What could go wrong? US to bolster “moderate” Hizbullah

May 19, 2010

From the same geniuses who brought you the reset button, the crusade to kill Honduran democracy, and the profuse groveling toward China over our human rights’ abuses, get ready for the latest and greatest: the Obama administration plans to bring stability to the Middle East by -how else?- strengthening moderate elements in the genocide-minded Hizbullah:

The Obama administration is looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” within the Lebanese Hezbollah guerilla movement and to diminish the influence of hard-liners, a top White House official said on Tuesday.

“Hezbollah is a very interesting organization,” [John] Brennan told a Washington conference, citing its evolution from “purely a terrorist organization” to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet.

“There is certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us what they’re doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements,” Brennan said.

He did not spell out how Washington hoped to promote “moderate elements” given that the organization is branded a “foreign terrorist organization” by the United States.

Gee, I can just see all that CIA money being funneled to prop up these “moderates,” who will be struggling to suppress their guffaws as they pass the dough along to their non-moderate brethren, who will then turn around and buy more missiles from Iran with which to kill Jews.


This is like the British and the French trying to find “moderate Nazis” in the late 1930s. How’d that work out?

Clue for Mr. Brennan: Hizbullah is dedicated to genocide against the Jews for religious reasons. There are no moderates. They are playing us for suckers and you and your boss are falling for it.

We’re lead either by naive children or blundering morons and, regardless, it looks to end badly.

(via Andy McCarthy)

LINKS: More from Hot Air and Michael Ledeen.


Pakistan: With friends like these

May 19, 2010

Pursuing leads in the failed attempt by Muslim terrorist Faisal Shahzad to set off a car-bomb in Times Square, the Pakistani military has arrested one its own army officers for involvement in the plot:

Just one day after Faisal Shahzad’s first appearance in a US court, a big development is coming out of Pakistan, where the failed Times Square attack originated. A major in the Pakistani army has been arrested by investigators for ties to the failed terror plot in New York. From the LA Times:

  • The major’s involvement with suspect Faisal Shahzad, who was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport as he attempted to fly to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, remains unclear. Law enforcement sources said the major had met Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, in Islamabad, the capital, and was in cellphone contact with him.
  • The major’s arrest marks the first time someone in Pakistan’s military establishment has been directly linked to the case. The sources would not say when the alleged meeting and phone calls between Shahzad and the major took place, or what was discussed. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the investigation.

Bear in mind two things: we give the Pakistanis billions in aid money, while their military and intelligence services are riddled with jihadist sympathizers.

Something’s wrong with that picture; I’m not sure what…  Doh

Barone: Top 5 lessons from yesterday’s elections

May 19, 2010

Several primary and special elections were held yesterday, and almost all of them were looked at as potential omens for the November midterms. At the Washington Examiner, Michael Barone looks at these races and offers five lessons. Here’s one, be sure to click through to read the rest:

Three. The unambiguous 53%-44% victory of Democrat Mark Critz over Republican Tim Burns in the Pennsylvania 12 special election should be a caution to Republicans.

Lesson: anti-Obama sentiment will not automatically be transformed into votes for Republican candidates. Critz carried by solid margins the district’s portions of Fayette and Greene Counties, steel-and-coal areas ancestrally Democratic areas that voted (narrowly) for John McCain in November 2008. Ditto Cambria County, Critz’s home base and that of the late 36-year incumbent John Murtha for whom Critz was a staffer, which gave Obama a very narrow margin.

Critz was helped by his conservative stands on health care, guns and cap-and-trade, he was helped by the refusal of 2008 Republican nominee and primary contender Bill Russell’s refusal to endorse Burns, and he was helped by the fact that there was a serious statewide contest in the Democratic primary but not in the Republican primary. But in November 2008 a lot of registered Democrats here voted Republican. In May 2010 a smaller proportion of registered Democrats did so. It’s true that Republicans don’t need Pennsylvania 12 for a House majority; it’s about number 60 on their list and they need 40 seats. But Republican strategists shouldn’t believe their election night spin. This was a loss.

Personally, the fact that PA-12 kept reelecting a disgusting corruptionist such as Murtha and then elected his toady to take his place tells me there’s something deeply wrong in that district, whatever the weaknesses of Mr. Burns. If they were to consider secession, I might not object.

Barone’s right, however, that this was a loss. However, I think several things mitigate it a bit: aside from the intensity among Democrats generated by the Specter-Sestak primary (and thank you, Joe, for sending Benedict Arlen home) and the fact that Critz “ran to the Right” in a culturally conservative region, the Democrats have a 2-1 ratio in registration. That Critz won by only 9 points (large, but not 2-1 in the vote tally) shows some inroads were made into Democratic territory. So, a loss, but not without hope for November.