RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

AS DIANA WEST AND JOHN BERNARD HAVE EXPLAINED OVER AND OVER AGAIN…WE LOST THE WAR BECAUSE WE NEVER NAMED THE ENEMY AND OUR RULES OF ENGAGEMENT WERE SUCH THAT SOLDIERS WERE DELIBERATELY

PUT IN HARM’S WAY TO AVOID INSULTING THE LOCAL SAVAGES AND THEIR BARBARIC MORES…..RSK

“We lost Afghanistan because we forgot that we never had it. We lost the war because we forgot that it was a war and decided that it was a humanitarian mission. We lost because we had come to believe that no war was moral unless it ended in the moral redemption of the foe. We lost the war because we could no longer justify a war to ourselves in the interests of our own defense, only in the interests of saving another people and another society from themselves. We lost Afghanistan because we still knew how to fight, but we no longer remember why we fought.”

Regardless of who wins this election in a few years the final planes carrying the last soldiers will shake off Afghanistan’s dust and take to the sky. They will leave behind a limited number of advisers, ex-military civilian contractors and a whole bunch of diplomats running out the clock in Kabul. A few years later when Islamist mobs are roaming the streets and rocket attacks on the US embassy have become routine, the helicopters on the roof will be back and the surviving diplomats will be on their way to new assignments in more peaceful parts of the world like Baghdad and Cairo.
The war in Afghanistan is lost and that loss is mostly unspoken. Had Obama never been elected then the left, in coordination with their Democratic big brothers, might have elevated the defeat to the level of another Vietnam. But that dream, nurtured in the early years of the Bush Administration, is a done deal after the Son of Jimmy Carter who ran on a platform of beating the Taliban. Instead of another Vietnam, the long war will be an unremarked defeat.

Neither side wants to talk about it and the American people just want to leave. The ending is written the cemeteries are full and all that’s left is to shake off the dust and go home.

Defeats however have to be learned from and no one intends to learn the lessons of Afghanistan. The people responsible for 1,500 deaths in implementing a directive to beat the Taliban without breaking a single fingernail on an Afghan civilian, even if he’s a Taliban gunman hiding behind a Burqa, will not pay the price for this. They will go on to lucrative gigs as lobbyists or leadership trainers, herding corporate executives around golf courses and trading on anecdotes about the time they almost came under fire.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-real-lesson-of-benghazi/?print=1 The Obama administration is approaching full meltdown over the steady stream of revelations concerning its inaction and lies over the massacre of Ambassador Chris Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Libya. Obama and Biden are lining up against Hillary Clinton and the State Department [1], claiming that they weren’t told about Stevens’ requests for […]

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/10/16/benghazi-will-not-go-away/?print=1 Off in Lima, Peru — at least it wasn’t Antarctica or the Aleutian Islands — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has fallen on the proverbial sword [1] long distance, declaring the buck the stops with her on the Benghazi security debacle. That’s all well and good, but where does the buck stop on all […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330505/presidency-squandered-victor-davis-hanson The Obama narrative is that he inherited the worst mess in memory and has been stymied ever since by a partisan Congress — while everything from new ATM technology to the Japanese tsunami conspired against him. But how true are those claims? Barack Obama entered office with an approval rating of over 70 percent. […]

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/10/all_the_presidents_women_and_men.html

Among the key responsibilities of a president is choosing highly capable officials to steer the nation’s course wisely. President Obama has failed in this duty. Romney declared during the debate that Obama only picks losers regarding green energy boondoggles; the same pattern holds true when it comes to picking people to run the nation. His picks span the spectrum from the incompetent to the dismal.

Recently, I was struck by the tone and gist of a column by New York Times liberal columnist (but I repeat myself) Roger Cohen. His piece, “Obama’s Team of Idolizers,” made mincemeat of Barack Obama’s campaign claim that he would assemble a Cabinet that would resemble the stellar cast of characters that became Abraham Lincoln’s “Team of Rivals.” Four years later, Cohen was so critical of their performance that he dismissed them as having been chosen for their willingness to serve as a “coterie of idolizers.”

Given the debacle or Libya, this excerpt is particularly relevant and timely:

The Obama inner circle remains a group of tough political tacticians: David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Valerie Jarrett. The White House national security team does not boast a single name of strategic stature. Anyone outside Washington would be hard pressed to name one.

On Egypt, he toyed with preserving Mubarak ad interim before the tide became irreversible. On Syria, he has in essence dithered. On Afghanistan, domestic politics dictated the agenda, at a cost in American lives.

Subsequently, we have had the massacre in Benghazi and the exposure of multiple failings by the White House, the State Department, or the intelligence community, one or all of whom ignored warnings and rejected pleas for more security. People were asleep at the switch (or, in the case of President Obama, busy fundraising, ignoring the duty to hear daily intelligence briefings, discussing the merits of various hot peppers or dishing with the Pimp with the Limp); people also died.

While a mother wants to know how and why her only son was killed (see “I want to know what happened to my son”), Barack Obama avoids any questions involving Libya and instead of talking with a grieving mother, talks sports on a radio show in Ohio (see “Obama: I’m a Professional Ohio State Cheerleader”). And the media fashions an image of him as being the empathetic, likeable candidate.

But this was just the latest in a series of failings by various members of the Obama entourage.

Their foibles can serve as epitaphs for a failed presidency.

Vice President Joe Biden

Here we have the Gaffe-Master, America’s favorite punch line; a supposed foreign policy guru who has a long history of making the wrong calls; a sheriff of the stimulus boondoggle, who went AWOL as hundreds of billions of dollars was spent and, in many cases, wasted; and a man who has no problem spouting falsehoods and remaking Obama’s policies on the fly. He is the Joker.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Smart diplomacy that has led to distancing from allies (Israel), betrayal of allies (the Czech Republic and Poland, regarding the stationing of anti-missile missiles in their nations to serve as a defense against Iranian nuclear missiles); dissing of allies (primarily the British — see the symbolic return of the Churchill bust, siding with Argentina over the Falklands); trying to sabotage the democratization of allies (Honduras); turning down pleas by potential allies to help overthrow theocratic, dictatorial, and dangerous regimes (Iranian Green Protesters to Obama: Are You With Us or With Them; they got their answer soon enough, and it was not want they were hoping to hear).

The so-called smart diplomacy led to peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians being less likely than before the Obama presidency, an Iranian nuclear bomb being more likely, the Muslim Brotherhood on the march throughout the Arab world, the Saudi royal family feeling shafted by Barack Obama, and America’s reputation in many nations of the Muslim world being lower than it was when George Bush left office.

Ah…the fruits of smart diplomacy.

Then there is the Russian reset, which got off to a wrong start when “smart” diplomats in Clinton’s own department failed to even find the right Russian translation for “reset” when handing over that ridiculous “reset” box with the red button. That box became a symbol of incompetency and, later, naiveté. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Putin regime has measured the man in the Oval Office and is not impressed. The failure of the Russian reset has been made manifest in the closing of the USAID office in Russia; the cancelation of the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction program; stiff-arming at the U.N. Security Council as Putin protects his clients in Syria and Iran, while funneling arms to them; and many other Russian bear hugs of neighboring republics that used to be part of the Soviet Union and that Putin intends to bend to his will.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/mona_eltahawy_vs_free_speech.html Author’s note: I sent this article to Matt Seaton of the Guardian in response to Mona Eltahawy’s defamatory piece there, justifying her vandalism of my ad in the New York subways: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” Seaton responded: “I don’t see […]

“Finally, carefully contemplate what Obama said in his speech before the Democratic National Convention: “My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy. But from all that we’ve seen and heard they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so deeply.”……
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/forbes-cnn-destroy-obama-administrations-benghazi-lie/

Forbes contributor, Larry Bell, released an article late last night entitled, “Pants On Fire: Obama Administration Scrambles for Cover as Benghazi Lie Explodes.”

The article, drawing on reports from CNN, reveals a picture the Obama administration is desperately trying to sweep under the rug.

President Obama’s foreign policy is an absolute disaster.

Moreover, the things the Obama administration has told the American people in the days since September 11th reveal either gross incompetence, or willful deception. Perhaps, even, a combination of the two. [Emphasis added]

For more than a week after the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration which pledged to be the “most transparent administration in history”, continued to maintain a ruse that the outbreak of violence was nothing more than a spur-of-the-moment protest in response to the offensive video. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated the fiction, and White House press spokesman Jay Carney told us all that there was “no evidence” that this was a “preplanned or premeditated attack.”

An October 2nd CNN report disagreed. It revealed that the administration repeatedly sent out talking points that contradicted top intelligence officials and sources for the network on the details of what caused the attack. It also said that: “CNN has learned tonight that the White House chose to leave out key intelligence from the attacks on Americans in Libya. There are three things U.S. intelligence has now confirmed to be true: the attacks were preplanned, terrorist attacks, and the work of Al-Qaeda- linked groups. None of these three points were in talking points distributed to congress and other government officials. U.S. intelligence knew of the al-Qaeda link within 24 hours of the attacks. And the now infamous comments by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attacks were not preplanned and not the work of terror came four days after that. This doesn’t add up.”

Click here: Veterans’ Votes Lean Heavily To Romney – Maggie’s Farm http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/20783-Veterans-Votes-Lean-Heavily-To-Romney.html The VFW Magazine for October 2012 has an interesting article about the veterans vote. Veterans alone make up some 13% of the population and historically they register their opinions at the ballot box. In 2008, they accounted for 15% of all voters, a […]

http://securityinformationproject.blogspot.com/
Why Bangladesh Matters
The 1971 Bangladesh War of Liberation is best known to America’s baby boom generation as having resulted in the record album “The Concert for Bangladesh” featuring music by George Harrison, Ringo Starr, Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton and others. It was a landmark event that set the precedent for Live Aid and subsequent rock music centered international charity programs. However the nation of Bangladesh, with more than 120 million inhabitants, is today an important regional power that is trying hard to escape from a legacy of mass poverty and tyrannical rule.

After Bangladesh successfully broke away from Pakistan for years it resembled a typical Third World state, mired in corruption and dictatorship. Yet, since the military dictator General Mohammed Ershad was overthrown in a fairly bloodless revolution in 1990 Bangladesh has been a lively, imperfect, tumultuous and violent democracy.

As a sympathetic American wrote in 1993 “For Bangladeshis not only watch politics the way American watch the Superbowl; they imbibe it. It is the race for power that fascinates – perhaps because it’s a contest that truly draws blood, as scores of candidates, supporters, students, and others are murdered each year in political or quasi – political battles in the cities, in the countryside, and on university campuses.”It should be remembered that throughout history, few democracies ever evolved peacefully. American political history, for example cannot be said to have been free of riots, arson and murders.

One important and unique aspect of Bangladeshi democracy has been the idea of a “caretaker government” run by the Supreme Court that takes power in the 90 days leading up to a general election. This helps insure that the balloting will be reasonably open and fair. Even with the “Caretaker” governments in place; elections in Bangladesh have never been peaceful or free of voter fraud, but the concept has helped keep problems more or less under control.

http://www.meforum.org/3358/american-jewish-left

In early September 2012, many in the pro-Israel camp were disturbed by a series of events at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. First, the committee drafting the party platform eliminated traditional language recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Next, the party elders chose to restore the language and called for a pro forma voice vote from the delegates in support of this amendment. Instead, what looked and sounded like an angry majority of the delegates voted against recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

This hostility should not have come as a surprise. For many years, the liberal base of the Democratic Party has been steadily turning against the Jewish state. So much so that for the first time since 1948, one of America’s two major parties has begun to abandon its commitment to Israel. This trend has less to do with the behavior of President Obama or other national party leaders than with the far more troubling phenomenon of changing opinions at the grassroots. The Jerusalem flap at the Democratic convention was not a warning sign. It was the final bell.