Streetwise Professor

January 2, 2010

And the First Clue Was?

Filed under: Military,Politics — The Professor @ 10:53 am

Obama ties failed plane attack to al Qaeda. [That’s the Reuters headline.]

The probability that that was true was far higher, conditional on information available three days after the Christmas bombing attempt, than was the probability that the would-be bomber was a “lone extremist.” Yet Obama made the “lone extremist” assertion nonetheless, in his first remarks on the event. This betrays him as a man that is enslaved to his pre-conceptions, to a meme, to a narrative. Time after time–the Gates-Crowley episode, the Major Hasan terrorism, and now with the junkbomber–Obama’s response is to regurgitate shibboleths lifted directly from the progressive, transnational, lefty narrative. He does this even when–or, should I say, especially when–the evidence before his eyes weighs heavily against these lazy, reflexive conclusions.

Bush was rightly criticized for his stubbornness. But if anything, Obama seems to cling even more stubbornly to his delusions. It is good, I guess, that he has acknowledged the obvious, even if it took a week; but only the schizophrenic can steadfastly deny reality, especially when an entire country is watching. Absent more compelling and credible signs that he is seriously rethinking the validity of his memes–e.g., reconsideration of the decision to close Guantanamo, reconsideration of the decision to try KSM and others in the US, suspension of repatriations of detainees to Yemen at the time we are engaged in an escalating anti-terror campaign there, to name just three–one cannot be confident that this is anything more than a one-off, grudging concession to political reality, rather than the dawning of a recognition that his security policies are built upon fantasy.

It took the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to disabuse Jimmy Carter of some of his illusions.  What will it take to disabuse Obama of his?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

16 Comments »

  1. There is an article with some interesting information at this link.
    It turns out, al Qaeda tried to assassinate a Saudi prince with the same type of explosives that were used for suicide bombing which killed 7 CIA agents and a US soldier at an Afghans base. But CIA was not able to figure it out that if al Qaeda has access to those explosives, then al Qaeda can use those explosives to blow up aircraft.

    http://www.debka.com/index1.php

    Debka.com is an interesting site. It provides information that usually is not available in the US media.

    They did not say it, but I came to the conclusion that all smart people are on the Wall Street, separating people from their money. And the rest, the halfbrains, go to work for the government, – CIA or otherwise.
    Public schoolers know that Muslims in general are sweet. A few bad apples will turn into good ones as soon as we build schools, hospitals and roads. In my view, with that attitude it’s better to bomb them to the stone age, declare victory and get the hell outta there.

    Comment by Michael Vilkin — January 2, 2010 @ 2:03 pm

  2. NATO will be disbanded before O’bum is out of the office.

    Strange things are going on between Russia and China.
    Russia gave China a right to develop all natural resources in the eastern half of Russia.
    The Chinese will develop coal, copper, and other natural resources.
    Usually there is an auction for such things. Whoever pays more, he gets the right.
    In this case, there was no action, no nothing.

    China got the right to bring Chinese workers and to build housing for them.
    Everyone knows that Chinese will not leave. It’s like illegal Mexicans in California.
    In this case, it’s even worse, because they will not hire Russians.
    We are talking about China gradually taking over the eastern half
    People in Russia are shocked, “What the hell is going on?”.
    But the question that should be asked is, “What Russia will get in return?”

    A strange thing is that Russia will develop a huge coal mine in Mongolia.
    Russia will invest a few billions of dollars to build rail roads in Mongolia.
    Mongolia is between China and Russia. Why would one develop a coal mine in Mongolia while giving coal mines on Russian territory to China?

    My understanding is that Russia and China have formed a military alliance. Or, at least, they reached an understanding about a joint strike against Europe.

    Imagine for a minute this scenario.
    China suddenly sells a few thousand tanks to Russia.
    Tanks and other military equipment are moved by the railroads from China through Mongolia to the west of Russia, close to Europe.
    As soon as Russians have a big advantage in tanks and other weapons, the war will be lost by Europe before it begins.

    That is why Russia decided to develop a coal mine in Mongolia and to invest billions of dollars in Mongolian rail roads, which does not make any economic sense.

    They don’t need coal. They need railroads from China to Russia.

    I think in a few years there will be a war in Europe, and Russia will win. I think Russia will again occupy Eastern Europe before O’bum is out of the office. China will get half of Russia, and Russia will get a new collective defense agreement, after NATO is disbanded. Yankees, go home!

    The facts about development of Russian natural resources by China can be found in this article. It can be translated with Google Translate.

    http://rus.ruvr.ru/2009/11/17/2332968.html

    Comment by Michael Vilkin — January 2, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

  3. Give him a break, he was on vacation and besides he did all of the apologizing, genuflecting and generally prostrating himself before the worlds despots in a lame attempt to elicit a new age of cooperation and world harmony. Now that the hot poker of reality has been jammed up his rear, it took a week to gather his facilities to ensure us that he’s on the job protecting us from his forsaken foes! What a naive moron! Surfs up P. Obama dude! I hear seal look alike wetsuits are all the rage!

    Comment by Bob — January 2, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

  4. Bush’s invasion of Iraq was also built on imaginary weapons of mass destruction and it cost 3 trillion and the lives of thousands of American soldiers. But looked at from the perspective of the delusional neoconservative discourse, removal of Saddam was the right thing to do, whatever the material and moral costs to America. Obama was elected because he promised to be better than Bush, against him ran Palin who thought that telling lies and invading countries on false pretext was commanded by God. And now you have an adamant cultural marxist as your president. Well done America!

    Comment by Leos Tomicek — January 2, 2010 @ 6:10 pm

  5. Debka is the Onion of milint sites.

    Comment by So? — January 2, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

  6. Leos Tomicek, your name suggests that you are one of the European liberals.
    I’ve clicked on your name, and there is white text on black screen. Don’t you know that white on black is difficult to read?

    Imaginary weapons of mass destruction?
    How the hell Saddam killed thousands of Kurds?
    Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, you moron?
    Or Kurds’ lives are any less precious than lives of European shitty liberals?
    Who knows, maybe soon Russian tanks will roll over liberal bastion that Europe is. And maybe, just maybe this ugly America should not lift a finger to save your stinky asses.

    Comment by Michael Vilkin — January 2, 2010 @ 11:45 pm

  7. Dear Mr. Vilkin

    You are the first to mention the difficulty of reading white on black to me. To be honest I like white on black and unless I get more complaints I will not change the structure of my blog. And now to the issues you have raised.

    First of all I would like to dispel any notions of my liberalism. The fact that I am antiwar and only began to be so after the attack on Iraq, which I view as unjust and unjustified does not mean I am a liberal. In fact I share a lot of my views with the American paleo-conservative right. If I was a liberal in the American sense I would not use the expression ‘adamant cultural marxist’.

    I should have specified the nature of the imaginary weapons of mass destruction, I meant battle ready weapons of mass destruction, ready to strike US soil any minute (or something of the kind that American leaders warned us about). If any weapons of mass destruction were ever found they were rusty, useless pieces buried in the ground and frankly more of threat to the surrounding environment than far away USofA. Summed up, the threat of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction was pulled out of somebody’s butt.

    It is great that you mentioned the Kurds and called me a moron in the process, I am going to have a bit of fun with this. There is a lot of evidence that the chemical weapons with which the Kurdish villages were gassed was supplied by the Reagan administration back in the 80’s to be used against Iran. What are you going to say about this? After all the gassing of the Kurds happened in the late 80’s when these weapons were still fresh and Americans did nothing about it. They only stepped in when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Kuwait is an oil rich country, nobody in America cares about some Kurdish peasants. Or is it otherwise? Did Americans go to war decade and a half later to avenge the slain peasants or is it just convenient for you to justify war based on dubious humanitarian concern? Didn’t you know that after Desert Storm the Kurds in the north enjoyed a virtual independence from Baghdad and Saddam had no means of manufacturing more gas, let alone harass the remainder of population under his control?

    That said, you would do well to discuss your fear of Russian tanks rolling down European liberal bastions on a sofa. But before you seek out a psychoanalyst near you, ask your self a simple Russian question. ‘Zachem?’ You will hopefully realise that the Russians have no reason to invade Europe, absolutely none.

    Have a nice day…

    Comment by Leos Tomicek — January 3, 2010 @ 2:47 am

  8. Leos Tomicek wrote:
    “There is a lot of evidence that the chemical weapons with which the Kurdish villages were gassed was supplied by the Reagan administration back in the 80’s to be used against Iran. What are you going to say about this?”
    I’m going to say that maybe you are right. Maybe the chemical weapons with which the Kurdish villages were gassed was supplied by the Reagan administration back in the 80’s to be used against Iran.

    Now, can you deduce from it that the chemical weapons with which the Kurdish villages were gassed were NOT supplied by the Reagan administration back in the 80’s to be used against Kurds?
    But Saddam used then against Kurds, and he paid the price.

    ‘Zachem?’ I read Russian forums. They want their empire back. Putin wants a new agreement about collective security in Europe to replace NATO. A good argument for that might become a sudden purchase by Russia thousands of tanks from China and quick delivery to the western border. But actually I don’t even believe that Russia will need it. The first step will be to cut of the gas, and shitty Europe will surrender.

    Since you know Russian, read you moron some Russian forums like this one. And then come back and tell us what they write about America.
    http://www.inosmi.ru/

    Also, are you a fresh incarnation of a Russian agent named SOBlime?

    Comment by Michael Vilkin — January 3, 2010 @ 10:34 am

  9. “What are you going to say about this? After all the gassing of the Kurds happened in the late 80’s when these weapons were still fresh and Americans did nothing about it.”

    That’s not true Leos. The US government did do something about it. The US government prevented the UN from condemning Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran, despite the breach of the 1925 Geneva Convention outlawing the use of chemical weapons.

    Furthermore, the US government sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to shake Saddam’s hand.

    So you see, the US government did do something when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran.

    So you see, the US government did act when Saddam

    Comment by rkka — January 4, 2010 @ 6:16 am

  10. Junkbomber, ha! That is the best name yet for this terrorist.

    Comment by Nicole — January 4, 2010 @ 10:34 am

  11. Thanks rkka 😉

    Comment by Leos Tomicek — January 4, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

  12. rkka wrote:

    “That’s not true Leos. The US government did do something about it. The US government prevented the UN from condemning Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran, despite the breach of the 1925 Geneva Convention outlawing the use of chemical weapons.

    Furthermore, the US government sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to shake Saddam’s hand.

    So you see, the US government did do something when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran.”

    rkka, you made my day.

    The US government sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to shake Saddam’s hand? Then Donald Rumsfeld dud the right thing.
    I’d also shake Saddam’s hand in gratitude for gassing his enemies, the Iranians. Don’t you know that Iranians held American diplomats hostage?
    There was a balance on the account, and America was supposed to get even. I’m happy to know that Donald Rumsfeld did the right thing.

    I think this country needs to regulate pesticides more strictly.
    There is a strong correlation between the use of pesticides, on one hand, and a frightening increase in the number of stupid liberals, on the other hand.

    Comment by Michael Vilkin — January 4, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

  13. Leos wrote:

    “It is great that you mentioned the Kurds and called me a moron in the process, I am going to have a bit of fun with this. There is a lot of evidence that the chemical weapons with which the Kurdish villages were gassed was supplied by the Reagan administration back in the 80’s to be used against Iran. What are you going to say about this?”

    I’m going to say that you are write.
    The chemical weapons with which the Kurdish villages were gassed was supplied by the Reagan administration back in the 80’s to be used against Iran.
    But stupid Saddam gassed Kurds as punishment for their struggle for independence.
    Do you see the difference?

    Leos, I’m writing a thesis for MBA, and I need some data.
    Tell me please, how much pesticides do you eat per year?

    Comment by Michael Vilkin — January 4, 2010 @ 3:27 pm

  14. Leos, you are right, not write. Sorry.

    Comment by Michael Vilkin — January 4, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

  15. @ Vilkin: Yawn…why don’t you address the rest of what I wrote?

    Comment by Leos Tomicek — January 4, 2010 @ 7:02 pm

  16. Leos wrote:

    ” @ Vilkin: Yawn… why don’t you address the rest of what I wrote?”

    And what the hell your yawning means?
    Go to a sex shop and get a plastic penis !
    I’m not available !

    Comment by Michael Vilkin — January 4, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress