UK: Anjem Choudary Charged With Supporting Islamic State - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

• A recent BBC poll found that 45% of British Muslims believe extremist clerics who preach violence against the West are not "out of touch" with mainstream Muslim opinion.
• "Allah said very clearly in the Koran 'Don't feel sorry for the non-Muslims.' So as an adult non-Muslim... if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire... so I'm not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims." — Anjem Choudary.
• "Under the Shari'ah, the false Gods that people worship instead of Allah will be removed, like democracy, freedom, liberalism, secularism etc." — Anjem Choudary.
• "We are Muslims first and Muslim last. Passports are no more than travel documents. If you are born in a barn that doesn't make you a horse!!" — Anjem Choudary.
• Choudary urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so that they could have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims. He said Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims... as a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.
• Choudary says he is not afraid of going to prison, which he describes as a fertile ground for gaining more converts to Islam. "If they arrest me and put me in prison..." he warned, "I will radicalize everyone in prison."

Anjem Choudary, one of the most outspoken and provocative Islamists in Britain today, has been remanded in custody, charged with the terrorism offense of encouraging people to join the Islamic State.

The charge is related to Choudary sending messages to his nearly 33,000 followers on Twitter, allegedly encouraging them to join the Islamic State -- the radical Sunni Islamist group that has taken control over large parts of Syria and Iraq, and has threatened to attack targets in Europe and North America.

The effort to prosecute Choudary -- well known for his relentless efforts to implement Islamic Sharia law in the UK -- indicates that the British government intends to follow through on its recent pledge to crack down on radical Islam in the country.

It remains to be seen, however, if Choudary's detention will serve as a deterrent to other Islamists in Britain. A recent BBC poll found that 45% of British Muslims believe extremist clerics who preach violence against the West are not "out of touch" with mainstream Muslim opinion.

Choudary was originally arrested in September 2014 during police raids in London, as part of an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation into Islamist-related terrorism. He was subsequently released on bail while police continued their investigation.

On August 5, Choudary, 48, and an associate, Mohammed Rahman, 32, appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court and were charged with repeatedly violating Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 between June 2014 and March 2015.

Addressing the court, Sue Hemming, the head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

"It is alleged that Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman invited support for ISIS [also known as the Islamic State] in individual lectures which were subsequently published online. We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman."

When asked by the judge to indicate how he would plead, Choudary said: "Cameron and the police are guilty." The judge replied that he took that to mean that he would be pleading not guilty. Choudary will remain in police custody until August 28, when he is set to appear at the Old Bailey, the Criminal Court of England and Wales. If convicted, Choudary faces up to ten years in prison.

Until now, Choudary, a lawyer by training, has managed to avoid prison by treading the fine legal line between the inflammatory rhetoric of Islamic supremacism and the right to free speech. He has never been convicted of any offense.

Choudary is the former leader of the Muslim extremist group, al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: "The Emigrants"). Al-Muhajiroun, which celebrated the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, was banned in January 2010.

Since then, al-Muhajiroun has repeatedly reinvented itself under an array of successor aliases. These include, among others: Islam4UK, Call to Submission, Islamic Path, Islamic Dawa Association, London School of Sharia, Muslims Against Crusades and Need4Khalifah, all of which have also been banned.

A study published by the London-based Henry Jackson Society in September 2014 found that one in five terrorists convicted in Britain over more than a decade have had links to al-Muhajiroun.

A report published by the British anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate in November 2013 concluded that al-Muhajiroun was "the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history."

Al-Muhajiroun is said to have also played a major role in radicalizing Michael Adebolajo, who was found guilty of murdering (and attempting to decapitate) the British soldier Lee Rigby outside London's Woolwich Barracks in May 2013.

Choudary said Rigby would "burn in hellfire" as a non-Muslim, and also praised Adebolajo as a "martyr." He said:

"Allah said very clearly in the Koran 'Don't feel sorry for the non-Muslims.' So as an adult non-Muslim, whether he is part of the Army or not part of the Army, if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire.
"That's what I believe so I'm not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims. We invite them to embrace the message of Islam. If they don't, then obviously if they die like that they're going to the hellfires."

Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary (right) praised one of the murderers of British solider Lee Rigby (left) as a "martyr" and said Rigby would "burn in hellfire" as a non-Muslim.

Police say that Choudary's rhetoric has become more incendiary since June 2014, when the Islamic State proclaimed itself to be an Islamic Caliphate, a theocracy ruled according to Sharia law. Since then, police say, Choudary has repeatedly crossed the legal threshold for criminal prosecution for encouraging terrorism, such as justifying the beheading of the American journalist, James Foley, and the British aid worker, Alan Henning.

Choudary believes that the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is "the caliph of all Muslims" and that Shariah law will eventually "be in command even in America and in Britain and in China and in Russia and everywhere else."

The expansion of the Caliphate, the global implementation of Sharia law and Islamic supremacism are common themes in Choudary's Twitter universe, where -- through a daily barrage of anti-Western tweets -- he repeatedly admonishes his nearly 33,000 followers to avoid assimilating into British culture.

In one tweet, Choudary wrote:

"Eventually the whole world will be governed by Shari'ah & Muslims will have authority over China Russia USA etc. This is the promise of Allah."

He also tweeted:

"Under the Shari'ah, the false Gods that people worship instead of Allah will be removed, like democracy, freedom, liberalism, secularism etc."

In another tweet, Choudary wrote:

"A Muslim always prefers: Shari'ah over Democracy, Submission over Freedom, Khilafah over Secularism, Jihad over oppression, Allah over [Prime Minister David] Cameron!"

Again, he tweeted:

"Cameron needs to accept that Islam is the fastest growing religion/way of life in Britain today & that one day Shari'ah will be implemented!"

On July 14, Choudary tweeted:

"The Khalifah [Caliphate] must ensure that no non-Muslim criticizes Islam or tries to convert Muslims to their own false belief, only Islam is propagated."

On July 10, he tweeted:

"When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban Alcohol, Gambling, Fornication, Pornography, Usury, Democracy, Freedom, The UN etc."

On July 6, Choudary wrote:

"The only time Muslims, Christians & Jews lived together peacefully with their honor protected in Europe was under the Shari'ah in Spain."

After the July 2015 shootings of American servicemen by a Muslim in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Choudary tweeted:

"There's a conflict in the world between those who believe Sovereignty belongs to Allah & those who believe it belongs to Obama! #Chattanooga."

And again:

"The cycle of violence that we find ourselves in can be resolved. Muslims, Christians & Jews can live peacefully under Shari'ah! #Chattanooga."

Choudary, who was born in the UK, has also explained how he feels about his British citizenship:

"We are Muslims first and Muslim last. Passports are no more than travel documents. If you are born in a barn that doesn't make you a horse!!"

Choudary, who is married and has four children, enjoys a comfortable lifestyle that is being paid for, year after year, by British taxpayers. In 2010, the newspaper The Sun reported that he takes home more than £25,000 (€35,000; $38,000) a year in welfare benefits.

In February 2013, Choudary urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so that they could have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims. He said Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims. According to Sharia law, the jizya is a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.

In a video, Choudary said:

"We [Muslims] take the jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money."

Meanwhile, Choudary's Twitter followers have threatened violence unless he is released. In one tweet, a supporter used the hashtag #FreeAnjemChoudary with a picture of Big Ben and the flag of the Islamic State. Another tweet said: "The black days is coming to Britain if it doesnt [sic] release the Muslims." Yet another said: "O Allah! Whoever has harmed them, then harm him, n whoever has shown enmity to them, then show enmity to them." And another: "The shariah of Allah is the only solution for UK. #democracy is rotten."

According to data compiled by an online analytics company, the hashtag #FreeAnjemChoudary was shared nearly 600 times in first the 24 hours after Choudary's detention, potentially reaching 700,000 people. The data shows that most of Choudary's supporters are living in the West: 69% of Choudary's supporters are tweeting from Britain, Canada and the United States, and another 10% tweeting from Australia.

Choudary says he is not afraid of going to prison, which he describes as a fertile ground for gaining more converts to Islam. "If they arrest me and put me in prison, I will carry on in prison," he warned. "I will radicalize everyone in prison."
 

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6315/anjem-choudary-islamic-state

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iranian Imperialism: How the Nuclear Deal aids Iran's Expansionist Policies - Emilia Stark

by Emilia Stark

As the report states, an influx of money would “trigger an unprecedented intensification of influence buying in Iraq.”

With the lifting of sanctions against its nuclear program, Iran is on the precipice of acquiring close to $150 billion in frozen assets that, after money used for domestic regime expenditures, will then be used to fund Iranian militant proxies in the region and maybe even beyond.

Even with sanctions, Iran has been able to shape an asymmetrical expansionist campaign in the Middle East in order to spread its influence. In a recent report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, experts detailed what these effects will most likely be, with the resulting research pointing to a boost in Iranian proxy and militant groups in the region.

One way Iran will tip the balance is by using money to influence politics in Iraq by funding the Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), which are all U.S.-designated terrorist groups with direct ties to Iran’s Quds Force, because it is expected that these PMU commanders will run for the upcoming Iraqi provincial elections and parliamentary elections in 2017 and 2018, respectively. As the report states, an influx of money would “trigger an unprecedented intensification of influence buying in Iraq.” While Iraq is already in major turmoil because of ISIS, this will upset U.S. efforts for democratization and moderation in the Iraqi government thus expanding Iran’s imperialism to its once former nemesis.

Throughout the Syrian civil war, Iran has helped fund and maintain Assad’s regime and will now be able to increase its funding to Syria on a higher level. Iran will provide military power through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which already the pro-Assad militias, as well as sending an infusion of cash to its Hizb’allah fighters who are also on the ground fighting the rebels. Ultimately Syria and Assad will come to rely on Iran and in doing so Iran will expand its hegemonic reach in the region.

As mentioned, Iran’s main military proxy Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, stands to gain a large infusion of money, as well as the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. These Iranian military operatives were created for the purpose of infiltrating other countries in the Middle East to foster extremism by exploiting local grievances, encouraging sectarianism, and spreading the perverse Iranian slander of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism to those the recruit. These proxy groups, most notably Hizb’allah, have proven successful and have helped subvert regional conflicts and even cause turmoil. Iranian incitement has proven very affective and with more funds it will be able to subvert power in the region by funneling money into its Quds Force to create, foster, and grow Shiite militants in order to extend its power.

While the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was initially apprehensive of nuclear deal with Iran, they have now made a statement in favor of the deal. However, in an online interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Kissel, Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Max Boot said that it is clear the Gulf States are really not in favor of the deal and that the statement of support is in name only. The Gulf fears Iranian expansionism and would like to see the United States bomb Iranian nuclear facilities when a bomb is developed. The GCC does not want to publicly oppose the deal because they see Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu as alienating himself with his persistent criticism of the deal and they would like to be stay on the administration’s “good side.” The Gulf States are not naïve, though, and will take steps towards protecting their own interests, but what does that entail? Well, they too will most likely enter the nuclear arms race! So while Obama and his team have tried to stop the proliferation of nuclear arms in the region with Iran, the countries in the Middle East will start taking measures in order to ensure their survival and defense against nuclear weapons. They will also ramp up their support of forces they think will block Iranian expansionism, which means making a common cause with Sunni extremists against Iran like ISIS.

The purpose of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is to stop Iran from attaining a nuclear bomb, but its many flaws will inevitably allow Iran to produce a nuclear bomb ten years from now, and along the way it will continue to slander the U.S. and spread extremism, radicalism, and sectarianism in the region. We are about to enter a new Middle East reality that will have extremists and radicals fighting each other on another level that we cannot imagine, but will soon be our reality.

Emilia Stark

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/iranian_imperialism_how_the_nuclear_deal_aids_irans_expansionist_policies.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Report: Iran to Receive 24 J-10 Fighters from China - Ami Rojkes Dombe

by Ami Rojkes Dombe

According to Chinese media, Iran will allow Beijing to exploit its largest oilfield and in return, China will provide the Iranian Air Force with 24 J-10 fighter aircraft. Rumors claim that the J-10 is an evolution of the "Lavi" aircraft developed in the 80's by Israel – however this was denied by China and Israel

Iran will become the second overseas user of Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group's J-10, according to wantchinatimes. According to the report, Iran will received the fighters without paying a dollar to China, by signing a contract to allow Beijing to exploit its largest oilfield over the next 20 years.

China will provide the Iranian Air Force with a total number of 24 F-10 Vigorous Dragon jets, the export version of the J-10, to equip its two fighter groups. The cost of a single J-10 is estimated at US$40 million, making the value of the deal around US$1 billion. This could be bartered through permitting Beijing 20 years of exploitation rights to the Azadegan oilfield. With a range of 2,940 kilometers, the fighters are capable of defending Iran's entire airspace and that of the Persian Gulf.

Several Chinese military analysts believe the United States may not be happy about such a deal and China will face international pressure should Iran use the fighters in combat against US allies in the region. Others meanwhile pointed out that 24 fighters will not make a major difference to the strategic situation in the Middle East.

It has been alleged that the J-10 is actually a version of the Israeli "Lavi" aircrafe developed in the 80's in Israel – a project that was halted due to American pressure. China and Israel officially denied the connection between the two aircraft. However, if in the end it will turn out that the J-10 has Israeli roots, it would be somewhat ironic if technology developed by Israeli engineers ends up in the hands of Iranian pilots.

Pakistan is the first overseas customer for the J-10. Back in 2009, China agreed to sell 36 export version of the advanced J-10B fighters known as FC-20 to Pakistan in a contract worth US$$1.4 billion. 

Ami Rojkes Dombe

Source: http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/report-iran-receive-24-j-10-fighters-china

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Mr. President, Iran is the enemy, not Israel - Boaz Bismuth

by Boaz Bismuth

For U.S. President Barack Obama, the nuclear deal with Iran has become a personal issue, and that's a shame • What can he say now that his fellow Democrats are opposing the deal, are they also like the "hard-liners" in Iran?

 

U.S. President Barack Obama | Photo credit: Reuters

It is still difficult to predict how big of a majority in Congress, if it all, will reject the nuclear deal with Iran on September 17. This weekend, however, U.S. President Barack Obama suffered a setback when senior Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer decided to oppose the deal and jeopardize the Obama legacy.

And Schumer is not alone. In the House of Representatives, Congressmen Eliot Engel (New York), Steve Israel (New York) and Brad Sherman (California) have declared their opposition to the deal. Sherman, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, was the sixth Jewish Democrat to voice his opposition. He compared the deal to the movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," saying: "I might be willing to accept the good with the bad during the first year of the agreement. But we must force modifications of the agreement, and extensions of its nuclear restrictions, before it gets ugly."

What, then, will Obama say now? Will he reiterate the petty and extremely political comparison he made last week in a speech at American University, when he said, "It's those hard-liners chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." Is it possible that the Democratic party also consists of these "hard-liners"?

Perhaps the president will continue playing the game, no less dangerous than the deal itself, in which he draws a connection between the "supporters of the Iraq war" to those opposing the deal, simultaneously sending a conspicuous hint to the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC? Is the president unaware that at stake is the most important international agreement of the modern era? Does he not understand that this isn't about a country's economic fate (Greece), but a country's existence (Israel)? And does the president not understand that since its establishment in 1951, this is perhaps AIPAC's moment of truth?

Beware the revenge campaign

It's a shame Obama is making the Iranian nuclear issue personal. Whoever is not with him is against him. Iran is the enemy, Mr. President. Not you. Iran is the enemy -- not Israel. America is still the "Great Satan," Israel is still the "Little Satan" and the ayatollahs still aren't holy. Even the prominent Democratic supporter, Haim Saban, has understood the danger and has joined the opposition.

It is exceedingly rare for Congress to reject an administration decision related to foreign policy. Too recall an instance of the Senate rejecting an agreement, we must go back to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the 14 Points plan proposed by one of the greatest American presidents, Woodrow Wilson (also a Democrat, also a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize that same year). That was nearly 100 years ago.

Obama needs to understand that this is not personal. All he has to do is peruse the comments made by supporters of the deal in order to understand why people in Israel, and in America, are very worried. Let's take, for example, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, who supports the deal. She admits the deal is "not perfect" and believes Iran will continue to lie and continue to get stronger. Could it be that the deal's detractors aren't actually "ignorant," as the president, according to commentators, tried painting them as in his speech at American University? Perhaps they are simply seeing clearly? And if someone is failing to understand why the polls suddenly flipped on Saturday -- it's because people have only just begun discovering the details of the deal. The Americans, for example, were stunned to learn during Secretary of State John Kerry's congressional hearing that he was not versed in the details of the secret deal between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The important thing, however, is that here in Israel there are also those who support the deal. Maybe they know things that Kerry does not?

Obama already has the support of 16 Democratic senators. He needs 34 to back his presidential veto, which is certainly an attainable goal. We must pay attention to three scenarios:

• The first, and most likely, is that both houses of Congress reject the deal by less than a two-thirds majority. The president vetoes the decision, and manages to enlist a one-third minority of supporters. The deal passes, but with a large warning sign from Congress, which rejected it. The president compensates Israel with a handsome aid package and takes its views into account.

• The second and less likely possibility is that after 60 days, on September 17, Congress accepts the deal. This would be a magnificent achievement for the president, and a resounding failure for Israel. We can assume that in this scenario as well Israel would receive a compensation package, perhaps sweetening the bitter pill it has swallowed.

• The third scenario is that Congress rejects the deal. The president tries issuing a veto, but fails to enlist the required one-third minority of 34 senators. This would lead us to two possibilities. The first being that Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton comprehend Israel's influence in Washington. Israel would be more involved in the Iranian issue. Iran would be free of the deal, but not from sanctions. But there is also the possibility that Obama, a lame and battered duck, would engage in an aggressive and bitter vengeance campaign (in the U.N. Security Council among other places). Could this prove to be more damaging than the nuclear deal itself? This campaign, however, would come with an expiration date, as election season has already begun in the United States. And according to television ratings for the Republican debate on Friday, America is already showing interest in the next president -- man or woman.

Boaz Bismuth

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=27447

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Turkey's Rambos (Almost) Fight Islamic State - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

• The dramatic end of "Division 30" has shown that there are both U.S. and Turkish human (and military) intelligence weaknesses regarding the war zone.
• Without a credible ground operation (and scores of fallen soldiers), jihadists cannot be seriously fought.
• The obsession of Turkey's leaders with Assad causes strategic blindness and may further weaken an already difficult allied war on the jihadists.

"3,000 Mossad agents on our border," was a headline July 1 on Yeni Akit, an Islamist Turkish daily that staunchly supports Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his political endeavors.

The newspaper attributed its story to a Turkish "intelligence report," which it said it had accessed. The newspaper also claimed that the "intelligence report" on which it based its story had been presented to "top state officials."

Most likely a fabrication; not even a bad joke; not really funny, one should brush off the story. But across Turkey's war-torn, 900-km border with Syria, there are real bad jokes and they are not at all funny.

Last year, the half-hearted Turks and wholehearted Americans sat down to understand where in the Syrian civil war they converged and diverged. The Americans viewed the Islamic State (IS) as their number one enemy. After having destroyed the jihadists, we could sit down and talk about Syria's future, including the departure of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Erdogan's top regional nemesis. In contrast, the Turks would reluctantly help fight the IS but insisted that if peace were going to return to Syria, Assad had to go.

After months-long negotiations, the two NATO allies in February signed an agreement to train and equip moderate rebels who would fight both the IS and Assad. Groups of opposition fighters would be trained at military camps in Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They would be ready to fight and finish off the Islamic State. The Pentagon even identified 1,200 fighters for training. They believed that eventually the allies would train and equip about 5,000 fighters.

Then the program largely disappeared from the public domain. Officials cited security concerns, for secrecy about where and how many fighters were being trained, and with what gear they were being equipped. Finally, in August, the Rambos trained and equipped by Turkey and the U.S. came to the public attention -- if not quite in Rambo fashion.

On July 13 (or July 12, according to different sources) a team of 54 fighters trained and equipped by Turkey and the U.S., and known by the fancy military name "Division 30," secretly entered Syrian territory -- meant to blaze a trail for others who would fight the IS and (later, perhaps) Assad. Shortly after entering Syria, the al-Nusra Front (ANF), an al-Qaeda franchise, abducted the group's leader, Nedim al Hassan, together with 17 fighters, in northern Syria. The next day ANF attacked the team's headquarters near Aleppo, killing five fighters and injuring 16. In the same attack, eight more fighters were abducted by ANF forces. The remaining seven fighters took refuge in a Kurdish-controlled town in northern Syria.

Division 30's guns and equipment were seized by the ANF, which later released a video showing the hostages who were supposed to fight the IS. In the video, one of the detained fighters tells the camera he was recruited by the U.S., through intermediaries, to receive training in Turkey for a month and a half. He says the trainees were each given an M16 assault rifle and some cash, and sent to fight ANF in Syria. An ANF member said his group "cut the hand of the West and the Americans in Syria" by capturing the fighters.

The Free Syrian Army, which Turkey supports in the hope that it may help Ankara topple Assad, is now in talks with the ANF for the release of the captured fighters. .

The tragic failure of "Division 30" even to start any fighting underlines a few disturbing facts.

First, although this was the first U.S./Turkish-trained force officially sent to Syria that faced a tragic end, it is not the first group of fighters that failed. Last November, two of the main rebel groups (Harakat Hazm and the Syrian Revolutionary Front) receiving U.S. arms to fight both the IS and Assad, surrendered to the ANF. They had even been given Grad truck-mounted rockets and TOW anti-tank missiles. Apparently, the U.S./Turkish-backed groups lack the military capabilities and tactics that, together with allied air support, would have helped them win control over strategic towns. Among dozens of different groups fighting in northern Syria, the Kurds and various jihadist bands know the area best.

Jihadists of the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front (shown parading above) have killed, captured or absorbed many rebel fighters in Syria that were trained and equipped by the U.S. and Turkey.

Second, the dramatic end of "Division 30" has shown that there are both U.S. and Turkish human (and military) intelligence weaknesses regarding the war zone.

Third, without a credible ground operation (and scores of fallen soldiers), jihadists cannot be seriously fought. For such an unpleasant venture, both the US and Turkey are too unprepared and reluctant -- for understandable reasons.

Fourth, Turkey's leaders, who do not hide their obsession with Assad's downfall, are still daydreaming. On August 3, Erdogan said that Russian President Vladimir Putin has changed his stance on the ongoing crisis in Syria and is "much more positive" about a future without Assad. Erdogan said: "Actually, I believe that he may give up on Assad." There is no means to know how much laughter this may have caused at the Kremlin. But we know that the Turkish obsession with Assad causes strategic blindness and may further weaken an already difficult allied war on the jihadists.

"Division 30" was a tragicomic start to a ground warfare campaign against the Islamic State and several other jihadist groups. It may not be the last.
 

 

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6302/turkey-fights-islamic-state

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Most Dangerous European Court Decision to Date - Roger Kiska

by Roger Kiska

Only 25 days after the Obergefell judgment, the European Court of Human Rights, the highest human rights court in Europe, with jurisdiction over 47 nations, did what only months ago would have been unthinkable: it created a European “right” to same-sex civil unions by citing the Obergefell ruling as evidence of an emerging consensus toward recognition of same-sex relationships internationally.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the unborn child is not fully human and created a “right” to abortion from among “the penumbra of implied rights” of the U.S. Constitution.  Forty-two years later, we see the poisonous fruit of this judgment as the Planned Parenthood scandal unfolds publicly, before our eyes.  The Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade decision, also legitimized abortion for the entire Western world, seemingly overnight.

A strong parallel can and must be drawn with the recent judgment of that same Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges.  Building on that very same poisonous penumbra, the judgment created a “right” to same-sex “marriage.”  Legal commentators did not have to wait long at all for the weight of this judgment to be felt internationally.  Only 25 days after the Obergefell judgment, the European Court of Human Rights, the highest human rights court in Europe, with jurisdiction over 47 nations, did what only months ago would have been unthinkable: it created a European “right” to same-sex civil unions by citing the Obergefell ruling as evidence of an emerging consensus toward recognition of same-sex relationships internationally.

Several shocking elements can be inferred from the European Court’s unanimous chamber ruling on July 21 in the case Oliari and Others v. Italy.  The first inference is the highly dangerous and selective element of populism the court has used in creating new human rights (which itself is a logical fallacy because rights cannot be created; either they are or they are not).  The court continued to use its highly contentious and hypocritically finicky doctrine of “emerging consensus” to determine that a right to recognition of same-sex civil unions is required under the European Convention of Human Rights, because a trend exists in Europe towards such recognition.

This “trend,” sufficient for the court to legislate for all of Europe on such an important moral and cultural question, amounts to 24 of 47 member-states having such recognition.  This is precisely 50 percent plus one of the member-states.  Far from being an “emerging consensus,” such a low threshold of states dictates exactly the opposite: that no consensus exists.

The court also completely ignored the strong counter-trend in Europe, where countries like Slovakia, Croatia, and Hungary have legislated in favor of the natural family and man-woman marriage, or where those such as Romania have rejected civil unions.

The hypocritical aspect of the judgment is the selectivity with which the court applies the doctrine of emerging consensus.  Take for example the issue of parental rights, including the right to home educate or to opt one’s children out of radical sexual education classes.  In the last 10 years, the court has been flooded with complaints, among which are cases with such egregious facts as children being taken away from parents for home-educating in Sweden, a 15-year-old girl being placed in a mental asylum in Germany for being home-educated, or 14 parents in Salzkotten, Germany required to serve more than 40 days each in prison simply for opting their 9- to 10-year-old children out of two days of mandatory sexual education classes.

The European Court has universally rejected all of the parental rights cases dealing with these two issues, not even admitting them to be heard on the merits despite the fact that more than 40 of the 47 member-states allow for home education and opt-outs – an emerging consensus if one ever did exist.

The European public should also be very concerned with the court’s reasoning that, based on opinion polls in Italy and the supposed will of the Italian judiciary, the European Court would itself create a right to same-sex civil unions.  Let’s be clear: it is not the role of seven judges sitting in Strasbourg to decide for Europe how to legislate merely because they think that they have discerned the will of the people.  The U.S. Supreme Court was at least cavalier enough to admit they could not care less about the will of the American people by overruling the tens of millions of voters who had recently affirmed that marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman.

Oliari and Others v. Italy is perhaps the most dangerous and least reasoned judgment ever to come from the European Court of Human Rights.  The court ruled in part, for example, that legal recognition of civil unions is necessary because it will provide a sense of legitimacy to same-sex relationships.  Making couples feel good about their romantic relationships is not a legitimate interest that warrants attention from any court or legislature.

The court also made the blanket statement that same-sex couples are just as capable of having nearly the exact same type of relationship as heterosexual couples, completely ignoring one of the most fundamental elements of marriage: creating and raising a family.

The court also openly and notoriously took on itself the exclusive role of legislating on behalf of the Italian parliament, criticizing the parliament for failing to follow the will of the people on this issue.

Finally, it is important to note that the Italian legislation did not discriminate against anyone.  Same-sex civil unions are not available to anyone under Italian law.  The European Court fallaciously argued that there was no legal argument the Italian government could put forth to defend this position.  But Italy should not have to defend its marital laws to Strasbourg if it chooses to bolster a healthy marriage culture by making marriage the only option for legal recognition of relationships.

We must not shy away from the reality that, in every nation that has legislated same-sex “marriage,” the legislation of same-sex unions always preceded it.  The European Court, in making its ruling in Oliari, may well be counting on that fact.

The judgment in Oliari is not yet final, as Italy has a right of appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court.  That’s important, as this case draws a strong parallel to the last time the court tried to legislate on behalf of Europe – in the Lautsi v. Italy case.  The Lautsi court ruled unanimously that Italy had to remove all of the crucifixes from its public schools.  The appeal was historic in that 10 nations joined Italy in its appeal, leading to a 15-2 judge reversal by the Grand Chamber.  We can only hope that history repeats itself.

In the end, the only emerging consensus that has become clear in 2015 is that we live in a brave new world, where judges far too often take on the role of legislators, creating the law rather than upholding it.


Roger Kiska is deputy director of ADF International, based in Vienna, Austria

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_most_dangerous_european_court_decision_to_date.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Column One: Obama’s enemies list - Caroline B; Glick

by Caroline B. Glick

Today Iran is harming America directly in multiple ways.

In President Barack Obama’s defense of his nuclear deal with Iran Wednesday, he said there are only two types of people who will oppose his deal – Republican partisans and Israel- firsters – that is, traitors.

At American University, Obama castigated Republican lawmakers as the moral equivalent of Iranian jihadists saying, “Those [Iranian] hard-liners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal... are making common cause with the Republican Caucus.”

He then turned his attention to Israel.

Obama explained that whether or not you believe the deal endangers Israel boils down to whom you trust more – him or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And, he explained, he can be trusted to protect Israel better than Netanyahu can because “[I] have been a stalwart friend of Israel throughout my career.”

The truth is that it shouldn’t much matter to US lawmakers whether Obama or Netanyahu has it right about Israel. Israel isn’t a party to the deal and isn’t bound by it. If Israel decides it needs to act on its own, it will.

The US, on the other side, will be bound by the deal if Congress fails to kill it next month.

So the real question lawmakers need to ask is whether the deal is good for America. Is Obama right or wrong that only partisan zealots and disloyal Zionists could oppose his great diplomatic achievement? To determine the answer to that question, you need to do is ask another one. Does his deal make America safer or less safe? The best way to answer that question is to consider all the ways Iran threatens America today, and ask whether the agreement has no impact on those threats, or whether it mitigates or aggravates them.

Today Iran is harming America directly in multiple ways.

The most graphic way Iran is harming America today is by holding four Americans hostage. Iran’s decision not to release them over the course of negotiations indicates that at a minimum, the deal hasn’t helped them.

It doesn’t take much consideration to recognize that the hostages in Iran are much worse off today than they were before Obama concluded the deal on July 14.

The US had much more leverage to force the Iranians to release the hostages before it signed the deal than it does now. Now, not only do the Iranians have no reason to release the hostages, they have every reason to take more hostages.

Then there is Iranian-sponsored terrorism against the US.

In 2011, the FBI foiled an Iranian plot to murder the Saudi ambassador in Washington and bomb the Saudi and Israeli embassies in the US capital.

One of the terrorists set to participate in the attack allegedly penetrated US territory through the Mexican border.

The terrorist threat to the US emanating from Iran’s terrorist infrastructure in Latin America will rise steeply as a consequence of the nuclear deal.

As The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady wrote last month, the sanctions relief the deal provides to Iran will enable it to massively expand its already formidable operations in the US’s backyard. Over the past two decades, Iran and Hezbollah have built up major presences in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia.

Iran’s presence in Latin America also constitutes a strategic threat to US national security. Today Iran can use its bases of operations in Latin America to launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the US from a ballistic missile, a satellite or even a merchant ship.

The US military is taking active steps to survive such an attack, which would destroy the US’s power grid. Among other things, it is returning the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to its former home in Cheyenne Mountain outside Colorado Springs.

But Obama has ignored the findings of the congressional EMP Commission and has failed to harden the US electronic grid to protect it from such attacks.

The economic and human devastation that would be caused by the destruction of the US electric grid is almost inconceivable. And now with the cash infusion that will come Iran’s way from Obama’s nuclear deal, it will be free to expand on its EMP capabilities in profound ways.

Through its naval aggression in the Strait of Hormuz Iran threatens the global economy. While the US was negotiating the nuclear deal with Iran, the Revolutionary Guards unlawfully interdicted – that is hijacked – the Marshall Islands-flagged Maersk Tigris and held its crew hostage for weeks.

Iran’s assault on the Tigris came just days after the US-flagged Maersk Kensington was surrounded and followed by Revolutionary Guards ships until it fled the strait.

A rational take-home message the Iranians can draw from the nuclear deal is that piracy pays.

Their naval aggression in the Strait of Hormuz was not met by American military force, but by American strategic collapse at Vienna.

This is doubly true when America’s listless response to Iran’s plan to use its Houthi proxy’s takeover of Yemen to control the Bab el-Mandab strait is taken into consideration. With the Bab el-Mandab, Iran will control all maritime traffic from the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. Rather than confront this clear and present danger to the global economy, America abandoned all its redlines in the nuclear talks.

Then there is Iran’s partnership 20-year partnership with al-Qaida.

The 9/11 Commission found in its report that four of the 9/11 terrorists transited Iran before traveling to the US. As former Defense Intelligence Agency director Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Mike Flynn told Fox News in the spring, Iranian cooperation with al-Qaida remains deep and strategic.

When the US Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in 2011, they seized hard drives containing more than a million documents related to al-Qaida operations. All but a few dozen remain classified.

According to Flynn and other US intelligence officials who spoke to The Weekly Standard, the documents expose Iran’s vast collaboration with al-Qaida.

The agreement Obama concluded with the mullahs gives a tailwind to Iran. Iran’s empowerment will undoubtedly be used to expand its use of al-Qaida terrorists as proxies in their joint war against the US.

Then there is Iran’s ballistic missile program.

The UN Security Council resolution passed two weeks ago cancels the UN-imposed embargoes on conventional arms and ballistic missile acquisitions by Iran. Since the nuclear deal facilities Iranian development of advanced nuclear technologies that will enable the mullahs to build nuclear weapons freely when the deal expires, the Security Council resolution means that by the time the deal expires, Iran will have the nuclear warheads and the intercontinental ballistic missiles required to carry out a nuclear attack on the US.

Obama said Wednesday that if Congress votes down his nuclear deal, “we will lose... America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility,” he explained, “is the anchor of the international system.”

Unfortunately, Obama got it backwards. It is the deal that destroys America’s credibility and so upends the international system which has rested on that credibility for the past 70 years.

The White House’s dangerous suppression of seized al-Qaida-Iran documents, like its listless response to Iran’s maritime aggression, its indifference to Iran’s massive presence in Latin America, its lackluster response to Iran’s terrorist activities in Latin America, and its belittlement of the importance of the regime’s stated goal to destroy America – not to mention its complete collapse on all its previous redlines over the course of the negotiations – are all signs of the disastrous toll the nuclear deal has already taken on America’s credibility, and indeed on US national security.

To defend a policy that empowers Iran, the administration has no choice but to serve as Iran’s agent. The deal destroys America’s credibility in fighting terrorism. By legitimizing and enriching the most prolific state sponsor of terrorism, the US has made a mockery of its claimed commitment to the fight.

The deal destroys the US’s credibility as an ally.

By serving as apologists for its worst enemy, the US has shown its allies that they cannot trust American security guarantees. How can Israel or Saudi Arabia trust America to defend them when it is endangering itself? The deal destroys 70 years of US nonproliferation efforts. By enabling Iran to become a nuclear power, the US has made a mockery of the very notion of nonproliferation and caused a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The damage caused by the deal is already being felt. For instance, Europe, Russia and China are already beating a path to the ayatollahs’ doorstep to sign commercial and military deals with the regime.

But if Congress defeats the deal, it can mitigate the damage. By killing the deal, Congress will demonstrate that the American people are not ready to go down in defeat. They can show that the US remains committed to its own defense and the rebuilding of its strategic credibility worldwide.

In his meeting with Jewish leaders Tuesday, Obama acknowledged that his claim – repeated yet again Wednesday – that the only alternative to the deal is war, is a lie.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Greg Rosenbaum, chairman of the National Democratic Jewish Council, which is allied with the White House, said that Obama rejected the notion that war will break out if Congress rejects the deal with veto-overriding majorities in both houses.

According to Rosenbaum, Obama claimed that if Congress rejects his nuclear deal, eventually the US will have to carry out air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to prevent them from enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.

“But,” he quoted Obama as saying, “the result of such a strike won’t be war with Iran.”

Rather, Obama said, Iran will respond to a US strike primarily by ratcheting up its terrorist attacks against Israel.

“I can assure,” Obama told the Jewish leaders, “that Israel will bear the brunt of the asymmetrical responses that Iran will have to a military strike on its nuclear facilities.”

What is notable here is that despite the fact that it will pay the heaviest price for a congressional defeat of the Iran deal, Israel is united in its opposition to the deal. This speaks volume about the gravity with which the Israeli public views the threats the agreement unleashed.

But again, Israel is not the only country that is imperiled by the nuclear deal. And Israelis are not the only ones who need to worry.

Obama wishes to convince the public that the deal’s opponents are either partisan extremists or traitors who care about Israel more than they care about America. But neither claim is true. The main reason Americans should oppose the deal is that it endangers America. And as a consequence, Americans who oppose the deal are neither partisans nor turncoats.

They are patriots.


Caroline B. Glick

Source: http://www.jpost.com/landedpages/printarticle.aspx?id=411390

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Kerry's dangerous fantasy - Yoram Ettinger

by Yoram Ettinger

According to the daily voice of the Saudi king, the ayatollah regime "is like a monster that was tied to a tree and has been set loose. We are on a threshold of a bloody era ... expecting the worst-case scenario

Irrespective of Western attempts to portray Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan and Egypt as supporters of the Iran nuclear deal, leaders of these countries, and especially the House of Saud, consider the accord a colossal, lethal threat. They see it as a reckless, short-sighted and self-destructive policy, which will initially plague the Arab world and subsequently the Western one, including the U.S. -- "the Great Satan" as the ayatollahs call it.

While Saudi leaders are restrained in their official reaction to the Iran nuclear agreement, they voice their authentic concerns and assessments via the House of Saud-owned media, which has traditionally served as a convenient venue, providing the element of deniability, sparing diplomatic inconvenience.

During a recent visit to Capitol Hill, I was told by legislators in both chambers, on both sides of the aisle: "While Israel is concerned about Iran's nuclearization, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are panicky."

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, the House of Saud-appointed general manager of Al Arabiya TV and former editor-in-chief of the leading Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat, dismissed U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's assertion that "once fully implemented, the Iran deal will contribute to the region's long-term security." 

According to the daily voice of the Saudi king, the ayatollah regime "is like a monster that was tied to a tree and has been set loose. We are on a threshold of a bloody era ... expecting the worst-case scenario. ... Tehran does not intend to drop its aims of regional dominance and destabilizing neighboring Arab countries. The lifting of sanctions will facilitate the transfer of funds and the purchase and shipment of arms [to terror organizations]. ... Tehran will become more dangerous."

Asharq Al-Awsat opinion page editor Mshari Al-Zaydi highlights a constructive alternative to the current Iran nuclear deal: the preconditioning of any benefit to the ayatollahs on a drastic transformation of the nature of their regime. The confidant of the House of Saud stated: "The real problem lies in the nature of Iran's rulers and the money that will flood the coffers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. It will cause more strife in Arab countries. ... Iran's constitution calls for funding and arming militias loyal to Iran within Arab and Muslim countries. Washington will soon realize the consequences of their Iranian adventure." 

At this junction, in an increasingly globalized world, and against the backdrop of the ayatollahs' apocalyptic "Death to America" worldview and close ties with North Korea, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, the commercial, energy, national and homeland security consequences of the Iran nuclear agreement transcend the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the Arab world. The implications of the game-changing agreement extend to the Western world, impacting Latin America, Mexico and every congressional district in the U.S.

In 2015, Kerry is attempting to assuage the concerns of the American people by portraying Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as moderates. He fails to note that they were handpicked by the ayatollahs, happily serving as their mouthpieces, due to their mastery of taqiyya (Islam-sanctioned double-talk and deception, especially when dealing with "infidels"). Upon concluding the current negotiation, Kerry praised Zarif, Iran's charmer-in-chief, as "a tough negotiator and a patriot," adding, "We approached these negotiations with mutual respect." 

During the 1990s and until the eruption of the civil war in Syria, Kerry was a member of a small group of senators who considered Syrian President Hafez Assad and his son and successor Bashar Assad -- otherwise treated as pariahs by the West -- to be moderate, constructive, potentially pro-U.S. and trustworthy. He prodded Israel to cede the strategically critical Golan Heights to Syria. Kerry was a frequent visitor to Damascus, asserting on March 16, 2011: "My judgment is that Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the U.S. and the West and economic opportunities that come with it."

Kerry considered PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat a messenger of peace, embraced the anti-U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, dumped Egypt's pro-U.S. President Hosni Mubarak, turned a cold shoulder toward the country's current pro-U.S. President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, and referred to the violently intolerant Arab tsunami as the Arab Spring, "the new Arab awakening," transitioning from tyranny to democracy, the Facebook revolution and the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. 

Refuting Kerry's hope-driven policy, Amir Taheri, a senior Asharq Al-Awsat columnist and a leading expert on Persian Gulf politics, underlined Persian Gulf reality: "The assumption that the Rafsanjani/Rouhani faction is interested in reforms is far-fetched. ... In the third year of Rouhani's presidency the number of prisoners of conscience has almost doubled along with the number of executions; political parties and trade unions remain banned; more publications have been shut than under [former Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad; exporting terror has intensified with a 32% rise in the budget of the Quds Force, which controls Iran's terror network. ... Kerry is chasing a dangerous fantasy: helping a regime in deep crisis regain its bearings and do more mischief at home and abroad."

Echoing Saudi concerns that the Iran nuclear agreement dramatically bolsters the rogue ayatollah regime, precludes a regime change and erodes U.S. posture of deterrence, the veteran columnist adds: "The deal strengthens the radical hardliners in Tehran, who believe that they have carte blanche to pursue their imperial dream. ... [U.S. President Barack Obama's and Kerry's] diplomacy has made the world a much more dangerous place."

The U.S. power projection, which is essential for global stability, is further undermined when Obama evokes former President John F. Kennedy's Test Ban Treaty with the USSR -- an adversarial, nuclear superpower, deterred by mutually assured destruction -- to market the nuclear deal with Iran. Iran is a medium-size conventional power, a rogue, non-compliant, apocalyptic regime, not deterred by MAD, seeking capabilities to devastate "the arrogant, infidel, Great Satan." While Kennedy's policy constrained the bullish policies of the USSR, the Iran nuclear deal fuels the ayatollah's bullishness, significantly enhancing their financial and military capabilities, thus intensifying global instability.

Yoram Ettinger

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=13423

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama's Lies about Bush and Iraq - Arnold Ahlert

by Arnold Ahlert

Covering his betrayal of America with discredited falsehoods.

To order David Horowitz and Ben Johnson's book "Party of Defeat,” click here.

The president's speech on the Iranian deal, delivered at American University on Wednesday, was vintage Obama, as in a compendium of demagoguery, historical revisionism and outright lying. Nothing emphasized that more forcefully than the portion of the Obama's speech addressing the war in Iraq. Obama insisted U.S. involvement there was the result of "a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.”

That is litany of falsehoods. First, it was a complete lack of military action against a rapidly metastasizing Islamist terror threat, studiously ignored during the Clinton years, that gave Osama bin Laden the ability to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks from the terrorist sanctuary provided to al Qaeda by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. That would be the same Bill Clinton, along with numerous other Democrats, including Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore who provided ample incentive for the invasion of Iraq, characterizing Saddam Hussein and his burgeoning WMD program as a mortal threat to world peace and stability. Moreover, as David Horowitz and Ben Johnson explain in their book "Party of Defeat,” every Democrat who voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq—including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer—had access to the same National Intelligence Estimate that Bush and Republicans did.

It was a report, despite years of Democratic lying, that ultimately turned out to be correct. Two separate reports revealed the existence of large stocks of chemical weapons contained in the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex that was overrun by ISIS last year. And in 2008, after Democrats had  campaigned for years on the slogan, “Bush Lied, people died,” the New York Times reported that "hundreds of tons of natural uranium” had been removed from Iraq’s main nuclear site and moved to Canada.

As Horowitz and Johnson explain, none of it mattered to a Democratic Party intent on undermining Bush and the war, an effort driven by pure partisan politics arising from the reality that anti-war Democrat Howard Dean vaulted to the top of the pack of Democratic presidential contenders in the 2004 campaign. Without missing a beat, presidential candidates John Edwards and John Kerry suddenly decided they were against the same war they had previously supported, and their Democrat colleagues embraced that defeatist change of heart with all the gusto they could muster. No one more so than Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. Even before the surge that turned the tide of the Iraq war decisively in America’s favor was completed, Reid declared the war to be “lost.” Less than six months later, Clinton, with an eye towards her own 2008 presidential ambitions, attacked the integrity of Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, insisting reports on that success "require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

In short, the Party of Defeat was willing to facilitate America’s defeat in Iraq if it accrued to their political advantage. Toward the end they were aided and abetted by a cadre of leftists, from epidemiologist and unsuccessful New York Democrat congressman wannabe Les Roberts, who grossly overestimated “collateral damage” caused by coalition troops, to leftist newspapers such as the New York Times who elevated anti-war crank Cindy Sheehan to celebrity status, and the Washington Post, who along with the Times, published stories about the Bush administration’s top secret anti-terror programs, destroying them in the process.

Moreover, Obama’s assertions that Bush chose action over diplomacy and failed to build an international consensus are equally preposterous. Between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, both the United States and the United Kingdom undertook a painstaking effort to give Saddam Hussein an alternative to war, one that culminated in the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1441 by the U.N. Security Council in November 2002. That resolution gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” engendered by a series of previous resolutions Saddam Hussein had ignored for years. As for building international consensus, Bush amassed a coalition of 49 countries as of March 27, 2003, all of whom were willing to abet Hussein’s removal. 

What about the notable exceptions of France, Germany and Russia who resisted the idea of invading Iraq? All three were involved in the massive U.N.-based Oil for Food scandal involving billions of dollars in bribes between those nations and the Iraqi dictator that Horowitz and Johnson noted was the “largest theft on record.” 

That scandal is worth remembering following Obama’s demonstration of contempt for America's national sovereignty, revealed by the part of his speech explaining the deal was reached "between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran.” 

Obama dug an even deeper hole for himself further on. "Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaida in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL,” he stated. "And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.” 

It wasn’t the removal of Saddam Hussein that precipitated the rise of ISIS, the resurgence of al Qaeda and the strategic strengthening of Iran in that war-torn nation. It was Obama’s determination, against the advice of his military experts, to completely remove American troops in 2011, even as he told the nation he left behind "an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant,” a completely cynical election campaign calculation that was nonetheless described by Vice President Joe Biden as “one of the great achievements of this administration.”

Trying to deflect his disastrous foreign policy failures, Obama continued to bash Bush. "When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb, that were spinning to enrich uranium,” Obama said. "But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges and showed no inclination to slow, much less halt, its program.” 

Like everything with this president, the devil in in the details. According to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the majority of the growth in the number of first-generation IR-1 centrifuges at Iran’s main fuel enrichment plant at Natanz occurred after Obama took office. That facility had around 5,500 centrifuges at the beginning of Obama’s first term, and over 15,000 by May 2015. Add the Fordow facility to the mix, and the number increases to 19,000. 

That would be the same President Obama who promised the nation in 2012 that any deal with Iran would require them to shut down all of their centrifuges.

Make no mistake: the very same leftist disinformation campaign, replete with lying, historical revisionism and blatant propaganda points used to discredit the war in Iraq is the template being used to sell the Iranian deal to a recalcitrant public, as well as Democratic members of Congress who are once again being urged to elevate their loyalty to their party over their loyalty to the nation. It is a political pitch so simultaneously desperate and despicable that Obama felt compelled to insist Iranian leaders are "making common cause with the Republican caucus.” That unprecedented slander flies in the face of the reality that, completely unlike Republicans, the Iranian mullahs got everything they wanted in this deal, even as “Death to America, Death to Israel” remains their operative agenda. 

"The war against Islamofacism cannot be won if its religious roots are denied or its global reach is ignored,” Horowitz and Johnson warn. Obama's Iranian deal represents both damning realities. Iranian leadership believes in the version of Islam that must clear the way for the reemergence of the Twelfth or Hidden Imam and the final apocalypse that will allow Islam to prevail worldwide. With regard to global reach, the final deal completely contradicted the advice of Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Congress on July 7 the United States should, "under no circumstances...relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.” Only a week later the Washington Post reported negotiators “split the difference between lifting current U.N. prohibitions and keeping them indefinitely in place.” Iran will ostensibly adhere to an eight-year missile ban and a five-year conventional weapons ban. After that (or sooner if they cheat), Israeli Prime Minister’s warning will become reality. “I want to make it clear to you,” he told the American Jewish community Tuesday. “Iran is not building these ICBMs to hit Israel. They already have missiles that can hit Israel everywhere. They are building these ICBMs to hit you. To hit the United States.”

Horowitz and Johnson offered an even more important warning to Americans. The war on terror will not be won if “we allow a disloyal and hostile Left to dictate terms of the debate,” they state.

It is a debate being framed by a president so ideologically bankrupt he is willing to tell the nation there is no moral distinction to be made between members of an American opposition party and a cadre of terrorist-sponsoring Islamist fanatics determined to impose Sharia Law on the entire world by any means necessary. Above all else, Obama's speech makes one thing abundantly clear: for the first time in the history of the nation, we have a man in the Oval Office who doesn’t have America’s best interests at heart. Even worse the Party of Defeat will either back him directly or countenance their own irrelevancy and allow international ​"agreements" to supersede national security. It doesn’t get more terrifying than that. 

Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259714/obamas-lies-about-bush-and-iraq-arnold-ahlert

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.