Month: December 2009

A classic Jihadist profile:

He is the son of the recently retired Chairman of First Bank of Nigeria, Dr. Umaru Abdul Mutallab. The Al-Qaida-linked Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab is an engineering student at University College London.  Saharareporters sources have revealed that prior to his sojourn in the UK, Farouk had studied at the prestigious British School of Lome, Togo. Where he passed his International Bacchalaureates Diploma before moving to UCL.

It sure isn't poverty that forces these loons to do what they do. It's religion.

That's the word from DHS. I still want to know how on earth he got on that plane with that stuff.

As in the Marx Brothers:

No doubt I'm the 5000th caller with this point, but Krugman lifted the "sanity clause"  line from the Marx Bros., or, if you prefer, from George S. Kaufman and Morrie Ryskind who wrote the screenplay for "A Night at the Opera". This is in the famous "contract scene".  Google it and you'll get a Youtube hit (speaking as a cog, among the cognoscenti, A Night at the Opera is generally considered the Bros. second-best film, after Duck Soup).

Go read Hannah Rosenthal's interview with Ha'aretz, and you will see why the neocons are so hostile to her appointment as the Obama administration's Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. Here are her offensive remarks:

"We have seen huge increases in anti-Semitism. Research shows that 46 percent of the population in Spain has negative views of Jews – in Spain. Two days ago it was reported that anti-Semitic incidents in France more than doubled last year. Ninety-five percent of the Jordanians and Egyptians have negative views of Jews. How can we hope to get to this goal with this climate."

She goes on:

"I do believe that some of the criticism against Israel is anti-Semitism but not all of it is. And I think that healthy democracies – and Israel is one – has to do self reflection and the world looks at the light unto the nations and says I agree to this policy or I don't agree – that is not anti-Semitism. But having the UN single out Israel for 170 resolutions over the last five years – when everybody knows that Sudan is committing genocide and they have only five resolutions. When Israel is the only agenda item on the human rights council – I think it's legitimate to look at this singling out, holding Israel to a different standard than the rest of the world. I think that crosses the line to anti-Semitism."

"But it is not anti-Semitic to look at a certain policy of Israel and say – I disagree with it. Half of the population in Israel isn't anti-Semitic by not agreeing with policies."

This breaks the AIPAC unofficial line that any criticism of Israel's policies is anti-Semitic unless proven otherwise. But this is the last straw: she criticized the Israel ambassador Michael Oren's remarkable, undiplomatic snub of AIPAC's generational rival, J-Street:

Remarks by Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, against the liberal Jewish lobby J Street were "most unfortunate" according to Hannah Rosenthal, head of the U.S. administration's Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

This is how my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg responded to this comment:

Talk about sticking your nose in places where it doesn't belong. The Obama Administration official charged with monitoring worldwide anti-Semitism makes her first target… the Israeli ambassador to the United States? I'll be taking bets now on how long Hannah Rosenthal lasts in the job.

First, this is untrue. As you can see, in this same interview she is highly critical of the UN and brutally frank about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East. But for simply criticizing Oren's direct intervention in domestic Jewish-American politics, and his picking and choosing which pro-Israel group to snub or endorse, she is beyond the pale.

How long before she too is called an anti-Semite? Or has she been already?

Paul Krugman, someone one doesn't associate with much wit or humor, pens this paragraph about the John Birch Society Republicans:

In the past, there was a general understanding, a sort of implicit clause in the rules of American politics, that major parties would at least pretend to distance themselves from irrational extremists. But those rules are no longer operative. No, Virginia, at this point there is no sanity clause.

Despite the almost classic hysteria from Pete King, we don't know yet several critical things: how powerful and sophisticated the explosive device was; whence it came; how on earth someone could get on an international flight with it strapped to his leg and a syringe to inject some kind of liquid; we don't know whether the maniac has any formal links to terror groups (I'm not sure whether that would make us more or less concerned); and we don;t know whether the device could have brought down the plane.

Without any of those facts, we should withhold any attempt at real analysis. But what can be glad that another crazed Islamist failed yet again to achieve what he wanted, and got severely burned in the process; glad still that fellow passengers took the bastard down. But for all that what we know is sadly familiar: someone with Islamist sympathies tried to murder a lot of innocent people. Since I'm flying out of Detroit on NWA tomorrow, returning from Christmas with my in-laws, I'm sure I'll get a first-hand look at the security measures that will now be ratcheted up. Should be a great time.

But I also have to say: when I watch little old ladies have their lipstick removed in the security line and my own mother all but strip-searched coming to my wedding, you wonder why someone named Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab who's on a no-fly list could have gotten through security with an explosive contraption strapped to his leg. Or are we only as safe as the Nigerian TSA equivalent allows us to be?

Ambers has some further thoughts here.

A reader writes:

The tone of the "From The In-Tray II" emails reminds me of the great Ignatius J. Reilly character in A Confederacy Of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole.  Maybe the funniest book I've ever read. A few Ignatius gems…

"A firm rule must be imposed upon our nation before it destroys itself. The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss.”

and

"I am at this moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip."

Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, 11.48 pm

There's a lot to agree with in this almost sensible post by Ed Morrissey:

The truth is that we don’t have any good options on Iran and its nuclear-weapon program. Sanctions won’t work, because the Russians and the Chinese conduct too much trade with Iran. The Chinese won’t agree to them, and the Russians will cheat to get around them. Military strikes sound good, but Iran has significant military capabilities of its own that can hit us in Iraq, the Straits of Hormuz, and throughout the Persian Gulf — and Iran has dispersed its nuclear program to avoid having it destroyed by airstrikes. Invasion would be almost impossible, thanks to the terrain and the 72 million Iranians that would resist it.

The best option we have in dealing with the Iranian nuclear and terrorist threats is regime change. Replacing the radical mullahs with almost anything else would improve the situation, and a popular uprising that replaced the theocracy with a secular republic like Turkey would be the best outcome. Instead, Obama seems intent on regime strengthening. We should be encouraging the democratic activists in Iran not just for the sake of democracy but also to relieve two of the greatest threats to regional stability.

I think it's an absurd stretch of anti-Obama rhetoric to say he believes in "regime-strengthening" in Iran.

Of course, those of us who can support the Green Revolution should continue to do so. But its success or failure will have nothing to do with the United States; and, indeed, too close an association with the US gives the coup regime its only propaganda weapon within the country: to tar the protests as a Western-orchestrated plot by Obama, the Queen, the BBC and the CIA or whatever these nutcases currently believe.

But engagement at a time when it has clearly discombobulated the Iranian regime is still important. The pursuit of America's national interests, the increasing diplomatic isolation of Iran (which Obama and Ahmadinejad have jointly accomplished), and avoidance of any reckless military action by Israel are all necessary. My own view is that we cannot know for sure which tactic will work best and I agree with Ed that regime change is the core goal.

But is Tehran's power in Iran weaker or stronger than it was when Obama took office? Is the regime more or less isolated than it was a year ago? Is Russia more or less friendly toward Iran?

I thnk the results of Obama's restraint and realism combined with the astonishing resilience of the Iranian people have made the mullahs in Iran more worries about their future than at any time since the Revolution. Of course, this means the regime could act out desperately. Before it staggers to its inevitable demise.