John Brennan and the Senate: Is anyone in Washington willing to defend America?

Watching the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) question John Brennan — President Obama’s nominee for CIA director — drove home the utter unwillingness of so many elected and appointed senior federal officials to defend the United States. For the most part, each senator used his/her allotted time to pose irrelevant questions to man whose answers in many cases were deceptive and evasive, when they were not outright lies. One senator hit a bull’s eye when he called Brennan to task for publicly divulging a human operation that had penetrated Al-Qaeda-on-the-Arabian Peninsula but then did not follow up when Brennan took offense at the question. Had any intelligence officer except a senior one like Brennan exposed and thereby destroyed a sensitive ongoing operation — as Brennan clearly did — he would be joining the former CIA officer who recently went to prison for disclosing the name of a colleague.

Continue reading “John Brennan and the Senate: Is anyone in Washington willing to defend America?”

John Brennan as CIA chief would serve his own interests, not America’s

France’s recent interventions in Mali and Somalia underscore the accelerating ability of Al-Qaeda-in-the-Islamic-Mahgreb (AQIM) and its Africa-based allies to threaten the continent’s nation-states, as well as access to natural resources — oil, strategic minerals, and uranium — that are essential to the French, U.S., and other Western economies. The growing power and geographical reach of AQIM mirrors the growth of all components of Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups, save possibly the central component in Afghanistan-Pakistan. The bottom line here is that sixteen years after Al-Qaeda and its allies began their religious war, the United States and the West confront an Islamist enemy that is larger, better armed, smarter, and far more geographically dispersed than ever before.

Continue reading “John Brennan as CIA chief would serve his own interests, not America’s”

In Mali, the interventionist establishment already is lying about ‘unintended consequences’

Last Friday’s Wall Street Journal brought the inevitable. In an opinion piece, Shiraz Maher, a professor at King’s College, London — wrote that “the story of what is going on in Mali”actually begins in Libya, where the unintended consequences of the Arab spring are now roiling North Africa and West Africa. When NATO forces decided to support the Libyan rebellion against Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, they could scarcely have predicted the impact of their intervention on the region’s labyrinth of competing economic and confessional interests.

Continue reading “In Mali, the interventionist establishment already is lying about ‘unintended consequences’”

French intervention in Mali: From al-Qaeda and the Islamists’ perspective — God is truly Great!

Sixteen years after the late-Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States, we are being treated in Mali to a rare and explicit glimpse of how deep the arrogance and incompetence of Western leaders are when it comes to the religious war al-Qaeda and its allies are waging on the West.

Continue reading “French intervention in Mali: From al-Qaeda and the Islamists’ perspective — God is truly Great!”

No matter who wins, the next president will — without question — be an interventionist war president

Having listened to a campaign in which Governor Romney explained how he would fix the U.S. economy and carry a big stick around the world, and President Obama continually blame George W. Bush for all our economic problems and try to depict Romney as the evil-millionaire Mr. Potter from Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, voters can take their pick on Tuesday. But when doing so they must realize that no matter who wins, the next president’s biggest problem will be fighting wars overseas with a war weary populace and an undermanned and ill-equipped military. And no matter who is elected, the new president will only have himself and his interventionist party to blame.

Continue reading “No matter who wins, the next president will — without question — be an interventionist war president”

Why does the Democratic Party so dislike Americans?

While both Democrats and Republicans deserve to be cursed by all Americans for their identical, war-causing, interventionist foreign policies, the duties of citizenship require informed citizens to vote. And though I loathe the fact that Romney has surrounded himself with Neoconservative war-mongers, I will vote Republican. Why? Because I have never been able to understand — let alone accept — why the establishment of the Democratic Party and its media acolytes so dislike Americans, seem so unconcerned about their welfare, and are always so eager to coerce them. On reaching doddering-hood at age 60, I can look back and recall numerous anti-America and anti-Americans positions that are long-standing Democratic positions, such as:

Continue reading “Why does the Democratic Party so dislike Americans?”

Pity poor America: Obama, Romney, and foreign policy

This Tuesday’s Romney-Obama foreign-policy debate will again show Americans that both political parties mean to maintain the lie that has kept the United States losing the war al-Qaeda and its allies declared on us in 1996. There will seem to be debate during the debate, but at day’s end there will be no difference between Romney and Obama: America is “exceptional,” and exceptionally entitled to intervene in other peoples’ affairs; what we do in the world is well-intentioned and benign; and Islamist militants are attacking us because they hate freedom, liberty, and Budweiser. In other words, both men will implicitly tell Americans that their government will not recognize the seriousness of our war with the Islamists, let alone that we are losing that war — hands down.

Continue reading “Pity poor America: Obama, Romney, and foreign policy”