Displaying the most recent of 90908 posts written by

Ruth King

The Bidens Concede Do CNN and NBC still want to defend the family business model? By James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bidens-concede-11571078740

Not even the Biden family seems willing to stand behind their questionable financial arrangements. A business associate in Shanghai doesn’t seem to have an explanation yet, either. Are the bitter-enders at CNN and NBC News finally ready to stop defending the indefensible?

Last week this column noted that former Vice President Joe Biden once again declined to offer a defense of his family’s business model even in an op-ed ostensibly responding to attacks on this model. Over the weekend, his son Hunter Biden quit another of the overseas engagements for which he seemed eminently unqualified.

The Journal’s Ken Thomas and Thomas Grove noted on Sunday:

Hunter Biden is stepping down from a director’s position at a Chinese private-equity firm and said he wouldn’t serve on any foreign boards if his father, Joe Biden, is elected president, lowering his controversial business profile as it becomes embroiled in the 2020 election and Democrats’ efforts to impeach President Trump.
…The former vice president’s son, 49 years old, served on the board of Ukrainian natural-gas company Burisma Holdings Ltd. while his father oversaw U.S. policy on Ukraine as vice president. Hunter Biden stepped down from the Burisma board in April. The younger Biden remained a director of BHR (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Co., a Chinese investment firm, where Mr. Trump also alleges inappropriate conduct by the Bidens. Hunter Biden said Sunday he would remove himself from the firm’s board on Oct. 31. CONTINUE AT SITE

Mike Pompeo’s Predicament The Syria withdrawal worried allies, divided the GOP, and made his job a lot harder. By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-pompeos-predicament-11571093624

Foreign leaders have found much to dislike in President Trump’s policy—the aggressive stance on trade, the chaotic policy process, the disregard for convention and past agreements. Yet they’ve seemed willing to work with the administration anyway. However much it pained them, they appeared to believe that Mr. Trump had a strong enough political coalition behind his foreign-policy program that, on the whole, it was better to deal pragmatically with the administration than to try to wait out his presidency.

That changed last week. The sudden decision to break with the Syrian Kurds, the shambolic execution of the decision, and the administration’s evident inability to manage the easily foreseeable political consequences in the Republican Senate crystallized a perception that the White House is in over its head. Unless that changes, foreign powers will increasingly act on the belief that the American executive is both politically weak and intellectually unfocused. The consequences for political stability and economic prosperity around the world are not good.

Mr. Trump’s trade diplomacy is particularly at risk. China is much less likely to make significant compromises if it thinks the president is a lame duck. As the Europeans shift from dealing with Mr. Trump through gritted teeth to waiting for his administration to end, the European Union will likely stiffen its trade stance as well.

The geopolitical consequences of a weakened Trump administration will also be significant. Revisionist powers large and small are more likely to take risks and challenge American power when they believe the U.S. is distracted and divided. Russia’s attack on Georgia came in the summer of 2008 when George W. Bush was an unpopular lame duck and the building financial crisis was beginning to distract Americans from international news.

Russia, far from seeking any kind of special relationship with Mr. Trump, is likely to revel in his weakness. In the western Balkans, in Syria, and in hot spots like Venezuela, Russia must be expected to move more aggressively.

The Syrian Kurds Are Not America’s Problem Brandon J. Weichert

https://spectator.org/the-syrian-kurds-are-not-americas-problem/

All of Washington has been atwitter with the president’s recent decision to draw down American forces from their ongoing mission in Syria. The reason is the purported American abandonment — betrayal, in the eyes of many — of the Syrian Kurds. But the situation is more complicated than that. There has been much conflation of both the American mission in Syria and the disposition of America’s erstwhile Kurdish friends.

The fact is, despite being the world’s largest stateless ethnic population, sharing a contiguous landmass that cuts across Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran — roughly a 500,000-square-kilometer area — the Kurds are by no means a monolithic entity. What’s more, the United States government has never officially endorsed the concept of a Kurdish state in the Middle East.

Don’t let those facts stop the experts from trotting out many falsehoods and half-truths about the messy situation that is Syria, though. Obviously, the Kurds who have been fighting alongside Americans throughout the entirety of America’s three-decade-long series of Middle East conflicts should be rewarded for their courage. It is utterly confounding, however, that the same “serious” foreign-policy “thinkers” in Washington and media who continually lambaste President Trump for his supposedly destabilizing actions in the Middle East are also in favor of massively destabilizing the region to midwife the birth of an independent, Kurdish state.

The rejiggering of the Middle East map would require more than the paltry American force currently fighting alongside the Kurds of northern Syria. It not only would require the United States to understand the various tribal and regional dynamics between the numerous Kurdish communities throughout the Mideast but would also mean that any potential Kurdish state would have to be cleaved from Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. This could never be achieved peacefully. It would entail some degree of violence and inevitably invoke ethno-religious tribal backlash against the United States at precisely the moment America does not need that headache.

Further, what critics do not understand is that the Kurds have been rewarded for their loyalty to the United States. They also confuse the Marxist elements of northern Syria’s Kurds with the pro-American Peshmerga of northern Iraq.

Here’s Why Everyone Is Upset About the Kurds

Andrew Bostom: Actual Conditions For Jews Circa Late 2018 in The Iraqi Kurdistan Paradise: Past As Prologue

https://www.andrewbostom.org/2019/10/actual-conditions-for-jews-circa-late-2018-in-the-iraqi-kurdistan-paradise-past-as-prologue/

Largely autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan is a Sharia-based society, per its own Constitution, (Articles 6 & 7): 

This Constitution confirms and respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. It considers the principles of Islamic Sharia as one of the main sources of legislation… It is not allowed to enact a law inconsistent with the provisions of the fundamentals of Islam. (Articles 6 & 7)

Not surprisingly, given historical Sharia mores, the attendant legacy of Islamic attitudes towards non-Muslims, overall, including Jews, and Islam’s own intrinsic theological Jew-hatred, here are the current prevailing conditions for the tiny vestigial  remnant population of mixed “Jews” of Kurdistan, forced to “practice” their faith surreptitiously, as reported less than a year ago (11/30/2018):

“They call us ‘Ben Jews’ or ‘Sons of Jews’ because we are mixed Jews, Kurds, or other ethnicities.” They keep their Jewish identity hidden for fear of persecution. They meet for Shabbat – the holy day – at a different home every week. Religious celebrations like Hanukkah and Passover are often celebrated privately inside the home of someone within the community. The event on Friday was organized by many people from the community, but “they didn’t want to give their name or picture because of the dangerous situation”

Past as prologue, here are the past conditions for Jewish communities under Kurdish dominion not only in Iraqi Kurdistan–where Jewish families existed as chattel–but also Turkish Anatolia during the mid-19th through early 20th centuries which led to their liquidation by massacre, pillage, and flight.

MY SAY: HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY

When I was an immigrant youth this is what we sang on Columbus Day:

IN 1492

In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.

He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.

A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.

Ninety sailors were on board;
Some men worked while others snored.

Then the workers went to sleep;
And others watched the ocean deep.

Day after day they looked for land;
They dreamed of trees and rocks and sand.

October 12 their dream came true,
You never saw a happier crew!

“Indians! Indians!” Columbus cried;
His heart was filled with joyful pride.

But “India” the land was not;
It was the Bahamas, and it was hot.

The Arakawa natives were very nice;
They gave the sailors food and spice.

Columbus sailed on to find some gold
To bring back home, as he’d been told.

He made the trip again and again,
Trading gold to bring to Spain.

The first American? No, not quite.
But Columbus was brave, and he was bright.

Let Us Not Engender the Abuse of Meaning Peter Smith

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/10/let

In his essay Politics and the English Language George Orwell wrote:

A man may take a drink because he feels himself to be failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

On Fox News the other day Tucker Carlson interviewed Ralph Abraham, a Republican Louisiana gubernatorial candidate who happens to be a medical doctor experienced in delivering baby girls and boys. Both madly agreed that there are only two genders; thus, all unbeknown, falling into a linguistic quagmire. Taking a lead from Orwell, this is me writing to Carlson:

You interviewed a doctor today running for a state governorship. Both you and the doctor referred to gender not to sex. Language is important in moulding culture. There are two sexes, male and female. Using the term gender — a modern affectation transposed from the field of grammar, where it is used in some languages to describe the masculine or feminine forms of nouns and pronouns — muddies the water.

I have seen outlandish claims about there being tens upon tens of different genders. It is self-evidently ridiculous to claim that there are tens upon tens of different sexes. Language has allowed outlandish claims to be made and you and many other conservatives (or more generally, if you like, people of common sense) have fallen into the trap.

Sex is the right word as a noun to cover the two categories of people, according to their reproductive function. Stick to that and you expose the foolishness before it gets to first base.

Climate’s “Extinction Rebellion” and the Child Stalking Horse by Andrew Ash

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14940/climate-extinction-rebellion

Their “cause”, right or wrong, seems to be what matters. Even as they are cheered along by doting parents, political agitators and junk science, the sad fact remains that solar flares — apparently the leading cause of climate change — do not award monetary research grants.

While it is undoubtedly better not to choke the world with plastic, the Israelis and others have fortunately invented several varieties of fibre as strong as plastic but as soluble as an orange peel — and reportedly often safely edible.

Rather than shedding some light on a difficult, and complex problem, the climate protestors seem merely to be fuelling the increasingly divisive world in which we live. As the former chief of staff of US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez admitted this summer, the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing”.

What they seem to want to change it into, however, is socialism: governmental control of the economy, including the means of production and distribution. Historically, socialism has only led to lowered standards of living and rationing for everyone, to cut costs. Here in the UK, in the National Health Service, qualified people apparently do not want to work hard for less. Everyone ends up poorer and with services that are wanting… What is needed is growth: better education and the creation of more jobs… rather than attacking the “rich” [read: middle class] and blaming them for inequalities.

When the closest one has ever got to an occupation is by occupying other another person’s place of work, the right to preach morality appears a dubious one.

Just when you thought it was safe to travel into London again without getting caught up in the mayhem of yet another protest, climate change activists have organised a whole two weeks of it, which kicked off on October 7.

“Extinction Rebellion UK” appears to be a rag-tag collective of millennial and post-middle-aged eco-warriors, with three attributes in common — conservation, the love of the sound of their own voices, and having not enough to do with their time.

How Terrible Does Turkey Have to Get? by Burak Bekdil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15007/how-terrible-does-turkey-have-to-get

So where is this “economic devastation” against Turkey? Or does that make two promises that the U.S. has not kept?

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been threatening to flood Europe with more refugees. “We will open the gates and send 3.6 million refugees your way,” he promised on October 10.

Meanwhile, obscenely, Erdoğan has been invited to the White House for November 13.

The real crime was for the US to betray the Kurds — savory or not — by making promises it did not keep… and leaving the world to wonder which Middle East ally the US will double-cross next. Take a guess?

Turkey’s military offensive into the overwhelmingly Kurdish northeastern Syria is sending messages on many wavelengths. One consequence is beyond dispute: Turkey is adding further chaos, bloodshed and tears to a region already in turmoil. The U.S. had apparently “assur[ed] Kurdish protection from Turkey.” Trump spoke of “economic devastion” if Kurdish forces were attacked. “As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!),” Trump tweeted on October 7. [Microsoft may thoughtfully have censored this tweet for you. Ed.]

So where is this “economic devastation” against Turkey? Or does that make two promises that the U.S. has not kept?

In theory, the Turkish incursion will build a safe zone that is 30 kilometers (20 miles) deep and stretches more than 480 kilometers (300 miles) toward Syria’s Iraqi border -– which just so happens to be the very place where many of the Kurds in Syria live. From there, the Turkish army will push Kurdish militants south and ward off an “existential threat” to Turkey. Once cleared of the YPG forces, the main Kurdish group (the Syrian offspring of the insurgent umbrella organization PKK) Turkey says it will build homes, hospitals schools and rehabilitation centers for the two million Syrian refugees it hosts.

This happy-ending scenario may not materialize so easily.

What Does Rand Paul Think America Owes Our Kurdish Allies? By John McCormack

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/what-does-rand-paul-think-america-owes-our-kurdish-allies/

It’s a question that the Kentucky senator and every American leader ought to answer.

In 2014, Republican senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was all over the map on what, if anything, the United States should do to stop the growing army of jihadists known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

In June 2014, after ISIS conquered Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city at the time, Paul was very skeptical of even using American air power against ISIS. Airstrikes against ISIS could turn America into “Iran’s air force,” Paul wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled, “America Shouldn’t Choose Sides in Iraq’s Civil War.”

As American public opinion changed, so did Paul’s policy toward U.S. involvement in the war against ISIS. As late as August 29, 2014, Paul still wasn’t sure if “ISIS is a threat to our national security.” But then Paul, who harbored presidential ambitions at the time, abruptly issued a statement saying that he would destroy ISIS militarily.

“Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be,” Paul wrote on September 4 in Time magazine. “If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS.” Many of Paul’s non-interventionist allies were baffled by his change of mind. “The sudden evaporation of Paul’s doubts reeks of political desperation,” wrote Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at the libertarian magazine Reason.

In 2015, Paul settled on a plan to defeat ISIS by arming the Kurds and promising them a country: “I think they would fight like hell if we promised them a country.”

The Kurds did fight like hell: 11,000 died fighting ISIS. But this week, President Trump decided it was not worth keeping 100 or fewer U.S. troops in northern Syria to deter a Turkish attack on America’s Kurdish allies. Rand Paul loudly cheered him on.

On Wednesday, I noted Paul’s 2015 comments about promising the Kurds their own country on the Corner, and on Thursday Senator Paul responded with a statement emailed by his communications director. “I did and still do support a homeland for the Kurds — in Iraq — anyone who conflates the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran into one simple homogenous, easily solvable problem is either naive or disingenuous,” Paul said in the statement.

Escaping the Middle Eastern Labyrinth Christopher Roach

https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/13/escaping-the-middle-eastern-labyrinth/

Perhaps here Trump’s background as a businessman is a benefit; while a general will be loath to admit defeat, and a politician may never allow an original thought to enter his mind, a businessman knows not to throw good money after bad.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, his repeated, almost robotic calls to “stay the course” in Iraq were the mark of a man who had run out of ideas. As casualties mounted and progress faltered, his persistence exemplified a tragic and costly sincerity.

John McCain expressed similar themes in his 2008 campaign, suggesting we could withdraw from Iraq as soon as we achieved an impossible end state and that, if necessary, we should stay 100 years to do so. The American people said no.

The McCain ethos lives on today in Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R.-Texas), a decorated Navy SEAL, whose physical courage contrasts sharply with his recitation of banal conventional wisdom. After Trump’s controversial call to withdraw from Syria, he tweeted, “removing our small and cost-effective force from Northern Syria is causing more war, not less. Our presence there was not meant to engage in endless wars, it was there to deter further warfare.” Crenshaw never learned that “war is peace” was meant to be self-evident nonsense.

Stay the Course is Not a Strategy

Persistence in the face of failure is a substitute for a real and effective strategy. Strategy involves tailoring means to ends. It requires ranking goals and allocating resources accordingly. It also involves deep thinking about what those goals should be and what costs are justified in their pursuit. And it should involve frequent, critical assessments of actions that do not achieve results.

By now, the maudlin tales of the heroic Kurds are familiar to most as propaganda. No nation goes to war because of such idealism, and the establishment’s heart strings are very finely and selectively tuned. We’re supposed to weep for the Kurds, while ignoring the weeping Yemenis. The Democrats now criticizing Trump praised Obama for leaving Iraq under less favorable circumstances and never lost a moment’s sleep over our abandonment of the South Vietnamese 45 years ago.