Our Nobel Peace winning President/General no longer seems so noble. In fact, he appears ignoble and suffers from constant withdrawal symptoms. Withdrawal, lead from the rear, AWOL when Americans are under attack appears his modus operandi. Think,Libya, Syria, Egypt,Iran in fact, the entire Middle East.
Press the only region's democracy, and our strongest ally, into bowing, as he does, to a people unwilling to recognize their legitimacy and sworn to destroy them. (See 1, 1a, 1b and 1c below.)
(As a long time stock market participant one should only risk investing after doing thorough research and reducing the element of risk to an acceptable personal level. Every time Israel has condescended they either were entitled to regret their actions or did not get all they bargained for, even in the peace with Egypt.)
Sec. Gates book, which I have not read, but only heard reviewed, is also striking in its revelations of conversation between former Sec. Clinton and Obama.
Based on how Obama has conducted his feckless and juvenile foreign policy Sec. Gate's book is not so surprising. It is evident for anyone with eyes Obama's intent has been to castrate America.
Apparently there are other instances in Gate's book suggesting the disdain Obama has for our military leadership.
I know from first hand experience, when I served on President Bush's Commission on White House Scholarships, how amazed I was at the brilliance of those military candidates who were general officership material and who were applying for White House Fellow slots. They spoke many languages, had many advanced degrees and were superior in every aspect. Yes, they may have been our military's cream but they could hold their own against their fellow civilian applicants. Thinking back to the time I was on The Commission it is evident they were more talented, patriotic and accomplished than Obama was or ever will be.
How sad indeed we are to be saddled with this president!
===
Presidents Day Dinner Speaker Star Parker
True Perspectives Seminar Series
Elections 2014
Georgia Ports
2014 Dues Notices
Presidents’ Day Annual Banquet Set for Monday, February 17, 2014
Tables are filling up fast towards a possible sellout, so get your reservations in soon to hear our featured speaker Star Parker. She is the president of, the Center for Urban Renewal & Education (CURE), a non-profit think tank that promotes market-based public policy to fight poverty.
She also spoke at the 1996 Republican National Convention and ran for Congress as a Republican in California’s liberal 37th District. She’s debated Jesse Jackson, fought for school choice on Larry King Live, and defended welfare reform on the Oprah Winfrey Show. She also confronted Michael Moore on healthcare reform on The View with host Barbara Walters. She is the author of three books: Pimps, Whores & Welfare Brats; Uncle Sam's Plantation; and White Ghetto, and is currently working on a fourth: How the Poor Get Rich.
The banquet begins with a member bar at 6:00pm followed by a 7:00pm gourmet dinner including wine. Dress: semi-formal (jacket & tie). Ticket prices are $125 per person. For an extra $25 you can attend the 530pm reception for Star Parker. Checks (payable to SIRC) should be mailed or tubed to Mary Ann Senkowski at 8 Mainsail Crossing, Savannah, GA 31411. For reservations, contact Tom Osborn at 598-1799 or tomosborn@bellsouth.net.
===
A novel idea! (See 2 below.)and a look back. (See 2a below.)
===
Dick-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)WHEN A FLY FALLS INTO A CUP OF COFFEE
The Italian - throws the cup, breaks it and walks away in a fit of rage.
The German - carefully washes the cup, sterilizes it and makes a new cup of coffee.
The Frenchman - takes out the fly and drinks the coffee.
The Chinese - eats the fly and throws away the coffee.
The Russian - drinks the coffee with the fly, since it came with no extra charge.
The Israeli - sells the coffee to the Frenchman, sells the fly to the Chinese, sells the cup to the Italian, drinks a cup of tea and uses the extra money to invent a device that prevents flies from falling into coffee.
The Palestinian - blames the Israeli for the fly falling into his coffee, protests the act to the UN as an act of aggression, takes a loan from the European Union to buy a new cup of coffee, uses the money to purchase explosives and then blows up the coffee house where the Italian, Frenchman, Chinese, German and Russian are all trying to explain to the Israeli that he should give his cup of tea to the Palestinian.
1a) Israel launches world's first exhibit on King Herod's legacy
Israel Hayom Staff - Jan 21, 2013
Israel Hayom
Israel Hayom
Out-Heroding the Israel Museum? This will be the first-ever exhibition on the life of the historical figure. (Photo credit: AP)The Israel Museum in Jerusalem is set to premiere the world's first exhibition on the life and legacy of Herod the Great, one of the most influential — and controversial — figures in ancient Roman and
On view from February through October 2013, the landmark exhibition "Herod the Great: The King's Final Journey" will present approximately 250 archaeological finds from the king's recently discovered tomb at Herodium, as well as from Jericho and other related sites, to shed new light on the political, architectural, and aesthetic impact of Herod's reign from 37 to 4 B.C.E.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npH3IA1binc&feature=player_embedded
Among the objects on view — all of which have undergone extensive restoration at the Israel Museum for
Lionized as "the greatest builder of human history," King Herod was also demonized for his uncertain ethnic and religious pedigree; controversial political alliances; the execution of his wife and three of his children; as well as an erroneous association with the New Testament narrative of the "Massacre of the Innocents" in Bethlehem.
"Herod the Great: The King's Final Journey" seeks to provide a better understanding of this ancient figure through the monumental architecture he created and the art and objects with which he surrounded himself. The exhibition will examine Herod's remarkable building projects, complex diplomatic relations with the Roman emperors and nobility, and dramatic funeral procession from Jericho to the mausoleum he constructed for himself in Herodium. A striking reconstruction of the burial chamber of the mausoleum will be the centerpiece of the exhibition.
In 2007, after a 40-year search, renowned archaeologist Professor Ehud Netzer of Hebrew University in Jerusalem discovered the ruler's tomb at Herodium, on the edge of the Judean Desert. The site included a fortress, palace and a leisure complex with gardens, large pools, decorated bathhouses, and a theatre with a royal box.
In his final years, Herod reconfigured the architecture of the complex to prepare the setting for his burial procession and site, and constructed a magnificent mausoleum facing Jerusalem. The Museum's exhibition is dedicated to the memory of Professor Netzer, who died in 2010 at the site of his seminal discovery.
"Professor Ehud Netzer capped his decades-long excavation of Herodium with his discovery of King Herod's tomb in 2007, and over the past five years, archaeologists excavating the site have made remarkable discoveries that have deepened our appreciation of Professor Netzer's remarkable achievement and enriched our understanding of Herod, his reign, and his role in the history of the region," said James S. Snyder, the Anne and Jerome Fisher Director of the Israel Museum.
"We are proud of the extensive restoration work that our conservation staff has been able to complete and thrilled to present these important finds to the public, for the first time, in an exhibition that will illuminate a pivotal period in the history of the Land of Israel," he added.
The exhibition will be accompanied by a comprehensive 250-page catalog issued by the Israel Museum, featuring the first publication of the tomb complex and other discoveries from Herodium. The catalog will also include scholarly articles on Herod's life and the legacy of Herodian architecture, written by Professor Netzer before his death in 2010, and by other leading experts in the field.
1B)
Jihadists' Surge in North Africa Reveals Grim Side of Arab Spring
Robert F. Worth - Jan 20, 2013
The New York Times
The New York Times
WASHINGTON -- As the uprising closed in around him, the Libyan dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi warned that if he fell, chaos and holy war would overtake North Africa. "Bin Laden's people would come to impose ransoms by land and sea," he told reporters. "We will go back to the time of Redbeard, of pirates, of Ottomans imposing ransoms on boats."
In recent days, that unhinged prophecy has acquired a grim new currency. In Mali, French paratroopers arrived this month to battle an advancing force of jihadi fighters who already control an area twice the size of Germany. In Algeria, a one-eyed Islamist bandit organized the brazen takeover of an international gas facility, taking hostages that included more than 40 Americans and Europeans.
Coming just four months after an American ambassador was killed by jihadists in Libya, those assaults have contributed to a sense that North Africa -- long a dormant backwater for Al Qaeda -- is turning into another zone of dangerous instability, much like Syria, site of an increasingly bloody civil war. The mayhem in this vast desert region has many roots, but it is also a sobering reminder that the euphoric toppling of dictators in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt has come at a price.
"It's one of the darker sides of the Arab uprisings," said Robert Malley, the Middle East and North Africa director at the International Crisis Group. "Their peaceful nature may have damaged Al Qaeda and its allies ideologically, but logistically, in terms of the new porousness of borders, the expansion of ungoverned areas, the proliferation of weapons, the disorganization of police and
The crisis in Mali is not likely to end soon, with the militants ensconcing themselves among local people and digging fortifications. It could also test the fragile new governments of Libya and its neighbors, in a region where any Western military intervention arouses bitter colonial memories and provides a rallying cry for Islamists.
And it comes as world powers struggle with civil war in Syria, where another Arab autocrat is warning about the furies that could be unleashed if he falls.
Even as Obama administration officials vowed to hunt down the hostage-takers in Algeria, they faced the added challenge of a dauntingly complex jihadist landscape across North Africa that belies the easy label of "Al Qaeda," with multiple factions operating among overlapping ethnic groups, clans and criminal networks.
Efforts to identify and punish those responsible for the attack in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed in September, have bogged down amid similar confusion. The independent review panel investigating the Benghazi attack faulted American spy agencies as failing to understand the region's "many militias, which are constantly dissolving, splitting apart and reforming."
Although there have been hints of cross-border alliances among the militants, such links appear to be fleeting. And their targets are often those of opportunity, as they appear to have been in Benghazi and at the gas facility in Algeria.
In the longer term, the Obama administration and many analysts are divided about what kind of threat the explosion of Islamist militancy across North Africa poses to the United States. Some have called for a more active American role, noting that the hostage-taking in Algeria demonstrates how hard it can be to avoid entanglement.
Others warn against too muscular a response. "It puts a transnational framework on top of what is fundamentally a set of local concerns, and we risk making ourselves more of an enemy than we would otherwise be," said Paul R. Pillar of
In a sense, both the hostage crisis in Algeria and the battle raging in Mali are consequences of the fall of Colonel Qaddafi in 2011. Like other strongmen in the region, Colonel Qaddafi had mostly kept in check his country's various ethnic and tribal factions, either by brutally suppressing them or by co-opting them to fight for his government. He acted as a lid, keeping volatile elements repressed. Once that lid was removed, and the borders that had been enforced by powerful governments became more porous, there was greater freedom for various groups -- whether rebels, jihadists or criminals -- to join up and make common cause.
In Mali, for instance, there are the Tuaregs, a nomadic people ethnically distinct both from Arabs, who make up the nations to the north, and the Africans who inhabit southern Mali and control the national government. They fought for Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, then streamed back across the border after his fall, banding together with Islamist groups to form a far more formidable fighting force. They brought with them heavy weapons and a new determination to overthrow the Malian government, which they had battled off and on for decades in a largely secular struggle for greater autonomy.
Even the Algeria gas field attack -- which took place near the Libyan border, and may have involved Libyan fighters -- reflects the chaos that has prevailed in Libya for the past two years.
Yet Colonel Qaddafi's fall was only the tipping point, some analysts say, in a region where chaos has been on the rise for years, and men who fight under the banner of jihad have built up enormous reserves of cash through smuggling and other criminal activities. If the rhetoric of the Islamic militants now fighting across North Africa is about holy war, the reality is often closer to a battle among competing gangsters in a region where government authority has long been paper-thin.
Among those figures, two names stand out: Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the warlord who led the attack on the Algerian gas field, and Abdelhamid Abu Zeid, a leader of Al Qaeda's North African branch.
"The driving force behind jihadism in the Sahara region is the competition between Abu Zeid and Belmokhtar," said Jean-Pierre Filiu, a Middle East analyst at the Institut d'Études Politiques in Paris.
Mr. Belmokhtar has generated millions of dollars for the Qaeda group through the kidnapping of Westerners and the smuggling of tobacco, which earned him one of his nicknames, "Mr. Marlboro." But Mr. Belmokhtar bridles under authority, and last year his rival forced him out of the organization, Mr. Filiu said.
"Belmokhtar has now retaliated by organizing the Algeria gas field attack, and it is a kind of masterstroke -- he has proved his ability," Mr. Filiu said.
Both men are from Algeria, a breeding ground of Islamic extremism. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, as the regional branch is known, originated with Algerian Islamists who fought against their government during the bloody civil conflict of the 1990s in that country.
Algeria's authoritarian government is now seen as a crucial intermediary by France and other Western countries in dealing with Islamist militants in North Africa. But the Algerians have shown reluctance to become too involved in a broad military campaign that could be very risky for them. International action against the Islamist takeover in northern Mali could push the militants back into southern Algeria, where they started. That would undo years of bloody struggle by Algeria's military forces, which largely succeeded in pushing the jihadists outside their borders.
The Algerians also have little patience with what they see as Western naïveté about the Arab spring, analysts say.
"Their attitude was, 'Please don't intervene in Libya or you will create another Iraq on our border,' " said Geoff D. Porter, an Algeria expert and founder of North Africa Risk Consulting, which advises investors in the region. "And then, 'Please don't intervene in Mali or you will create a mess on our other border.' But they were dismissed as nervous Nellies, and now Algeria says to the west: 'Goddamn it, we told you so.' "
Although French military forces are now fighting alongside the Malian Army, plans to retake the lawless zone of northern Mali have for the past year largely focused on training an African fighting force, and trying to peel off some of the more amenable elements among the insurgents with negotiations.
Some in Mali and the West had invested hopes in Iyad Ag Ghali, a Tuareg who leads Ansar Dine, or Defenders of the Faith, one of the main Islamist groups. Mr. Ghali, who is said to be opportunistic, was an ideological link between the hard-line Islamists of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the more secular nationalist Tuareg group, known as the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad.
But so far
David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting from Cairo, and Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt from Washington.
1c)
Will Israel Risk Giving Up Control Of The Jordan Valley?
By C. Hart
One of the main issues of dispute in current peace negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is whether a newly created Palestinian state will have an army that can defend its borders. Abbas is demanding a militarized Palestinian state, void of Jews, and with no IDF presence on any of its borders.
The demand of a militarized Palestinian state is in direct opposition to what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in his speech at Bar Ilan University in June 2009:
"The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel. Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza. We don't want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace. In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezb'allah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel. It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized. On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed."
Netanyahu also said in that speech that Israel needs defensible borders. Now, at the peace table, Israeli interlocutors stipulate that Israel must have an IDF presence on the eastern border with Jordan. This is something the Palestinians vehemently oppose. But, Israel's position on this is not new. In the past, Israeli government leaders came up with the same critical assessment.
In October 1995, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin declared, "The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term."
Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak said in September 2012: "Israel's objective should be to maintain control of continuous Jewish settlement areas, of the Jordan River Valley, and of the heights overlooking Ben Gurion airport."
Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the Jordan Valley was so vital to Israel's security that Israel must control it in the future. He made his remarks in 2001, addressing Israeli residents of the Jordan Valley during his election campaign.
But, Sharon also said at the time that, if elected, he would not dismantle a single Jewish settlement in the territories. Obviously, that prophecy did not come true.
The liberal politicians in Israel's government and in the Opposition are not too happy about this particular sticking point in the negotiations. Yet, one can recall a similar debate about borders when former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw from the Gaza Strip in August/September 2005. That unilateral withdrawal was not only controversial because it uprooted thousands of settlers from their homes, Sharon also abandoned a very important and strategic area along the outer perimeter of the Gaza Strip called the Philadelphi Corridor. He did this against the advice of most of his generals at the time.
Jews had to abandon their homes and businesses in Gaza. Their empty synagogues became terrorist museums. And, the Philadelphi Corridor became an open door for terrorist infiltration by Hamas and other Gaza radicals. Weapons smuggling from Iran surged and rockets became the new threat to Israeli border towns.
Israel does not want to make that mistake again.
It is not only the retreat from Gaza that upsets many Israelis. They also remember when Ehud Barak led the IDF to abandon its post in south Lebanon in the year 2000. Hezb'allah filled that vacuum. Today, 1 out of 10 homes in south Lebanon is equipped with a rocket launcher storage facility. In the future, Hezb'allah will attempt to launch those rockets against Israel's northern civilian population. The terrorist group expects that Israel will hesitate to retaliate because to do so means that Lebanese civilians and their homes will be in the line of Israeli fire.
Peace negotiators have suggested bringing in international forces to protect the eastern border with Jordan. But, international forces did not stop Hezb'allah from building up its terrorist network on Israel's northern border, nor stop Hamas from taking over the Gaza Strip in the south.
Wherever Israel withdraws its forces or civilians, that land becomes the flashpoint of terror against the Jewish State. Terrorists test the IDF's skills, willpower, and manpower along the new frontier trying to push through electric fences and security walls. They plant bombs to kill IDF soldiers or infiltrate towns to carry out terrorist attacks.
In many cases, populated areas along Israel's borders have become the first line of defense. Soldiers and civilian volunteers help keep terrorists out. Israeli intelligence agents receive information of potential attacks from those frontline communities and the IDF is able to stop terrorist operations before they happen.
Withdrawing settlers from their homes and communities in the Jordan Valley would leave an IDF presence void of intelligence capabilities. Israel would still be vulnerable to terrorist infiltrations through Jordan.
It is imperative that Israeli leaders review past mistakes of former government leaders, such as Sharon, who did not listen to the advice of experienced generals in the field.
Ariel Sharon was a decorated general who fought in many of Israel's wars, and who defended the nation like a mighty warrior. But, when he became a politician, pragmatism set in. And, he abandoned his post -- the Philadelphi Corridor. Let's hope that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who also fought on Israel's battle fields, doesn't abandon his post -- the Jordan Valley.
Israel cannot afford another mistake. Indefensible borders is a risk too great for the Israeli government to take in final peace negotiations... not when it comes to the safety and security of the only nation state of the Jewish People in the world.
C. Hart is a news analyst reporting on political, diplomatic, and military issues as they relate to Israel, the Middle East, and the international community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Audit the IRS!
By Cindy Simpson
When certain unusual items pop up in the news that appear to point to a Democrat craftsman or underlying Big Government agenda, we're told that the events are merely isolated anomalies or coincidences that imply no such intentional design.
An opposite assertion forms the basis of an argument for the Intelligent Design of the universe -- the "watchmaker analogy": a person finding a watch lying on the ground would naturally assume it was created not by accident or series of coincidences, but by the intentional craftsmanship of a watchmaker.
In the world of politics, though, "coincidences" abound, and even if a craftsman was involved -- intelligence, good design, or design of something good is certainly a matter of opinion. (However, as suggested by the alternative "infinite monkey theorem" -- the larger our government becomes, it should be a greater possibility that something in thousands of typed pages of legislation, if not as stylish as a line from Shakespeare, might make sense.)
The Democrat Media Complex reports that the coincidences prove nothing more than the existence of "rogue" field offices, "dysfunctional" employees, overzealous volunteers -- or a biased misinterpretation, cherry-picking, or "obsession" by political opponents to turn events into "phony scandals." Usually the Complex manages to deflect criticism of the events into criticism of the skeptics, whose inquiring minds earn the label of "paranoid," "obstructionist," "anarchist," or "conspiracy theorist."
Examples are plenty:
- We're assured that instances of voting fraud are "extremely rare."
- Government spying on reporters covering certain stories just "got a little out of whack."
- The fact that unions received favored treatment in the GM bailout is incidental. There is "little or no documentation" to prove that Republican-leaning dealerships were targeted for closure.
- Questioning whether IRS audits targeted individuals for political reasons is "crazy talk." Certain non-profit applications were not "intentionally singled out" by the IRS. Darrell Issa's investigation into illegal communications between the IRS and FEC is politically-motivated "fishing for more IRS scandals."
- Security flaws in the Obamacare rollout are "minor details." As the ACA begins to affect a "wildly inflated" number of small businesses, it's the "losers who will get most of the attention," and the law simply needs "tweaking." Illegal activities of Obamacare navigators, caught on tape, were "anomalies," and we should "stop freaking out about" navigators who could "possibly" be felons.
- "Improper conduct" in calculating unemployment data just before the 2012 election was not "widespread." And it was "coincidental" and "without regard to politics" that thousands of controversial rules were not issued until after the same election.
Another interesting item we're supposed to dismiss as coincidence: IRS audits initiated, within days, of two people who so happened to have been interviewed on Fox News about their negative experiences with Obamacare.
That news pushed the venerable blogger Ace of Spades to declare that the audit assignment "can simply not be attributed to chance. It is deliberate. It is, in fact, conspiracy."
Columnist Daniel Greenfield wondered:
Would the IRS actually go after a cancer patient, who had voted for Obama initially, just for appearing on FOX and now being sharply critical of Obama and suggesting that he resign for hishealth plan lie?Under the current insane state of affairs, where the IRS was used to silence the opposition, it's unfortunately entirely possible. The fact that we are even having this discussion shows how badly Obama has undermined confidence in government institutions and the rule of law.
But these kinds of discussions -- at least in private institutions -- are absolutely necessary.
Shareholders and lenders expect more than feelings of "confidence" in a company -- they demand proof of merit. Internal and external audits of operations and financial statements are key elements of successful corporations. Allowing dishonest management, wasteful practices, or errors to go unexamined and unchecked is unthinkable. The slightest hints of fraud are investigated and taken seriously, and questioners are not brushed aside as paranoid conspiracy theorists.
Auditors are trained to suspect unusual items or events, identify the underlying cause, evaluate the implications, and then to offer solutions.
Auditors rarely believe in coincidence.
To an auditor, it's more than ironic to note that this latest "coincidence" involves audits, following a "long line of conservatives targeted by the IRS." Especially considering that, on average, most individuals have a "better chance of being abducted by aliens" than being audited by the IRS. The very existence of such a pattern of coincidences points to the need for an external, independent audit of the IRS.
As in other professional fields, audit expertise encompasses a wide range of specialties. The purpose and methods of IRS and external audits differ substantially, and attitudes are obviously most affected by the place at the table -- as the auditor or the audited.
Contrary to popular belief, IRS auditors are not paid commissions on what they collect, but a taxpayer's sweaty palms at the table are often completely justified. This "confession" written by a former IRS agent, although several years old, recounts a revealing picture of the agency's tactics. The practically unlimited power of the IRS to seize assets adds, understandably, to the tension.
IRS audits are supposedly initiated in several ways: by automated math or matching programs, the secret "Discriminant Index Function" system, or randomly (these audits are extremely comprehensive). In another convenient coincidence, the controversial practice of random selection was suspended for a few years, then reinstated in 2007.
External audits are performed by CPA firms, hired by a company's management, lenders, or shareholders. A typical audit program includes the preparation of flowcharts of key procedures, in order to identify potential weaknesses or critical elements. Statistical samples of transactions, as well as specific items that, for example, are of a minimum dollar amount or exhibit other key characteristics, are examined.
If even one item in the sample or targeted list shows signs of anything unusual, the sample size is increased. "Close enough for government work" is not an option for a CPA. Additional items are tested until the exception can be established as an isolated incident or system weakness.
Such a conclusion cannot be reached until the audit is expanded -- not because of a hunch or intuition -- but because statistical math requires it to establish "reasonable assurance." Assurance that shareholders and lenders deserve; the same kind that we should demand, as routine, from our government.
Just as auditors estimate the impact of identified errors or issues, the "coincidental" news items listed above also have serious implications -- affecting the integrity of our electoral process, free speech and privacy, and wastefulness and fraud in government spending.
Note also the characteristics some of the "coincidences" share: biased media reporting of what appears to be politically-motivated targeting of citizens, carried out by Big Government bureaucrats -- and therefore paid for by you.
With your taxes, while over three billion dollars of taxes are owed yet unpaid by over 300,000 federal employees, many of them actually working on Capitol Hill. But apparently the IRS is too busy "using Google maps to spy on taxpayers" to see the delinquents who work right in front of their noses (including around 40 Obama staffers and over 1,000 in the Treasury Department), since the same group was reported as owing around one billion two years earlier.
Although Congress has not completed its investigation into the targeting of Tea Parties (which coincides with a "strange" Justice Department-ordered FBI investigation that's "impeding" Issa's inquiries), the IRS recently proposed rules that "essentially eliminate an entire class of advocacy groups that just happens to be used by far more right-wing activists than left-wingers."
"Just happens?" An auditor would never believe that one. And since the Complex describes Obama's "Organizing for Action" as a "non-partisan advocacy group," the amply-funded, massive database that's an "extension" of the White House needn't worry about new IRS restrictions.
It's time for Congress to demand an audit of the IRS to prove whether our "paranoid" friends were right -- not only about the NSA's ability to snoop over shoulders, but also that impending IRS knock at the door -- just because, coincidentally, they voiced contrary views.
If the audit proves not coincidence but craftsmanship -- that this administration really has employed the IRS as its thugs -- it will be doubly ironic to find that just as in the case of another famous Chicago boss, taxes would be the source of the downfall.
2)Bandar bin Sultan's Botched Syrian Intervention
Dateline
by Hilal Khashan
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2014
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2014
In an untypically abrasive speech, Saudi King Abdullah welcomed the ouster of Egypt's president Muhammad Morsi, stating: "Let the entire world know that the people and government of the Saudi kingdom stood and still stand today with our brothers in Egypt against terrorism, extremism, and sedition."[1] However dramatic, this apparent shift from Riyadh's traditional accommodation of perceived enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its regional affiliates, to a more daring foreign policy is too little too late to reverse the decline of its regional power. And nowhere was this weakness more starkly demonstrated than in Riyadh's botched Syrian intervention, led by its most celebrated diplomat—Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
A Broken Tradition of Cooptation
The foundations of Saudi foreign policy were laid under historical circumstances that were completely different from today's political situation. From the 1930s to the early 1950s, Western presence in the Middle East was quite strong with the region enjoying geopolitical homeostasis. The rise of radical regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, coupled with Moscow's growing involvement in the region, did not seem to threaten Riyadh's domestic and international stance, and the intensifying U.S.-Saudi relations, cemented by mutual commitment to combating communism, steered the kingdom through the region's periodic upheavals well into the late 1970s.
Saudi King Abdullah (l) meets with President Obama in Washington, June 29, 2010. Riyadh has been openly critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East and has sent unmistakable signals of its displeasure. Most Saudis worry that a vacillating and unserious commander-in-chief in Washington may leave them twisting in the region's political winds.
|
This self-assurance played a central role in the Saudi royal family's nonconfrontational approach and its preference for quiet diplomacy.[2] Military weakness, equilibrium, and calming situations were seemingly the three pillars of Riyadh's foreign policy orientation. The royals ruled out asserting the kingdom as a military power and, thanks to oil wealth and religious significance, chose to make it a cornerstone of the regional balance of interests.[3]
The Iranian revolution and subsequent regional developments, notably the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the recent Arab upheavals, undermined this delicate balance of interests and made Riyadh's accommodative policy increasingly untenable. Things came to a head during the 2011 Shiite uprising in Bahrain, which the Saudis feared might spread to their own territory. Having helped to quell the restiveness in the tiny neighboring kingdom, Abdullah enlisted the services of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former veteran ambassador to Washington, to take Saudi foreign policy in a more assertive direction.
The Prince of Sensitive Missions
Son of the late Saudi crown prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (d. 2011), Bandar began his political career in 1978 as King Khaled's personal envoy to Washington bypassing Ambassador Faisal al-Hegelan.[4] He quickly impressed President Jimmy Carter by enlisting the support of Sen. James Abourezk (Democrat, S. Dakota) in the toss-up vote on the Panama Canal treaty, and his subtle diplomacy paved the way for Congress to pass the Saudi F-15 package shortly thereafter.[5] In 1986, Bandar entered the limelight as a result of his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal and, four years later, played an instrumental role in convincing hesitant Saudi royals to invite U.S. troops into the kingdom to cope with the consequences of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Since then, he has served as a vital liaison between Washington and Riyadh. In 2005, upon the completion of Bandar's 22-year stint in Washington, King Abdullah appointed him to lead the country's National Security Council.
Bandar's advice was sought in large part due to the mounting evidence that implicated Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, Riyadh's ally in Beirut. Following the July 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah and the latter's crippling of the Fouad Seniora government, Bandar convinced Abdullah to invest in creating a Sunni militia to operate under the command of Hariri's son Saad. This fateful but ill-studied decision undermined Bandar's credibility when, in 2008, Hezbollah's militiamen stormed west Beirut and effortlessly dismantled Saad's militia in a matter of hours. Bandar had evidently failed to appreciate the strength of Hezbollah or the ineptitude of Hariri's leadership.
The Saudi royal family is seriously concerned about the turn of events in the region and the possibility of demands for political reform such changes might initiate. With more than two-thirds of its tribally and religiously heterogeneous population alien to the austere Wahhabi doctrine,[6] there is very little in common between the Najd-originated ruling Wahhabi dynasty and its Shiite subjects in the oil-rich eastern province or Shafii and Maliki Sunni Muslims in Hijaz. Likewise, the kingdom's southern subjects mostly belong to Yemeni tribes where Shiite Ismailis and Zaydis proliferate.
Nevertheless, this failure did not deter Abdullah from calling on Bandar again in July 2012 to head the Saudi intelligence apparatus. The Saudi king had already become disturbed about the course of events in Syria and Bashar Assad's refusal to leave office. He may have thought that Bandar, who knew how to deal with Saddam Hussein, could work some magic with Bashar. In turn, mindful of Bandar's deep unease with regional Shiite ascendancy, Tehran's state-controlled media dubbed him the "prince of terrorists."[7]
President George W. Bush meets with Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan (r), at the Bush ranch, August 27, 2002, in Crawford, Texas. Many Americans noted at the time the seeming supplicant position of their president. In 2005, King Abdullah appointed Bandar to lead the Saudi national security council.
|
U.S. Indifference and the Iranian Surge
For years, the Saudis sought to accommodate Iran and Syria to no avail. They even coerced Saad Hariri to swallow his pride and forgo the truth about his father's assassins, forcing him to announce that "he had made a mistake in blaming Syria for his father's killing."[8] Yet Saudi concessions did not placate Tehran and Damascus for long: From the beginning of the Syrian uprising in 2011, the mullahs in Tehran made the decision to prevent Assad's collapse and instructed their Lebanese proxy Hezbollah to commit troops as part of its collective effort to keep the regime in power.
For Riyadh, this behavior amounted to a confrontation that required a response. After more than two years of silence, the Saudis finally decided to take sides in Syria, only to realize that their support of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) would be matched by Tehran's bolstering of Assad's military machine.
Even more dismaying to the Saudis was Washington's response—or lack thereof—to the situation. Given the supposed close relationship between the two countries, the fact that the Saudis did not have a clue about the administration's frame of mind on Syria was shocking though they were not the only ones to take President Obama's early warnings on the Syrian use of chemical weapons at face value. Exasperated by Washington's inaction, foreign minister Saud al-Faisal turned to the international community and implored it "to stop this aggression against the Syrian people."[9]
The Saudis have every reason to feel disheartened, having failed to beat sense into Assad and to engage the Iranians diplomatically. And while Riyadh's defense agreements with Washington have not become completely irrelevant, most Saudis worry that a vacillating and unserious commander-in-chief in Washington may leave them twisting in the wind.
Bandar's Botched Syrian Policy
The Saudis believe that allowing Assad to stay in office will prolong the uprising and endanger their own stability.[10] Given the weakness of the Free Syrian Army, the continuation of the armed conflict only serves to increase the presence of jihadists, notably al-Qaeda-affiliated groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Nusra. As long as such groups remain confined to northern Syria, the Saudis need not be overly concerned, but the prospect of these groups proliferating in southwest Syria close to the Jordanian border has begun to preoccupy them. Such an intrusion might mean that the eventual march of jihadists to the Saudi frontier is a foregone conclusion.
While born of the same Salafist ideology as the kingdom's own Wahhabist brand of Islam, these jihadist groups claim a purity of motive and a deadly modus operandi that endangers the House of Saud. Muhammad ibn Saud adopted Wahhabism in the mid-eighteenth century and sought to extend his rule throughout Arabia. His great-great-great-grandson ibn Saud allied himself with the Ikhwan Wahhabi army in 1911-27 to consolidate his reign in the current boundaries of Saudi Arabia. The Ikhwan's attempts to export its jihad to Iraq and Transjordan compelled ibn Saud to crush them in the battle of Siblah in March 1929. Whereas Saudi monarchs have been content with their territorial domain, today's jihadists in Syria aspire to rejuvenate the Ikhwan's original mission.[11]
To combat the threat, King Abdullah again enlisted Bandar's services. The prince had not hidden his view that Bashar had to go because his inability to detect red lines in politics had made Assad injurious to himself, his country, and his Arab neighbors.[12] As The Wall Street Journal put it, "CIA officials knew that KSA [Kingdom of Saudi Arabia] was serious about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named prince Bandar bin Sultan to lead the effort."[13]
In an effort to convince Russia to drop its support of Assad, Bandar (r) reportedly offered President Vladimir Putin (l) a trade package comprising a $15 billion arms deal and a pledge to refrain from competing with Russia in the European gas market. But the offer also came with threats. Bandar is alleged to have said, "I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics … The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us."
|
In an effort to find a solution to the conflict, Bandar offered Russian president Vladimir Putin what looked like a lucrative trade package comprising a $15 billion arms deal and a pledge by the GCC to refrain from competing with Russia in the European gas market. This might have worked had Bandar dispensed with the stick that accompanied his carrot. Putin, who seems to consider himself Obama's sole rival in international politics, was infuriated when Bandar promised to rein in Chechen insurgents and prevent them from targeting the upcoming 2014 Winter Olympics to be held in Sochi, Russia.[14]
While Bandar has been described "as a pivotal figure in the struggle by America and its allies to tilt the battlefield balance against the regime in Syria,"[15] there is mounting evidence that Washington is not really looking to dislodge Assad. Despite past U.S. pronouncements that Assad "must go," there is a growing realization in Washington that the alternative to the Syrian despot might actually be worse with at least one account reporting that "the Americans informed the Russians that the Syrian regime must be present in any agreement to ensure smooth transition."[16]
Thanks to Bandar's efforts, Riyadh did supply the Free Syrian Army with a few obsolete and ineffective shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles in June and at least fifty Russian-made Konkurs antitank missiles.[17] But this is hardly enough to topple Assad, and there seems to be an inverse relationship between Riyadh's rhetoric and reality on the ground: The more the Saudis talk about arming the FSA, the more obvious it is that the Assad regime is still in control of the situation.[18] In fairness to Bandar, his failure to alter the military balance on the ground in Syria has less to do with his ineptitude than with U.S. restrictions on arms supplies to the FSA: Saudi military aid to the Syrian rebels goes mostly through Jordan, which in turn requires CIA authorization for passing U.S.-made arms into Syria.[19]
Given the course of events in Syria, it is highly unlikely that Bandar will prevail against Assad's regime or Iranian regional maneuverings. Damascus's promised cooperation with U.N. inspectors in dismantling its chemical weapons arsenal has won it rare praise from U.S. Secretary of State Kerry, deflecting previous criticisms and demands and giving the Assad regime a vital respite. An end to the Syrian conflict is not in sight, and the great-power agreement is unlikely to lead to an enhancement of Riyadh's status as a regional power. Bandar has failed in Syria, and the royal family is reportedly "dissatisfied with his performance there."[20]
The Worst Is Yet to Come
Bandar is in desperate need of scoring a victory in Syria to obscure mounting internal problems in Riyadh, including the split over succession and the rise of pro-Muslim Brotherhood advocates in the kingdom such as Awad al-Qani and his as-Sahwa Current.[21] Thus, recent reports of Bandar's meddling in Iraq's sectarian strife,[22] if true, may indicate a desperate ploy to deflect criticism at home from his Syrian failings. But this feint is also doomed to failure as tilting the balance of power against the Assad regime is not contingent upon destabilizing Baghdad. If anything, it is likely to increase Iraqi Shiite involvement in the Syrian armed conflict against the opponents of the regime. No less alarming, the spread of violence in areas close to Saudi Arabia carries the risk of spillover into the desert kingdom.
Saudi influence on U.S. Middle East policy, especially on issues that directly affect the kingdom's interests, is quite limited and incommensurate with the volume of the two countries' bilateral, political, security, and economic interests. Washington perceives Riyadh as a quietist player dependent on U.S. power to ensure the kingdom's safety from external threats. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Saudi requests to shape the formulation of certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy will be disregarded. Riyadh may dislike Iran's predominance in Iraq, but Tehran and Baghdad have found a modus vivendi since Saddam's toppling in 2003, and the Obama administration is unlikely to challenge this arrangement given its expressed goal of military disengagement and its recent opening to Tehran. The administration will simply not allow Riyadh to restrict its political options even when they conflict with the kingdom's own interests.[23]
The Saudi royals at one point, especially since the recent Arab uprisings, thought that they could reassert themselves as a stabilizing regional power. But the truth of the matter is that they are actually part of the Arab strategic vacuum they hoped to be capable of redressing. Given Riyadh's seeming inherent inability to engage in meaningful political reform, promote social liberalization, and tolerate religious plurality, all it can possibly do is sit tight and hope that the regional status quo ante can be restored before too long.
Hilal Khashan is a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.
[1] Asharq al-Awsat (London), Aug. 19, 2013.
[2] Al-Jazeera Studies (Doha), Aug. 24, 2011.
[3] Arab News (Jeddah), Oct. 12, 2012.
[4] David B. Ottaway, The King's Messenger: Prince Bandar bin Sultan and America's Tangled Relationship with Saudi Arabia (New York: Walker and Company, 2008), p. 30.
[5] William Simpson, The Prince: The Secret Story of the World's Most Intriguing Royal Prince, Bandar bin Sultan (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), p. 54-7.
[6] Al-Khabar (Algiers), May 31, 2010.
[7] Press TV (Tehran), Sept. 20, 2013.
[8] The Daily Star (Beirut), Oct. 7, 2010.
[9] Al-Jazeera News (Doha), Sept. 1, 2013.
[10] Al-Quds al-Arabi (London), Oct. 17, 2013.
[11] Ahmed Mansour, "The Origin of Terrorism in Muslim History," International Quranic Center, Falls Church, Va., accessed Oct. 23, 2013.
[12] Sabq (Riyadh), June 19, 2013.
[13] The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 25, 2013.
[14] Al-Quds (Jerusalem), Aug. 10, 2013.
[15] The Independent (London), Aug. 26, 2013.
[16] As-Safir (Beirut), Aug. 21, 2013.
[17] The Independent, June 17, 2013.
[18] Al-Manar TV (Beirut), Aug. 31, 2013.
[19] The Guardian (London), Apr. 14, 2013.
[20] Al-Akhbar (Cairo), July 10, 2013.
[21] Al-Manar TV, Aug. 29, 2013.
[22] Al-Sumaria News (Baghdad), Aug. 20, 2013.
[23] Al-Hayat (London), June 23, 2013.
[2] Al-Jazeera Studies (Doha), Aug. 24, 2011.
[3] Arab News (Jeddah), Oct. 12, 2012.
[4] David B. Ottaway, The King's Messenger: Prince Bandar bin Sultan and America's Tangled Relationship with Saudi Arabia (New York: Walker and Company, 2008), p. 30.
[5] William Simpson, The Prince: The Secret Story of the World's Most Intriguing Royal Prince, Bandar bin Sultan (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), p. 54-7.
[6] Al-Khabar (Algiers), May 31, 2010.
[7] Press TV (Tehran), Sept. 20, 2013.
[8] The Daily Star (Beirut), Oct. 7, 2010.
[9] Al-Jazeera News (Doha), Sept. 1, 2013.
[10] Al-Quds al-Arabi (London), Oct. 17, 2013.
[11] Ahmed Mansour, "The Origin of Terrorism in Muslim History," International Quranic Center, Falls Church, Va., accessed Oct. 23, 2013.
[12] Sabq (Riyadh), June 19, 2013.
[13] The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 25, 2013.
[14] Al-Quds (Jerusalem), Aug. 10, 2013.
[15] The Independent (London), Aug. 26, 2013.
[16] As-Safir (Beirut), Aug. 21, 2013.
[17] The Independent, June 17, 2013.
[18] Al-Manar TV (Beirut), Aug. 31, 2013.
[19] The Guardian (London), Apr. 14, 2013.
[20] Al-Akhbar (Cairo), July 10, 2013.
[21] Al-Manar TV, Aug. 29, 2013.
[22] Al-Sumaria News (Baghdad), Aug. 20, 2013.
[23] Al-Hayat (London), June 23, 2013.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment