http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3562/global-zero-nuclear-weapons Senator Hagel, while signing up to the timetable for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, also said in the 2009 Al Jazeera interview, that nuclear weapons can be abolished because they no longer need to play a traditional deterrent role. As part of this strategy, Hagel proposes to “de-alert” our weapons, making them unusable […]
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/bookman/article/hope-or-despair/ ROGER KIMBALL’S BOOK THE FORTUNES OF PERMANENCE-CULTURE AND ANARCHY IN AN AGE OF AMNESIA IS ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS I READ IN 2012. PLEASE ALSO READ: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-fortunes-of-permanence-culture-and-anarchy-in-an-age-of-amnesia For those who cherish the life of the mind, one of the saddest events of 2012 was the death of the great historian Jacques Barzun. If […]
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p19188.xml
“How about a Secretary Hagel on what Hillary Clinton astonishingly described in her otherwise appallingly uninformative swan-song appearance on Capitol Hill last week: the menace posed to us and our allies by “the global jihadist threat.” Never mind that Mrs. Clinton has done little, if anything, to evince such concernover the past four years – or, for that matter, during the preceding decade-plus she spent in the Senate and White House. In fact, along with President Obama’s pick for the next CIA Director, John Brennan, and his new White House Chief of Staff, Dennis McDonough, she has been one of the prime-movers behind the administration’s efforts to deny jihad’s plain meaning, namely holy war, and to submit to at least its stealthy, subversive and pre-violent version as practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood.”
In the run-up to the Senate Armed Services Committee’s hearing this Thursday on Chuck Hagel’s fitness to become the next Secretary of Defense, its members have been treated to the spectacle of the nominee spinning at the RPM of a prima ballerina.
Evidently, the former Nebraska senator has very low regard for those now serving in the Senate. He seems confident that they will either not see through – or at least not object to – his concerted efforts to: disavow his well-documented public record; obscure his serial, faulty judgments; and ignore the harm both suggest he is prepared to do, if confirmed, to the national security.
The question is: Will Mr. Hagel’s cynical and contemptuous gambit be rewarded by the Senate? Or will it be properly repudiated?
For example, will the Armed Services Committee membership really accept Mr. Hagel’s current insistence that he is a strong supporter of Israel when the evidence to the contrary is manifest from his plethora of votes, resolutions, letters, and public statements? Will Senators on and off that committee trust him to execute Obama administration policy towards Iran’s nuclear threat – which their colleague, Sen. John Kerry, last week insisted was “prevention, not containment” – given his longstanding opposition to both meaningful economic sanctions and military action?
Can legislators who are alarmed at the hollowing-out of the U.S. military now becoming ever more palpable really take at face value Sen. Hagel’s current assurances about his commitment to a strong U.S. military? After all, prior to his nomination by President Obama and his attendant “confirmation conversions,” Mr. Hagel insisted that the Pentagon budget is bloated and can safely be “pared.”
Now, Hillary Clinton might ask, “What’s the difference?” Unfortunately, the difference could be a Secretary of Defense who will actively encourage, rather than steadfastly oppose, the devastation arising from: the elimination, or dramatic slowing, of virtually all Pentagon modernization programs; the reduction in maintenance of worn-out weapon systems and other equipment; the dissipation of much of what is left of the defense industrial base; the evisceration of training and other benefits, etc.
Then there is Senator Hagel’s stance on nuclear disarmament. Last May, the would-be Defense Secretary affirmed his sympathy for arms control schemes that amount to prescriptions for unilateral reductions in our deterrent forces by co-authoring a plan for achieving them sponsored by the Global Zero initiative. In so doing, as Heritage Foundation fellow Rebecca Heinrich’s has noted in the Daily Caller, he signed onto the fatuous idea that “security is mainly a state of mind, not a physical condition.” He recommended that the United States eliminate two out of three “legs” of its strategic Triad. And he called for steep cuts in the short-range nuclear weapons that are the backbone of the “nuclear umbrella” our allies have long relied upon for extended deterrence. The effect would be to undermine global stability and exacerbate proliferation.
http://EconWarfare. News reports on the surge of violence in countries afflicted by the Arab Spring are bewildering, averting the Western readers’ attention from the economic hardship it has generated. While the U.S. and its Western allies were mostly cheering on the sidelines and their media supported the revolution, little, if any attention was paid to […]
Antisemitism: A Specific Phenomenon, by Clemens Heni (Berlin: Edition Critic, 2013). A publication of the Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/22/antisemitism-a-specific-phenomenon-review/
“As time went on … the Nazis not only became the source of power and wealth and the seekers after Germany’s greatness, but also learned how to handle footnotes and quotations…Hitler was aware of the necessity of presenting anti-Jewish ideology in a scholarly coating.…By 1935 he had succeeded. Within a few years, the fight against the Jews was no more confined to shabby tracts by unknown authors; it had made its entrance into the respectable academic world of Germany.”
– Max Weinreich, Hitler’s Professors (YIVO/Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946).
Clemens Heni is a young German scholar who has undertaken the Herculean task of throwing back the assault on Holocaust memory that is currently carried on “mostly in the ivory towers of esoteric academia” by activist professors (who demonstrate the explosive power of boredom). Himself a PhD in political science from Innsbruck and currently Director of the Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Heni pays particular attention to the ignorance as well as tendentiousness of the learned. “We are currently facing a …movement around the globe to distort the history of the Second World War and to deny the uniqueness and unprecedented character of the Holocaust…. Many scholars…seem to have a clear mission: universalizing the Holocaust and denying its specific anti-Jewish character.” Heni shows, in this vast and discriminating critical survey of the campaign to make murdered European Jews into metaphors for both humanity in
general and Palestinian Arabs in particular, that it would be dangerous to think of academics as harmless drudges who know so much about so little that they cannot be contradicted, nor are worth contradicting. Drudges they may be; harmless they are not. Their aims are not scholarly, but political—and often murderous.
http://EconWarfare.org The U.S. appears to acknowledge the economic and political mess that the last two years have brought to the Arab world and Africa generally in high-flown rhetoric devoid of reference to American interests. But things appear to be getting much worse quickly. We have been watching it accelerating in Libya and Syria, the Maghreb […]
Don Irvine — January 28, 2013 Accuracy in Media, AIM, In a wide ranging interview with The New Republic, President Obama turned media critic when he blamed Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for what he called the “nasty atmosphere” in Washington. Obama was responding to a question about whether or not there were Republicans that […]
http://myrightword.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/even-stones-laugh-at-amos-oz.html The New York Times’ favorite Israeli author, Amos Oz (or is he David Grossman? or, perhaps, AB Yehoshua? no difference, actually, as they are all Leftist and belong to the exclusive “Admor Clique” of Israel ‘peace camp’, a religiously messianic sect), sat down with Roger Cohen, another type of “favorite” of the NYTimes). From […]
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2393/Sixty-MInutes-of-Agit-Puff.aspx
From Sunday’s 60 Minutes joint-interview of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
Steve Krofts: When we come back, the president and Secretary Clinton discuss the disaster in Benghazi and the state of her health.
I didn’t watch this live, but if I had I would have spent the commercial break parsing the duality of the question. Why “disaster in Benghazi” and “state of her health” together? Mind you, the interview has been going on for sometime at this point, and Clinton’s health would seem to be something better addressed in the opening niceties. But no. Will “disaster” be cushioned by “health”?
See how it worked out:
Steve Krofts: Hillary Clinton’s final days as secretary of state included one of her most difficult. On Wednesday, she spent more than five hours being grilled on Capitol Hill for the security failures in Benghazi that led to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans; the biggest diplomatic disaster of this administration. The Accountability Review led by Admiral Mike Mullen and Ambassador Thomas Pickering found, among many failures, that Stevens’ repeated requests for better security never made it to Clinton’s desk. And representatives and senators pressed her on whether the administration covered up the nature of the terrorist attack.
[Secretary Clinton: We have four dead Americans, was it because of a protest or was it because of guys going out for a walk and deciding they’ll go kill some Americans. What difference– at this point, what difference does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from happening again, senator.]
Steve Kroft: I want to talk about the hearings this week. You had a very long day. Also, how is your health?
Once again, Steve Kroft enters the annals of journalist shilling for the Left. Remember, Kroft is the same “journalist” who sat on Obama’s own admission that he, Obama, did not call Benghazi a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden on September 12 until two days before the election. Even at that point, Kroft’s scoop appeared like mist in the morn, unobtrusively posted sans fanfare on the CBS website seven or eight weeks after the fact — and after the presidential campaign.
FLASHBACK: KROFT: Mr. President, this morning [September 12] you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack.
OBAMA: Right.
KROFT: Do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.
Now, Kroft has done it again, cushioning Hill’s potentially bad news as plushly as possible. You had a very long day and how is your health? Health, not “long day,” becomes the emphasis of the question.
Sure enough:
Secretary Clinton: Oh, it’s great. It’s great. Now, you know, I still have some lingering effects from falling on my head and having the blood clot. But, you know, the doctors tell me that that will all recede. And so thankfully I’m, you know, looking forward to being at full speed.
Steve Kroft: Right, I noticed your glasses are–
Secretary Clinton: Yeah, I have some lingering effects from the concussion that are decreasing and will disappear. But I have a lot of sympathy now when I pick up the paper and read about an athlete or one of our soldiers whose had traumatic brain injury. I’d never had anything like that in my family. And so, you know, I’m very conscious of how lucky I was.
Steve Kroft: You said during the hearings, I mean, you’ve accepted responsibility. You’ve accepted the very critical findings of Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering.
See, there’s nothing even to talk about!
As the New York Times put it, you accepted responsibility, but not blame.
Do I detect a pivot?
Do you feel guilty in any way, in– at a personal level?
The woman is secretary of state. This is an affair of state. But far be it for a reporter to treat the matter with any sense of history let alone veracity. Before she can even answer, Kroft further files down any sharp edges that might still be left on his line of questioning.
Do you blame yourself that you didn’t know or that you should have known?
Life vest of personal agony tossed (and, after all, she’s not a well woman), life vest of “personal agony” seized:
Secretary Clinton: Well, Steve, obviously, I deeply regret what happened, as I’ve said many times. I knew Chris Stevens. I sent him there originally. It was a great personal loss to lose him and three other brave Americans. But I also have looked back and tried to figure out what we could do so that nobody, insofar is possible, would be in this position again. And as the Accountability Review Board pointed out, we did fix responsibility appropriately. And we’re taking steps to implement that. But we also live in a dangerous world. And, you know, the people I’m proud to serve and work with in our diplomatic and development personnel ranks, they know it’s a dangerous and risky world. We just have to do everything we can to try to make it as secure as possible for them.
This counts for journalism and diplomacy at its best.
Obama wants some, too.
President Obama: I think, you know, one of the things that humbles you as president, I’m sure Hillary feels the same way as secretary of state, is that you realize that all you can do every single day is to figure out a direction, make sure that you are working as hard as you can to put people in place where they can succeed, ask the right questions, shape the right strategy. But it’s going to be a team that both succeeds and fails. And it’s a process of constant improvement, because the world is big and it is chaotic. You know, I remember Bob Gates, you know, first thing he said to me, I think maybe first week or two that I was there and we were meeting in the Oval Office and he, obviously, been through seven presidents or something. And he says, “Mr. President, one thing I can guarantee you is that at this moment, somewhere, somehow, somebody in the federal government is screwing up.” And, you know you’re– and so part of what you’re trying to do is to constantly improve systems and accountability and transparency to minimize those mistakes and ensure success. It is a dangerous world. And that’s part of the reason why we have to continue to get better.
Hard to know what is more staggering: the banality or the mendacity. And Kroft, gentleman of the Fourth Estate, has No Follow-Up.
He moves on.
Steve Kroft: The biggest criticism of this team in the U.S. foreign policy from your political opposition has been what they say is an abdication of the United States on the world stage, sort of a reluctance to become involved in another entanglement, an unwillingness or what seems/appears to be an unwillingness to gauge big issues. Syria, for example.
Who is he talking about? The Weekly Standard e-board? Certainly not Sen. Rand Paul, at this point showing potential to lead such political opposition. In his questioning of Clinton’s replacement, Sen. John Kerry, Paul showed a clear opposition to continued US interventionism.
Back to 60 Puff:
President Obama: Yeah, well–
Steve Kroft: I mean, that–
President Obama: Well, Muammar Qaddafi probably does not agree with that assessment, or at least if he was around, he wouldn’t agree with that assessment.
“Mission Accomplished,” Mr. President?
Obviously, you know, we helped to put together and lay the groundwork for liberating Libya. You know, when it comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there.
You mean without your “leadership” there might be MB “apes and pigs” government and violence and rape on the Cairo streets?
But also understanding that we do nobody a service when we leap before we look. Where we, you know, take on things without having thought through all the consequences of it. And Syria’s a classic example of where our involvement, we want to make sure that not only does it enhance U.S. security, but also that it is doing right by the people of Syria and neighbors like Israel that are going to be profoundly affected by it. And so it’s true sometimes that we don’t just shoot from the hip.
(The president’s teleprompter was at the repair shop.)
Secretary Clinton: We live not only in a dangerous, but an incredibly complicated world right now with many different forces at work, both state-based and non-state, technology, and communications. And, you know, I’m older than the president. I don’t want to surprise anybody by saying that.
President Obama: But not by much.
Secretary Clinton: But, you know, I remember, you know, some of the speeches of Eisenhower as a young girl, you know?
Let’s see. Was that before or after Hillary, b. 1947, was named, as she has claimed, for Sir Edmund Hillary (who climbed Mt. Everest in 1953)?
You’ve got to be careful. You have to be thoughtful. You can’t rush in, especially now, where it’s more complex than it’s been in decades.
I wonder why Clinton is invoking Eisenhower? Nothing she or her husband ever do is without calculation. Is she thinking of styling herself as the “New Ike” — liberal socially but supposedly security-minded — in 2016?
So yes, are there what we call wicked problems like Syria, which is the one you named? Absolutely. And we are on the side of American values. We’re on the side of freedom. We’re on the side of the aspirations of all people, to have a better life, have the opportunities that we are fortunate to have here.
Makes my teeth hurt.
But it’s not always easy to perceive exactly what must be done in order to get to that outcome. So you know, I certainly am grateful for the president’s steady hand and hard questions and thoughtful analysis as to what we should and shouldn’t do.
President Obama: You know, there are transitions and transformations taking place all around the world. We are not going to be able to control every aspect of every transition and transformation. Sometimes they’re going to go sideways. Sometimes, you know, there’ll be unintended consequences. And our job is to, number one, look after America’s security and national interest.
What are America’s security and national interest to Obama besides words?
But number two, find where are those opportunities where our intervention, our engagement can really make a difference? And to be opportunistic about that. And that’s something that I think Hillary has done consistently.
Nice of him to refer to the Clinton crest: Semper opportunistic.
I think the team at the State Department’s done consistently. And that’s what I intend to continue to do over the next four years.
Steve Kroft: Thank you very much.
For what?
TWO SIMPLE WORDS SUM IT UP….
SUPPORT ISRAEL!…..
A SAFE, IMPREGNABLE ISRAEL IN ITS PRESENT BORDERS FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO THE JORDAN RIVER IS THE ONLY TRUE MEMORIAL TO A GENOCIDE WHERE ONE OF EVERY THREE JEWS IN WORLD WERE ANNIHILATED.
THE REST IS COMMENTARY AND THEATER…RSK
