates ready to enter the work force. As a result,many companies starting looking to hire older workers.

The problem is that there is a cancer in our universities, which is in the late stages. For decades, we have infested our classrooms with misfits who never really learned to appreciate America-and true liberty. Many of them still embrace a political philosophy (Marxism) that has already been discredited and cast aside by the very countries that lived under it for over 50 years.

What is the solution? There is no short-term solution I see since we can't just remove these misfits. That would be using the very tactic that we criticize them for. The other problem I see is that more conservative-oriented students leave college, go out in the world and get a real job. Few are attracted to academic life, especially seeing the intellectual rot they would have to deal with. So the field is pretty much left open to the lefty activists-at least in the Humanities and Social Studies, as I mentioned. What can be done is to shine the light on what is going on in our universities. When military recruiters are run off campus by anarchistic students-egged on by radical professors, when conservative speakers are shouted down by disruptors or attacked on stage, these things must be publicized. Of course, the liberal media won't do that because they have no desire to highlight outrages from the left. However, we have alternatives means of disseminating information these days-the Internet, blogs, and emails.

We can also forget about contributing to our alma maters-and letting know why when they send you that envelope in the mail. And finally, complete freedom of expression must be demanded on campus-for everybody-not just the far-left crazies that routinely appear on campus to speak.

Hopefully, someday, the public will make a big enough outcry that the universities will feel it in their pocketbooks and declining enrollment. Then perhaps, a change can come about. In the meantime, we must continue to deal with the misfits.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Patrick Leahy Statements on Supreme Court Nominees

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)


Monday, Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the below statement on Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:

"Judge Sotomayor's journey to this hearing room is a truly American story." Let no one demean this extraordinary woman."

Leahy, of course, is referring to the Democratic party line that Sotomayor's rise as a Puerto Rican woman from a humble New York City upbringing is a true American success story that goes far in qualifying her to sit on the Supreme Court. By now, everybody knows that the Democrats have wrapped this nomination in ethnic overtones trying to intimidate the Republicans into not opposing Sotomayor for fear of being labled "anti-Hispanic".

But what about the rise of another Hispanic, Miguel Estrada, from humble beginnings (a Honduran immigrant), who was nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by a Republican president in 2003? What did Leahy have to say then about Estrada?

"This is and has been a difficult nomination for the Senate. As I have said for some time, the Senate and the American people deserve to have an adequate record and strong confidence about the type of judge Mr. Estrada would be in order to support a favorable vote on this nomination. Such is not the case of the sparse record before the Senate on this nomination to the second- highest court in the land, and as a Senator I do not have sufficient confidence to be able to support this nomination. I remain concerned that he will be an activist on the important D.C. Circuit, given what we have learned about him and given the insufficient record we have. Throughout our earlier proceedings I have repeatedly urged Mr. Estrada and the Administration to be more forthcoming. Neither the nominee nor the Administration have shown any interest in doing so.

Accordingly, we have before us for consideration a nominee with no judicial experience and little relevant practical experience related to the jurisdiction of this court. While he counts Justice Scalia, Ken Starr and Ted Olson among his friends and mentors, any information about his decision-making, values and judgment have been denied the Senate. His selection for this nomination has generated tremendous controversy. I think that is, in part, because he appears to have been groomed to be an activist appellate judge by well-connected, ideologically driven legal activists.

Last week the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus restated their concerns and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), and the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project (SVREP) reiterated their concerns. Similarly, a large number of this country’s most respected Latino Labor leaders, including Maria Elena Durazo of HERE, Arturo S. Rodriquez of the UFW, Miguel Contreras of L.A. County Fed., Cristina Vazquez of UNITE and Eliseo Medina of SEIU, have indicated their strong opposition to this nomination.

.....After a thorough review, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund concluded that Mr. Estrada was not sufficiently qualified for a lifetime seat on the nation’s second highest court and “that his reportedly extreme views should be disqualifying; that he has not had a demonstrated interest in or any involvement with the organized Hispanic community or Hispanic activities of any kind; and that he lacks the maturity and judicial temperament necessary to be a circuit judge.”

Patrick Leahy on floor debate on nomination of Miguel Estrada, February 5, 2003


And what about the rise from humble beginnings in Alabama of African-American Janice Rogers-Brown, also nominated to the DC Court of Appeals by a Republican president in 2003?

"Justice Brown has a lengthy record, of opinions, of speeches and of writings. She has very strong opinions, and there is little mystery about her views. After carefully reviewing Justice Brown’s record – reading her opinions from the bench, reviewing her speeches and writings, and considering her testimony and oral and written answers provided to this Committee, I will vote against Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is not about her position on choice. This is not about one dissent or one speech. This is about Justice Brown’s approach to the law – an approach which she has consistently used to promote her own ideological agenda, an extreme agenda that is out of the mainstream. Her approach makes her unqualified for a lifetime appointment to this very important appellate court.

‘Jurisprudence Of Convenience’

Janice Rogers Brown’s approach to the law can be best described as a “jurisprudence of convenience.” What do I mean by that? Justice Brown has proven herself to be a results-oriented, agenda-driven judge whose respect for precedent and rules of judicial interpretation change depending on the subject matter before her and the results she wants to reach."

Patrick Leahy statement during confirmation hearings, November 6, 2003


Then there was Clarence Thomas, also an American success story, who rose from poverty in Pin Point, Georgia. Yet, he was a another black conservative. He was savaged by Leahy and his Democratic colleagues in 1991. Here are excerpts from Leahy's remarks to Thomas when he testified:

"Finally, I am concerned about some of your ideological views. You have wholeheartedly endorsed the statement that America is careening with frightening speed toward a statist dictatorial system. Well, I can't accept that, and these words seem more than a little strange as we watch the unfolding drama of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, where countries that truly suffered under statist dictatorial systems throw off their shackles. And when they throw off their shackles, where do they look? They look toward a free and compassionate America as an example of how a democracy is run.

But, more disturbingly, your words strike me as the views of a combative, hard-line ideologue. The last thing I seek in a Supreme Court Justice is ideology. I value intelligence and wisdom, compassion, a willingness to listen to all sides of an argument. I want someone on the bench who is going to give every litigant a fair shake, without bias or predisposition of any kind. Ideological fervor plays no part in a judicial temperament."
Patrick Leahy to Clarence Thomas, September 10, 1991

Patrick Leahy is what he accuses his opponents of being-an ideologue. To him, these judicial appointments are all about ideology. To be sure, Republicans on the committee are concerned about Sotomayor's ideology. But, the result is certain. Sotomayor will be confirmed and some Republicans will probably even vote for her. Hopefully, the hearings will feature an open discussion on the role of a judge's personal wishes in his or her decisions. Sotomayor should be asked about her prior statements and rulings. She should also be given an up or down vote.

Then we can compare her treatment with that of conservative minority judges by Democrats.

New Mayor in Alligator, Mississippi: Tommie Brown

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Alligator, Mississippi has a new mayor. For thirty (30) years, Robert Fava has served as the tiny town’s mayor but a new day has come. Tommie ‘Tomaso’ Brown is Alligator’s mayor. In a town that is mostly Black, and with the only three businesses operating, and all owned by Whites, Mr. Brown’s win has made history.

Tommie ‘Tomaso’ Brown

Tommie Brown said he ran on a platform of “change.” Mr. Fava said he ran on a platform of “30 years of dedicated service.” Mr. Brown promised the residents of Alligator a swimming pool and a recreation center. Mr. Fava said he was also ready for change and stepping down is a “weight off my mind.”

Mr. Brown said he never thought a Black man could be the mayor of Alligator, but Barack Obama inspired him.

When he won, I decided that I knew the changes that needed to be made here and I thought that I could make those changes.

Among Mr. Brown’s plans for the towns is to get more government funding to give people better living conditions. He has plans for the children in the town. Without a phone or fax machine in the town, Tommie asks:

How can we communicate with the outside world and ask for things?

Much of the town was jubilant that a Black man would now mayor the town. Jennifer Green, described as a “black mother of 10,” and 31 years old, told this story about losing Mr. Fava as mayor:

Some youngsters ran into Mr Fava’s store to taunt him. “They was pulling down their pants, shouting, ’Kiss my black ass, because we got a black mayor’, swinging their things around and throwing stuff,…”

Ms. Green has her doubts about Tommie Brown:

He says there’s going to be lots of changes and everything with all these kids running around here.

But he do the same thing they do, drinking beer and stuff. You’ve got to stay at home and study the town. Alligator is the kind of place where if you leave your door open, when you come back there ain’t nothing in your house.

There’s guns. Kids knock on your door asking for a beer at three and four in the morning. I get 14-year-olds asking me if I want weed or whatever. They should have just left Mr Robert in there.

Tomaso won’t do anything about any of it. He’s going to put his hand in the cookie jar just at the wrong time and get caught.

The three businesses in town are Mary Ann’s Country Store owned by the the Fava’s, Gator’s Grocery and Diner, owned by Mr. Fava’s brother Ronnie, and Bruno’s Liquors and Convenience store owned by Fava’s cousin Vito Sbravati.

Bruno’s Liquors is a busy place, “with the scent of marijuana” in the air and the sidewalk teeming with Blacks “drinking beer and whisky and dancing to music from a boom box.” Robert Fava said Aligator is a quiet town, except when “we get that Voodoo and Rap music.” Bruno and his wife, Christine were G.W. Bush donors and Bruno’s grandfather came to America from Italy via Ellis Island. Bruno calls Tommie, “Tomaso Obama,” and Bruno says he doesn’t “go by black and white. I go by right and wrong.”

Mayor Tommie Brown’s town of Alligator, Mississippi is located about 90 miles south of Memphis.

Photo credit: Julian Simmonds

Now I've Seen Everything!

by Findalis

This one has to go into the record books for one of the dumbest criminals ever. There is no other term to use.
A high-ranking white supremacist on the run from US federal authorities was arrested on Monday night in a south Tel Aviv hideout.

33-year-old Micky Louis Mayon, one of America's 100 Most Wanted criminals, and a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was arrested in a Florentine apartment by the National Immigration Authority's newly formed Oz enforcement unit.

Mayon is wanted in the US on charges of racist assaults, setting fire to vehicles belonging to federal agents, and a host of violence incidents.

The Oz unit was acting on intelligence relayed by Interpol, which informed authorities here that Mayon had entered Israel illegally.

He is said to have moved apartments often in order to evade police, but his efforts proved fruitless on Monday when a delicate operation by the Oz unit saw officers break into his hideout and arrest him.

Oz unit members have the powers of a police officer but can only use them in cases of illegal entry into the country.

Mayon was the subject of an American arrest operation in November 2007, but officers soon realized he had flown to Israel on a one-way ticket. Earlier that year, he reportedly fired his gun in the air repeatedly after being involved in an argument with an African-American. US authorities have described him as a dangerous fugitive.

Oz Unit head Tziki Sela said Mayon was surprised to be arrested, but cooperated with the officers. He has been transferred to a Holon jail facility, where he underwent an immigration hearing. He was then taken to an Israel Prison Authority jail facility.
Did he really believe he could pass in Tel Aviv as a Jew or a Zionist? What made him think that he would be safe and secure in Israel?

Maybe Israel will become the new haven for criminals and their like. One day the Israel Oz unit could be apprehending such notables as Osama bin Ladan, the heads of Hamas and Hizbollah, and Ahmadinejad when the people of Iran finally kick him out.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Al Franken's Committees: Lady Social Justice

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

The Repubs sent $95,000 to Al Franken's Senate office. According to law, Republicans had to pay-up for partial costs of the lawsuit defending former Senator Norm Coleman's Minnesota senate seat.

Al Franken - Minnesota Senator

Al Franken's committees have been assigned: the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Committee on Special Aging and the Indian Affairs Committee, will enjoy Franken's lively input.

Lady Justice

With Obama's devotion to the United Nations, Franken's swearing-in, Republican filibuster a fond memory, Franken on the Judiciary, and Sotomayor a sure bet, it's time to call things as they are and change the name of Lady Justice to Lady Social Justice. Can someone do a graphic of Lady Liberty without her blinders on, because they have just been rudely riped asunder? View blog reactions

Gore Wants UN Global Governance

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Former Vice-President Al Gore is touting the United Nation’s (U.N.) plan to administer global warming and climate change through “global governance.” Make no doubt about it, it will be the U.N. and a few power-mongers who will administer that governance, as well as global social justice on you and me.

Al Gore

Speaking at the Oxford School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment on July 7th, Gore said the Waxman-Markey climate bill, recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, is a “step in the right direction,” toward that governance.

But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.

Recent U.N. global warming conferences have also called for a global carbon tax.

…the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.

Hitting on my last nerve in this article is the “redistribution of wealth,” which is just what global governance is all about. Did you know that a species called the a Climate Justice Campaigner actually exists?

A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

The quotes above from ClimateDepot.com. They end with this Editor’s Note:

[Editor's Note: Many critics have often charged that proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."]

I urge you to go to get acquainted with then-Senator Obama’s Senate Bill 2433, which is festering on hold, and the U.N. Millinium Development Goal (MDG). The U.N. has very dangerous plans for America’s future and Obama has tied his Global Poverty Bill, Senate Bill 2433 to the MDG. You can find links to the MDG in these articles:

Will Obama’s Global Poverty Act Tax ossil Fuels, Currency, Land and Freeze Militaries?

Transnationalism: What it Means for America

Obama’s Global Poverty Act - Here’s the Evil in S.2433

Obama’s Senate Bill S.2433 - A UN Global Tax on the U.S.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Obama On Iraq: Some Troubling Questions Reconsidered

A note from Radarsite: The plans have been laid, the die has been cast: we have already begun the fateful process of pulling out of Iraq and shifting our military presence to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan. But considering the escalating threat from Iran one can only ask, is this a wise move? Shouldn't we be building our forces up in this volatile region rather than drawing them down? Isn't Iran acknowledged by all of our leading military experts to be our most immediate and existential threat? As Iran moves inexorably toward its nuclear capability, do we really want our troops removed from the epicenter of this imminently explosive region, bogged down in the labyrinthine badlands of Afghanistan? And finally, who benefits the most from our projected withdrawal? Can anyone seriously consider the threat to the entire region -- indeed, to the entire world -- from the cave-dwelling Taliban warlords to be greater than the monumental threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran?

Presidential candidate Obama ran on the unequivocal promise to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq. President Obama is implementing this policy as expeditiously as possible. But, we must ask ourselves, what is the true logistical reason for this withdrawal?

Some months ago, Radarsite posed this question to our readers and posited some troubling answers. What has changed since then? Are these arguments less valid today than they were then? the results less dangerous? Beyond the lofty rhetoric, what, if anything, do we actually know about Obama's Middle East agenda? What little we do know about Obama's self-proclaimed empathy for Islam and his apparent antipathy for Israel is deeply suspect. Who will be the real beneficiaries of Obama's will? Who will be the winners and who will be the losers?

Perhaps it's time to take a second look at some of these worrisome issues. Please take the time to read them again, and let me know what you think. - rg

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Obama on Iraq: Some Troubling Questions





1. The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq:

Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06)

Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)




2. Barack Hussein Obama on Iraq War:


"Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed."

Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq?
A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.

Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007

Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.

Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8,
2007




A short message from Radarsite: Anyone who has read the captured correspondence of the Al-Qaeda leaders concerning the importance that they attach to Iraq, and the central role that Iraq plays in their scheme for a world-wide Caliphate knows how delighted they would be if we followed the advice of Barrack Hussein Obama, and shifted our focus and resources from the oil-rich center of gravity in Iraq, the universally acknowledged keystone to the Middle East, to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan


It is the opinion of this writer, that if we abandoned the Land of the Two Rivers to the enemy now, the long-term strategic consequences of this monumental blunder for our GWOT would be nothing less than disastrous. The idea that we could somehow return to the area if it at some point in the future it became infested with Al-Qaeda is at best naive and ludicrous, and at worst naggingly suspect.


Nothing would suit our enemies in Iraq better than a publicly proclaimed schedule of withdrawal of our troops and their eventual complete pullout.

To this particular observer the absurdity of this plan, which so obviously plays into our enemy's game presents us with one of two troubling alternatives: Either it was purposely designed to enhance the chances for our defeat in this crucial region of the Middle East and enhance the capabilities of our sworn Al-Qaeda enemies, or it is the dangerously delusional bumblings of a hopeless amateur. rg



Voted by Fox News at GOP Hub