(Video) Andrew Klavan on “Democrats at war”

August 24, 2014

In today’s episode of The Revolting Truth, Andrew treats us to some counter-revisionist history, to correct the Democrats’… “fanciful narrative” about their role in the Iraq war:

For the record, I doubt I’ll ever forgive Senator Harry Ried (D-Snake In The Grass) for proclaiming to the world that the war was lost, just as American forces are entering the field for a crucial battle.

Also, Gollum has a better personality.


(War Porn) ISIS armed truck goes BOOM!

August 22, 2014

More of this, please. A lot more.

Because, based on the First Rule of Texas Common Law, these guys need killing.


ISIS: You know they’re extreme when even bin Laden shunned them

August 12, 2014
Hello, I am now blowing goat in Hell.

Relative moderate??

Just to refresh people’s memories, al Qaeda is the organization that flew airliners into buildings in America in 2001, killing thousands. They bombed the London subway and the Madrid train station and a nightclub in Bali, murdering hundreds. They’ve attacked our embassies and our ships. They made it plain they’d love to use biological and even nuclear weapons against us, all in the name of establishing a caliphate, the imposition of sharia law, and the final victory of Islam.

And yet their late leader, Osama bin Laden, thought ISIS was nuts:

A letter discovered among Osama bin Laden’s personal belongings warned that ISIS were so extreme that Al Qaeda should disown them.

According to the Daily Mail, the 21-page letter was found in the base where the terrorist leader was shot dead by U.S. forces in 2011. It warned of a new, extreme Islamist militant group who were so brutal that they would likely damage Al Qaeda’s reputation among wavering Muslims.

The document, written by one of Bin Laden’s senior officials, went to list some of the acts of barbarism committed by ISIS, including using chemical weapons, destroying mosques and massacring the congregation of a church on Baghdad.

This is like Mao saying Pol Pot went too far.


Iraq: Is Obama holding American citizens “hostage” to force Democrat support?

August 12, 2014
Liar.

Barack Machiavelli?

That’s the startling, even shocking implication of an article in today’s Free Beacon: that the President of the United States is refusing to evacuate American civilian personnel from Iraq, in spite of the crisis caused by the advance of ISIS, because he needs the threat to them to convince his left-wing base to go along with the air strikes underway:

The administration’s decision to bypass Congress before taking military action is reminiscent of its behavior in Libya, where air strikes also were authorized without congressional approval.

“They didn’t provide any firm answers or decisions,” said one senior Senate source apprised of the briefing. “The administration is saying that they’re going to authorize air strikes if ISIS gets close to U.S. personal or stationed personal, which in [our] mind, if there is a threat in the region you get your people out unless they’re military.”

This rationale from the White House is leading some to speculate that U.S. personnel in the region are being left in harms way “as collateral” because the Obama administration “can’t get his party and donor base to support further action in Iraq,” according to the source.

“That’s where a lot of the confusion is coming from” on Capitol Hill, the source added. “When there’s an imminent threat you get your civilian employees out of the region.”

As Noah Rothman at Hot Air points out, the administration is in a difficult spot with its legal justifications for action in Iraq: they’ve argued since the American withdrawal from Iraq that the Bush-era AUMF is outdated and should be repealed, so it’s very difficult to use that as a justification for new action. Instead, they’re using “danger to Americans” as the casus belli:

The White House appears to be claiming simply that the president has the constitutional authority to protect and defend American citizens, and he is legally empowered to execute strikes on ISIS targets if they present an immediate threat to U.S. interests or personnel. American military officials are, however, apparently prepared to interpret that which constitutes an “immediate threat” in a loose fashion.

And that, in turn has lead some to wonder if those personnel are being used as –and there’s no better word for it– hostages. I can almost see the pitch: “Look, we both agree that the Iraq War was stupid and wrong, but we can’t do nothing. You don’t want us to abandon Americans in danger, do you? The Republicans would have a field day with that. Remember how they reacted after Benghazi?”

It’s something so ruthless, so coldblooded, that I don’t want to believe it could be true of any American administration. Bear in mind also that the Free Beacon’s source is anonymous. And yet, on the other hand, the administration has taken such a hit over its failures in foreign policy, especially in the Mideast in the last two years, that some top adviser (Axelrod? Jarrett?) may have convinced the president he can do this to make sure he isn’t seen as the one who “lost Iraq” (newsflash: too late), that he can use the presence of Americans as leverage against a rebellion by his base without too much risk. If there’s one place this generally incompetent administration has shown any competence at all, its in “base politics.”

And, if true, this would be pretty base.


This is why other bloggers wish we were Glenn Reynolds

August 8, 2014

Because no one delivers a more elegant Fist of Doom with as little wasted space.

As the Instapundit would say, “Heh.”


A million a day for ISIS and a grain of salt

July 20, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

ISIS, the jihadist group that’s declared a Caliphate on the ruins of western Iraq and eastern Syria, is now making roughly a million bucks per day by selling oil seized from Iraqi pipelines. Note also the Kurdish connection: no one’s pure in that part of the world.

Originally posted on Money Jihad:

Is a million dollars a day enough to sustain ISIS’s operations without dipping into its own reserves? Perhaps. There may be about 10,000 ISIS foot soldiers. Paying, feeding, clothing, and transporting that many men is expensive. But if each jihadist were getting a proportionate share of $100 a day, that still well exceeds the median Iraqi income of $15 a day, which probably helps with recruitment efforts.

That being said, such a rapid influx of money does not automatically translate into the ability to spend the money—either wisely or at all. Remember the movie “Brewster’s Millions” where Richard Pryor was challenged to spend $30 million in 30 days? It’s harder than it looks.

But it’s still ominous. From the Telegraph on July 11:

Iraq oil bonanza reaps $1 million a day for Islamic State

Exclusive: Islamic State strengthens grip on northern Iraq by raising millions from sale of oil through…

View original 182 more words


ISIS gets men and $800 million from Turkey

July 8, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

This story isn’t getting enough play, in my opinion.

Originally posted on Money Jihad:

Jihadist recruits and millions of dollars have slipped through the sieve-like border between Turkey and Iraq, says Middle East expert Daniel Pipes. This is purposeful not negligent. Pipes argues that this is because Prime Minister Recep Erdogan’s twin interests in toppling Assad in Syria and fighting the Kurds in Iraq are both served by an ascendant Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Again, ISIS didn’t wake up one day and seize Mosul by chance. The combination of funding, number of foot soldiers, and strategy leaves almost no doubt that state sponsorship is involved.

Via Algemeiner on Jun. 22:

…Ankara may deny helping ISIS, but the evidence for this is overwhelming. “As we have the longest border with Syria,” writes Orhan Kemal Cengiz, a Turkish newspaper columnist, “Turkey’s support was vital for the jihadists in getting in and out of the country.” Indeed, the ISIS strongholds not coincidentally…

View original 330 more words


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,127 other followers