Slavery Today

For John, BLUF:  I blame the press.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Africans are being sold at Libyan slave markets. Thanks, Hillary Clinton.

Here is the sub-headline:

'We came, we saw, he died,' she joked. But overthrowing Gadhafi was a humanitarian and strategic debacle that now limits our options on North Korea.

An Opinion Pice by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, in USA Today, 27 November 2017.

Here is how the article begins:

Black Africans are beingsold in open-air slave markets right now, and it’s Hillary Clinton’s fault. But you won’t hear much about that from the press or the foreign-policy pundits, so let me explain.

Footage from Libya, released last week by CNN, showed young men from sub-Saharan Africa being auctioned off as farm workers in slave markets.

And how did we get to this point? As the BBC reported back in May, “Libya has been beset by chaos since NATO-backed forces overthrew long-serving ruler Col. Moammar Gadhafi in Oct. 2011.”

And who was behind that overthrow? None other than then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Under former president George W. Bush in 2003, the United States negotiated an agreement with Libyan strongman Gadhafi. The deal: He would give up his weapons of mass destruction peacefully, and we wouldn’t try to depose him.

That seemed like a good deal at the time, but the Obama administration didn’t stick to it. Instead, in an operation spearheaded by Clinton, the United States went ahead and toppled him anyway.

Frankly, I hope Ms Clinton is frosted by this article.  She may not have foreseen this outcome—Black Africans being sold into slavery—but it was her job, or the job of the State Department Director of Policy Planning.  Sadly, Ms Anne-Marie Slaughter had left the office by January 2011 and it was up to Mr Jake Sullivan to speak truth to power.  He failed, but he is still Ms CLinton's foreign policy advisor to this day.

And African-Americans of all stripes should be outrage by this.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Benghazi Follow-Up

For John, BLUF:  Under President Trump we are not letting the criminality of terrorism time out.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

US captures key militant in Benghazi attack

The report is by Reporter Lucas Tomlinson of Fox News, today, 30 October 2017, with contributions by the Associated Press.

As one person said a while ago, "What difference, at this point, does it make?".

On the other hand, President Trump said:

Our memory is deep and our reach is long, and we will not rest in our efforts to find and bring the perpetrators of the heinous attacks in Benghazi to justice.

No visit to Club Gitmo for Mr Mustafa al-Imam.  He is apparently going to D.C., to face Federal prosecution.

As Fox News Points out:

The attack, on September 11, 2012, killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ms Clinton and Foreign Policy

For John, BLUF:  Not to mention the blunder with regard to Libya (no, not about Benghazi, which was down-stream collateral damage).  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

We hear, in the news, about how Mr Donald Trump is a foreign policy neophyte and how accomplished is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

But, I am not sure Ms Clinton is prepared to deal with the Regime in China.  Here is a take on China by Ms Claudia Rosett, from Pajama Media.

Tiananmen at 27, and the China Dream

From the Republic of China on Taiwan, freely elected President Tsai Ing-wen tells the People's Republic of China that democracy is nothing to fear: "Democracy is a good and fine thing."

In Beijing, the authorities tighten security and carry out arrests. When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, during a visit to Canada, is questioned by a reporter about China's human rights record, he rejects the question as "irresponsible." He says, "We welcome goodwill suggestions but we reject groundless or unwarranted accusations."

And so we arrive at the 27th anniversary of Tiananmen: June 4, 1989, when China's Communist Party rulers turned the guns of the People's Liberation Army against their own people, to end China's 1989 democratic uprising.

Does it still matter? On many counts, 27 years is a long time. In Beijing, a generation has more than come of age with no firsthand memory of the gunfire, or of the ruts in the streets in the summer of 1989, made by the treads of tanks. Whatever China's one-party rulers could pave over of that uprising, they have long since paved. Outside China, we now read articles such as an anonymously authored piece, published June 3, and apparently written from inside China: "China's Youth Think Tiananmen Was So 1989."

"Does it still matter?"  I suggest it does still matter.  While China is not quite a Stalinist Regime,♠ after all, no exiled Chinese leader has been brutally murdered in Mexico,♥ individual freedoms are snuffed out.  Look at the program to take down all the Crosses on Christian Churches in China.

The Chinese Government doesn't understand the game of government the way we do, or even the way they do in Taiwan.  Another "Reset Button" is not going to do it.♦

To close this out, Senator John McCain said the following on 3 June to a meeting of Southeast Asian nations in Singapore:

The choice for Southeast Asia in the 21st century is not between the United States and China, as some would make it out to be.  Instead it is a choice between two futures—one in which the rules-based order is upheld and its benefits expanded to ever more people in Asia, or a darker future that resembles the past in this region and the world, where might makes right, and bullies set the rules and break them.

The rules-based order has not and will not enforce itself here in Southeast Asia.  Nor can America, despite its great power, achieve this feat alone.  It requires its stakeholders, including the nations of Southeast Asia, to uphold its principles, especially when they are challenged.  America and the world are counting on the nations of Southeast Asia to recommit their power and resolve to upholding this system on which our shared security and prosperity depend.

This idea of a rules-based order applies as well to China.  Who is going to help China live within the rules?

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Nor has it revert to Maoism, with the tens of millions killed to try and create a socialist utopia.
♥  On the other hand, a lot of Mexican municipal officials have been murdered in the last dozen years due to the drug wars ongoing.
♦  Which brings us to Russia.  Does Ms Clinton even know who Alexander Solzhenitsyn is?

Hillary and Foreign Policy

For John, BLUF:  After Libya, Kim Jung-UN will never give up his nuclear weapons.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Hillary's Libya:  The Second Time as Farce

Novelist Roger L Simon gives us a look at Ms Clinton as foreign policy expert and here is the lede plus two:

Amidst the welter of commentary on Hillary Clinton's June 2 foreign policy speech in which she allegedly eviscerated Donald Trump as the most unreliable leader since Caligula (projection?), I couldn't avoid thinking of Karl Marx's oft-quoted line from The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon:  "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."

I'm no Marxist, but there's no question the bearded Prussian inadvertently was accurately describing not Trump's erratic remarks but Hillary Clinton's actual outrageous actions regarding Libya when writing, in 1852, of Louis-Napoleon's coup of the previous year.

What Hillary instigated in that North African country, with the obvious acquiescence of Barack Obama, is the most absurd American foreign policy blunder of my lifetime from which the damaging fallout (thousands of drowning refugees in recent weeks, a possible ISIS takeover of that now essentially lawless country, replete with beheadings of Christians, etc.) is just beginning.  Only our complaisant media could conclude anything but the obvious -- that the perpetrator of such a disaster should be totally disqualified as president of the United States.

So, we have one person running for President with a foreign policy track record and one who is a blank slate, ready for all and sundry to write on.♠

One with a proven track record of bad decision making, associated with a President who has weakened alliances across the globe, versus one who tends to be a tad new-isolationist.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Assuming both Ms Clinton anD Mr Trump make it past their Conventions.

Hillary Condemns The Donald re Foreign Policy

For John, BLUF:  It just gets better and better.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Read Hillary Clinton’s Speech on Donald Trump and National Security

The sub-headline is "'Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent'." At the link to Reporter Katie Reilly's article in Time is the released text of the speech.

Here is the lede of the story:

Hillary Clinton tore into presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump during a speech on national security Thursday, casting him as “unfit” for the presidency and offering a preview of her general election campaign message.

“Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent,” she said.  “They’re not even really ideas – just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.”

Now this is from the person who, as Secretary of State, talked the President into moving on Libya and deposing the leader there, Muammar Gaddafi.♠  This isn't about Benghazi.  That was merely a fallout from the civil war in Libya intensified by the the US President authorizing the use of force, along with some of our European Allies.♥

By the way, Colonel Gaddafi gives up his nuclear weapons program and then we back some rebel group against him and help track him down so he can be killed.  How does this look to Kim Jung-un.

In the mean time, "Chinese foreign minister berates Canadian reporter for asking about human rights".

And the sub-headline for Mr Mike Blanchfield's article is "'Please don't ask questions in such an irresponsible manner,' Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said". Here is the lede:

China's visiting foreign minister publicly berated a Canadian journalist on Wednesday for asking a question about his country's human rights record.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said it was "irresponsible" of a journalist from the web outlet iPolitics to ask about human rights and the jailing of a Canadian, Kevin Garratt, who is charged with espionage.

Wang appeared visibly angry as he delivered the scolding in the lobby of Global Affairs headquarters at a joint news conference with Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion.

"Your question is full of prejudice against China and arrogance ... I don't know where that comes from.  This is totally unacceptable," Wang said through a translator.

Do we really see Former SecState Clinton standing up to the likes of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi?

And, finally, via the Janesville Gazette, we have "Paul Ryan:  Donald Trump can help make reality of bold House policy agenda".

Endorsement.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I was actually in Libya when the revolt against King Idris was staged by Colonel Mummer Gaddafi. The coup was in the morning and I was one of the ones who flew us fighter aircraft out of Wheelus Air Base, outside Tripoli.
♥  For the paranoid Democrats, this is not about Benghazi, although the fact that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw the First Amendment under the bus over that attack should be worrying to all.

We're all consequentialists now

For John, BLUF:  This could make life harder.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Brookings Institution and the pen of Shadi Hamid, Brookings Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, we have "Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure.  They're wrong."

I am not sure I am convinced, and not just because it is a bell to hang around the neck of Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton.  For one thing, Colonel Mummer Qaddafi had given up his nuclear weapons program and then we whopped him up side the head.  Other maniacal dictators are in the future going to think more than twice about giving up their nuclear weapons programs.

And, there is the slide to chaos.  However, Mr Hamid makes a solid case for the idea it was already sliding and our intervention just kept the numbers of civilians killed and wounded lower than they might have been.

But, the interesting part is where he talks about "consequentialism" ♥.

The near reverse holds true for Libya.  The justness of military intervention in March 2011 cannot be undone or negated retroactively.  This is not the way choice or morality operates (imagine applying this standard to your personal life).  This may suggest a broader philosophical divergence:  Obama,according to one of his aides, is a "consequentialist."

I suspect that this, perhaps more than narrower questions of military intervention, drives at least some of the revisionism over Libya's legacy.  If we were consequentialists, it would be nearly impossible to act anywhere without some sort of preordained guarantee that a conflict area—which likely hadn't been "stable" for years or decades—could all of a sudden stabilize.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Shadi Hamid is a senior fellow in the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World in the Center for Middle East Policy and the author of the new book "Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World" (St. Martin's Press).
♥  That is to say, the virtue of your action isn't from your intent to do good, but if good is the actual outcome.  There are (no pun intended) consequences to your views of this.  It could impact our foreign policy.

Foreign Policy Creds

For John, BLUF:  We give the benefit to the former Secretary of State, but should we?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

OK, so it is The New York Post and Opinionator Jacob Sullum, but there is some wisdom here—"The warmongers’ vote goes to Clinton over Trump".

The piece doesn't say that Mr Donald Trump is perfect on Foreign Policy, but it does point out how he is quicker to conclude we have made some mistakes.  Quicker than Ms Clinton by about a decade.

There is a lot of rubbish out there about Mr Trump and foreign policy, but there is a grave need to examine the record of Ms Clinton, from the "Reset Button" to Libya to Benghazi.♠

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  With regard to Benghazi my concern is the willingness to trample the First Amendment.  And, that no one suggested we move forward forces, in case the incident turned out to be even worse than was known in DC.
♥  For those wondering, "Foggy Bottom" is a nickname for the headquarters building of the Department of State, based upon the geographical name of the area—Foggy Bottom.  There is a Metro stop of that name.

Ms Clinton and Libya

For John, BLUF:  Benghazi isn't Ms Clinton's real Libya Problem.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

At CNN on Monday, Reporter Stephen Collinson talks to "Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem".  Note, not FOX News, but CNN.♠

Hillary Clinton has another Libya problem.

She's already grappling with the political headaches from deleted emails and from the terror attack that left four Americans dead in Benghazi.

But she'll face a broader challenge in what's become of the North African country since, as secretary of state in 2011, she was the public face of the U.S. intervention to push out its longtime strongman, Moammar Gadhafi.

Libya's lapse into the chaos of failed statehood has provided a breeding ground for terror and a haven for groups such as ISIS.  Its plight is also creating an opening for Republican presidential candidates to question Clinton's strategic acumen and to undermine her diplomatic credentials, which will be at the center of her pitch that only she has the global experience needed to be president in a turbulent time.

I do think the real issue with regard to Benghazi is the violation of the First Amendment.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Which used to be known as the "Clinton News Network".

Mr Ralph Nader on Ms Clinton

For John, BLUF:  I would venture to say that Mr Ralph Nader is straying to the sexism side here.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Writing, again for PJ Media, via a Drudge Headline, we have Mr Ralph Nader's take on Ms Hillary CLinton, "Hillary Tried to ‘Overcompensate’ for Gender with ‘Shocking’ Militarism".  The author of the piece, which includes video, is Mr Nicholas Ballasy.  The summarizing subhead is a quote from Mr Nader:  “I think Hillary is not the Hillary of when she was 30 years old. She made peace with the power structure."

Here is the lede:

Former Green Party and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader labeled 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a “deep corporatist and a deep militarist” who has made peace with the nation’s power structure.

“I think Hillary is not the Hillary of when she was 30 years old. She made peace with the power structure and she is a deep corporatist and a deep militarist.  One can almost forgive the corporatism.  She moved to New York with Bill because that’s where the power is and Wall Street but her militarism is absolutely shocking,” he said during a discussion about his new book, Return to Sender, which focuses on unanswered letters Nader wrote to U.S. presidents about an array of issues.

Nader cited the war in Libya during President Obama’s first term to support his position on Clinton.

So, perhaps when Secretary of State Clinton said, "What difference, at this point, does it make," she wasn't just talking about the attack on the compound in Benghazi.

Hat tip to My Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff

Is Syria is About To Go Down

For John, BLUF:  Rush-roh!  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Reporter Liz Sly,♠ of The Washington Post, tells us events are moving in the Middle East—"Assad’s hold on power looks shakier than ever as rebels advance in Syria".  Here is how the article starts off:

BEIRUT — A surge of rebel gains in Syria is overturning long-held assumptions about the durability of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which now appears in greater peril than at any time in the past three years.

The capture Saturday of the town of Jisr al-Shughour in northern Idlib province was just the latest in a string of battlefield victories by rebel forces, which have made significant advances in both the north and the south of the country.

As was the case in the capital of Idlib province last month, government defenses in Jisr al-Shughour crumbled after just a few days of fighting, pointing as much to the growing weakness of regime forces as the revival of the opposition.

The battlefield shifts come at a time when the Obama administration has set aside the crisis in Syria to focus on its chief priorities:  defeating the Islamic State militant group in Iraq and concluding a nuclear deal with Iran.

Yet the pace of events in Syria may force the United States to refocus on the unresolved war, which remains at the heart of the turmoil engulfing the Middle East, analysts say. Iran backs ­Assad, Saudi Arabia backs the rebels, and a shift in the balance of power in Syria could have profound repercussions for the conflicts in Iraq and Yemen.

So, here we are, with a foreign policy that calls for President Dashar al-Assad of Syria to go away, and we are not sure if his replacement will be better or worse.  Are the current insurgents our friends or the friends of others, such as Daesh?  Does the Administration have a secret plan to install someone in Mr Assad's place should the President go away?  What does Iran, Assad's friend, have to say about this?  Will this impact our negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons?

Someone wrote, "I hope no one is planning to use our intervention in Libya as a model, but it can't be dismissed."  Ouch.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Actually, the Beirut Bureau Chief of The Wash Post.

Capture of Benghazi Perp

For John, BLUF:  Gabriel Heatter.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"There is good news tonight."

From The Washington Post we have this item from The Boston Globe, with the Administration announcing the capture of the suspected ring leader of the 2012 attack on our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya.  "Suspect in Benghazi attack captured by US".

US commandos have captured the suspected ringleader of the attack on the US mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the White House and Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

Apprehension of the suspect, Ahmed Abu Khattala, is a major breakthrough in the 2 1/2-year investigation into the attack, which also killed three other Americans.  President Barack Obama vowed swift action to bring the perpetrators to justice.  But efforts to identity and prosecute the attackers were stymied by the chaos of the event and the broader mayhem in Libya.

Now we have someone.  Thanks to the US Military and the FBI.♠  And, one suspects, thanks to Libyan General Khalifa Heftar, who has been trying to put Libya back on track, partly by suppressing extremists in Libya.

Along with the article on the capture, on their web page The Boston Globe provides a timeline for the Benghazi attack.  Without actually mentioning the Innocence of Muslims video the timeline suggests that religious intolerance is a factor in the attack.  Translating that into Common English, the item again throws the First Amendment under the bus.  Can the Main Stream Media not see the stepping stones to the loss of their own freedom?

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The article says US Commandos, which is a term the US doesn't use.  My wife heard US SEALs.  Wikipedia says the US Army's Delta Force.

A Coup in Libya

For John, BLUF:  Generally military coups are bad, but not always.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Not every coup is a disaster for democracy.  In Libya (retired) General Khalifa Hiftar seems to be moving the nation in the proper direction, fighting islamic terror groups and resisting anarchy.♠  In this case we have an article from Strategy Page, "Libya:  A New Revolution Against The Islamic Terrorists".  The lede:

May 23, 2014: Over the last week a new civil war has broken out.  The leader of the rebels is Khalifa Hiftar a retired army general who seeks to destroy the Islamic militias and Islamic terrorist groups that have prevented the establishment of law and order and blocked rebuilding and economic progress.  Over the past year Hiftar organized like-minded militias and former soldiers and moved into Benghazi on the 16 th.  He immediately gained the loyalty of regular army units deployed there and soon controlled Benghazi.  The Islamic terrorist groups fled the better trained and determined Hiftar Forces and most non-Islamic militias (especially nationalists but also tribal groups) pledged to follow Hiftar.  The attraction here was that Hiftar opposed Islamic radical efforts to establish a religious dictatorship in Libya and an end to the anarchy created by the fact that the many Islamic terrorist groups could not agree on which of them should be in charge.

I say wait and see.  Good things could come out of this, or just more killing.  Revolutions are often messy and often have a "terror" phase.  Just think of the French and Russian Revolutions.  Let us hope that this is a post-terror phase, a "Thermidor", as in the French Revolution.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Please note that the Wikipedia entry for General Hiftar includes his tribe.  In places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (and Nigeria) tribe is very important.

Chris Matthews and "The Video"

For John, BLUF:  Regarding the Benghazi Attack (and the demonstration at our Egyptian Embassy), forget the video.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Some "Right Wing" blog site has this headline:  "Chris Matthews to Romney Supporter:  Benghazi WAS All About YouTube Video, 'Read the Newspaper!'"  The problem is, Chris Matthews has it wrong, as even the President and [most of] his supporters are saying it was a planned terrorist attack.  The compounding problem is that the video meme leads to bad judgements and bad decisions.

I worry that we are missing the problem of "the video".   I put aside the Constitutional issues to focus on the focus on the video early on.   Like in an accident investigation, a too early obvious cause can prevent us from looking deeper.   With the video in hand we didn't need to consider the Eleventh Anniversary aspect, or the demands for release of the Blind Sheik or the Egyptian internal political issues, which can be more safely played out at the US Embassy than the Presidential Palace, or the attack in Benghazi as being a planned terror event.

And, the video meme was so powerful it still shows up from time to time, e.g., the above Chris Matthews item from yesterday—40 some days after the event.

If that video meme sits in the back of peoples' minds it could well distort future US Foreign Policy, to our detriment.

Thus, the importance of keeping an open mind during the first 24 hours of a crisis and the importance of having professional dissenters.  As an anecdote, during the run-up to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the US Intelligence Community was convince it was a bluff, except for the National Intelligence Officer for Warning (the NIO for Warning was Charlie Allen).  He said it was coming and pretty much predicted the day.

And then there is the problem pointed out by former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Writer Bing West.   Unwillingness to grasp the nettle.

I am not concerned about apportioning blame.  In a nation in the throes of revolution there is danger.  Our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, took a calculated risk and almost pulled it off.  He understood that peace and stability wasn't going to come with him isolated in his Embassy in Tripoli.  He was gutsy and that is the kind of men and women we need as out Ambassadors.

Regards  —  Cliff

New Yorker in the Tank

For John, BLUF:  The MSM are in the tank for President Obama—and deserve no respect.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

One wonders if any of the writers for The New Yorker actually saw the last debate.  Writing in The New Yorker, Mr Steve Coll obfuscates the issue of the Benghazi Attack on 11 September.

I only saw the reruns and I know that the President didn't give a straight answer and that Moderator Candy Crowley's intervention was a mistake and she got her facts wrong—and she basically admitted that, after the fact.

Worse, the Administration has not repented of claiming it is the fault of the video, Innocence of Muslims, and no one is standing up for the First Amendment in this case, including the Mainstream Media, which depends on the First Amendment more than most.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Retired Diplomat Comments

For John, BLUF:  It appears the White House doesn't trust the American People enough to update the Benghazi Story as facts emerge, but belive they have to stick to their original story, no matter what.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Some may be aware that Right Side has taken a jaundiced view of the meme that a 13 minute video out of LA County sparked all the demonstrations in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) area, and is especially skeptic of the idea the video had anything to do with the Benghazi Incident.  Now comes a retired Foreign Service Officer with a blog post questioning the Administration's viewpoint.

On Libya, Biden lied gave an account at variance with the truth. He threw the entire intel community and the State Department to the wolves.  He claimed that the Embassy in Libya did not ask for extra security, and that the White House was told the attack resulted from an anti-video demonstration gone awry, and not from a terrorist action.  We all know that is not true.  Foggy Bottom will exact its revenge.  The leaks will come fast and furious (to use a phrase that did not come up last night) to show how the White House was informed and did nothing.  There are now press reports that a US done was overhead for at least part of the attack; the State Department's Charlene Lamb already has testified that she was monitoring the attack in "near real time"; we know that the Embassy had requested additional security; and the CIA and State already have made known that they never concluded that the attack was anything other than a terrorist attack.  Nobody has been able to explain the lack of White House response to an attack that went on for at least six hours.

In effect, he claimed that State, CIA, etc., deceived the White House.  Interesting relationship that between Secretary Clinton and President Obama, that between Director Petraeus and President Obama . . .

Yes, this Administration is not a well oiled administrative operation.  Given his experience out in the economy, competing for profits, it is possible that Governor Romney understands the need to make this part of the government apparatus work.

Regards  —  Cliff

Anti-Blasphemy Laws

Some have made the point that we are dealing with blasphemy with regard to the film Innocence of Muslims and the current unrest in the Near East.♠  Over at the Althouse blog we have a post on blasphemy laws in the United States.  Quoting from the blog post:

And here's the 1952 case Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson where the Supreme Court struck down a New York law that banned showing "sacrilegious" movies.  New York's highest court had interpreted the statute to mean "that no religion, as that word is understood by the ordinary, reasonable person, shall be treated with contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule."  The U.S. Supreme Court said:

[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views.  It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.

Those stodgy old men (and they were all men) on the US Supreme Court back in 1952, near the height of McCarthyism, said that we don't censor art based upon protecting some religion from being offended.

Again quoting from the blog post, this time about the SCOTUS ruling:

Lawyers even saw fit at that time to argue that movies shouldn't get free-speech protection at all because "their production, distribution, and exhibition is a large-scale business conducted for private profit."

Oh, wait, the President of the United States today argues that corporations don't have free-speech rights, and many Americans, including highly educated lawyers, are saying the Constitution should be amended to delete those rights.

OK, roll out the proposed Constitutional Amendment and run it up the flagpole and lets see who salutes it.  That is the American way.

In the meantime, lets try to avoid Dhimmitude.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I hope no one, UN Ambassador Susan Rice excepted, still believes the murder of our Ambassador to Libya wasn't a preplanned action, related to our own use of drones to deal with enemies from a distance.  I excuse Ms Rice because administrations of various shades have had a tendency to hold UN Ambassadors out to dry.

-3 M T1 3

Libya Today

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Ms Ann Marlowe gives us an assessment of Libya, one year one form the revolution that overthrew Dictator Muammar Gadhafi (or Gaddafi).  Here is the beginning of the article.

Nearly a year after the fall of the hated Gadhafi regime, this city and much of Libya seems caught in a post-revolutionary malaise.  Indeed, the situation here evokes the dreaded words "failed state."  Security is weak at best, and nonexistent in places.  The economy is hardly better than it was during the war.  There are burnt-out cars in the central business district, and trash everywhere.

Two months since the election of a new government—notable for its rejection of Islamic extremists—sectarian clashes are on the rise.  Two of Libya's oldest and most revered Sufi shrines were destroyed last month in broad daylight—one on Aug. 25, just outside my hotel room in Tripoli; the other, a 500-year-old shrine and library housing thousands of early Islamic texts, the day before in Zilten, a town 90 miles east of the capital.  The extremists believe it's sinful to locate a Sufi saint's tomb inside a mosque.

After the attacks, a special session of the newly elected National Assembly resulted in the minister of the interior, Fawzi Abdelal, admitting in a statement that the new government is weaker than the fanatics.  He later resigned.

Little would seem to stand in the way of the Salafis moving on to destroy Libya's classical antiquities, if they target them.  Already some Roman statues in Sabratha's great archeological site had to be removed from public display to protect them from attack.

Sadly, the issues bedeviling Libyans as they go about trying, largely with great goodwill, to set up a functioning country run deeper and broader than religious extremism.  Four decades of dictatorship have resulted in widespread indolence and a lack of a sense of ownership of the public sphere.  It's a toxic mix common in the Islamic world. Often Libya seems able to rise above it, as in its largely free and fair July 7 national elections.  But it is glaringly obvious in Libya's treatment of the history of its recent revolution.

One of the things I noted was the tension between the Sufi (inner, mystical dimension of Islam) and the Salafi (literalist, strict and puritanical approaches to Islam).  These two groups mix like oil and water.  On the other hand, this is all Sunni Islam and doesn't include the Shia branch.  We should note that al-Qaeda is a Salafist oriented group.

All very interesting, and cautionary.  As we contemplate Syria we need to ask ourselves what we expect to be the situation a year on.  I remember a quote attributed to Herbert Marcuse, "Destroy the Weimar Republic.  Whatever follows has to be better."  What followed was The Third Reich and its leader, Adolph Hitler.

Regards  —  Cliff

Peter Lucas A Tad Off

I read Columnist Peter Lucas' piece, "Obama's Libya misstep:  Leading from the rear", in Friday's [Lowell] Sun.  For a while it will be here, and then it will be on its way to Pluto.

I have two quibbles about the column.

First, President Bill Clinton's conduct of the operations in Kosovo didn't actually go that smoothly.  The decision to intervene militarily took a very long time and then the bombing effort went on for months, while the US Army tried to deploy ground forces to back up the bombing.  In the end, it worked, but it wasn't pretty.  However, this fracas was not an example of the value of leading from the front.  There was a whole lot of diplomacy involved.  My friend Juan suggested that the measure of effectiveness for the bombing campaign wasn't targets destroyed or tons of bombs dropped, but the number of different air forces with aircraft in the air on a given day.  He was correct.

Second, the true "misstep" might be getting involved at all.  This problem is in Europe's back yard.  We are not the World's Policeman.  Should Europe not be running this show?  Are we not usually being told that the Europeans are big boys now and that Rumsfeld putdown of "Old Europe" is a canard.  I will grant you that due to certain procurement decisions on the part of the Europeans there are certain capabilities that the US posses that they do not, including certain air capabilities and command and control capabilities.  But, that is not a reason for us to be in front.

I think that Mr Lucas fails to make his case.

On top of that, Mr Lucas is negligent in not mentioning that President Clinton conformed to the outline of the War Powers Resolution and President Obama has not.  Mark that down as a misstep for President Obama and a misstep for Mr Lucas.

Regards  —  Cliff

WPA and the NYT

Has the President lost The New York Times or just the liberals?

Regards  —  Cliff

The War in Libya

It is a war in Libya and we are supporting the insurgent side of it.  Here is the good news from Reporters Hadeel al-Shalchi and Maggie Michael:

Libyan rebels Monday broke out toward Tripoli from the opposition-held port of Misrata 140 miles to the east, cracking a government siege as fighters across the country mounted a resurgence in their four-month-old revolt against Moammar Gadhafi.

The source is The Herald but not our Herald.

Here is the link to the article in The Lowell Sun.  I wonder if it will persist, given that it is an AP site and not a Sun site?

Given that Rasmussen is reporting today that the war has only a 26% favorability rating with likely US voters, it would be good to wrap up this adventure.  Given where we are, I am hoping the Obama Administration can see its way clear to be clear with Congress on this and to conform with the War Powers Resolution, even if not acknowledging its Constitutionality.  Given where we are means that we have managed to tick off Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi, but the rebels seem to have a chance to oust him from office.

Regards  —  Cliff