Can America ever win another war?

Can America ever win another war?

Can America ever win another war?

Wars are not won on the battlefield. They are won or lost by the will and resolve of the people of the countries who fight them. Unfortunately the U.S. has been so manipulated by the leftist media and by communist organizations, such as International ANSWER and Code Pink, that it has lost its will and resolve to defend itself, and to win wars.

American has a 60 year record of failing to prevail against strategically significant enemies. Our last victory was World War II.

In 1951 we went to Korea to stop the spread of communism. We left after three years because we lost interest and our will to win. We entered into a truce that today has possible nuclear consequences for this country.

10 years later we went to Vietnam for the same cause – stop the advance of communism, only to withdraw unbeaten, but certainly unvictorious, after 10 years. America simply lost the will to prevail. Millions of innocent Vietnamese were killed in the carnage that followed our exit.

We did vigorously rebound and we demonstrated renewed prowess in the First Gulf War, however, we did not have a decisive victory.

As we now see that Congress is ready to give up once again, it is not unreasonable to ask: Are Americans capable of winning real wars?

Some moderate successes, like Grenada and Panama have been offset by frustration in Kosovo and Somalia. Each conflict was similar. Despite superior materiel, tactics and supplies, we did not have the emotional will to endure battle. War is an unpleasant business.

It wasn’t always so. The Revolutionary War lasted 8 years (1775-1783). George Washington lost every battle except for the last one, yet the Revolutionaries continued the battle, with the support of the colonists, until they won. The will and strength of the American armed forces in the first World War are legendary, as is the unified support of the American people for their men in uniform during both World Wars.

The American Army spent December 1944 resisting a surprise German thrust into its lines – The Battle of the Bulge. Hundreds of thousands of American GI’s spent weeks of freezing nights in a Belgian forest, sleeping in foxholes dug in the snow. Cut off from their supply lines, many lacked coats and even socks. But, knowing that the Nazis were just yards away, most were satisfied with cold, watery soup as long as they got bullets for their rifles. These American soldiers, our “greatest generation,” held on tenaciously, despite suffering 19,000 lives in that battle. They went on to save millions in concentration camps despite enduring much worse conditions in the field than our forces in Iraq today.

What changed in America? Why don’t we have the “stomach” for a fight? This lack of commitment is evidenced in the resistance to an obvious need for a greater force in Iraq. It is displayed in the congressional games that focus on appeasement, surrender and withdrawal for political reasons regardless of the cost to America and the West. It is reflected in citizens of the U.S. who find three deaths per day repulsive, while ignorant that the freedoms they enjoy were won in battles with casualty reports that rounded off daily deaths to the nearest thousand.

That may be the problem. Americans, who have forgotten the pain and shock of 9-11, have also forgotten that once there was no America, and that its birth came at a price. And that the preservation of America and all that it stands for has also come at a price.

General Douglas MacArthur made this profound statement to the cadets at West Point, “Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory; that if you lose, the nation will be destroyed.”

Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

We have to strengthen and re-toughen the calluses that our ancestors developed while building this nation. We have to not succumb to the requests for surrender and appeasement that the media, and the Left, want us to accept.

Our enemies are ruthless and committed. If we don’t learn how to fight – and win, we will soon be reminded of that.


John Kerry speaks out against the U.S.

John Kerry speaks out against the U.S.

As reported by the Pakistan Daily Times, speaking to an international audience in Davos, Switzerland today, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) blasted the United States by calling it “…a sort of international pariah.”

The statement came as the Democrat lawmaker responded to a question about whether the US government had failed to adequately engage Iran’s government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. Kerry said the Bush administration has failed to adequately address a number of foreign policy issues, speaking during a World Economic Forum panel discussion that also included Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi and Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad’s more moderate predecessor as Iranian president. “When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said. “So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East _ in the world, really. I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”

Kerry further stated:

Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”

I don’t what other lens the Senator would like us to see the world through.

When an American speaks out against the United States during time of war on foreign soil that used to be called treason. Sen. Kerry dishonors himself and his country.

The dictionary definition of treason is:

trea·son Pronunciation (trzn)
1. Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

If this doesn’t rise to the level of treason, at the very least it can be considered disloyalty to one’s country.

Let’s take some action by requesting the Senate to censure Sen. Kerry. If the Democratic Senate won’t censure, then let’s get a Republican Senator to introduce a resolution of censure.


Is Rudy Giuliani a Conservative?

Is Rudy Giuliani a Conservative?

The article below shows what the mainstream media and the Democrats don’t want you to know about Rudy Giuliani. Tax cuts, crime control, strong leadership are all part of his quiver. But there is more. And, the way the media has portrayed him has not been accurate. This article gives you chapter and verse about the policies, philosophy and actions of Rudy Giuliani. It is the actions and the positive results of those actions to look at.

Take a look at them and think about President Hillary, or President Obama. Really scary is the FACT that Al Gore WILL be running for president as the candidate of the no-nothing Democrats.

Republicans and our nation need a responsible leader for our nominee We need a winner than shares of principles. Thanks to our legislative leaders and Governor Schwarzenegger, California will be an important part of the decision making process. Lets make the most of it. Feel free to forward this article to your friends and associates. Send it to bloggers.

What do you think about the 2008 race? Should we nominate the strongest candidate with our principles? Write your thoughts directly on the web site for all to see and discuss. while this is a longer article than usual me the California Political news and Views to publish, it is a worthwhile read for serious political people and those concerned about the future of our nation.

The above are thoughts from my friend Steve Frank. I am in full agreement.

(full disclosure: I am a strong supporter of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani for President)

Steven Malanga, writing in The City Journal says that Giuliani is indeed a conservative. This is a rather lengthy article, but gives a lot of information on the former Mayor.


Not since Teddy Roosevelt took on Tammany Hall a century ago has a New York politician closely linked to urban reform looked like presidential timber. But today ex–New York mayor Rudy Giuliani sits at or near the top of virtually every poll of potential 2008 presidential candidates. Already, Giuliani’s popularity has set off a “stop Rudy” movement among cultural conservatives, who object to his three marriages and his support for abortion rights, gay unions, and curbs on gun ownership. Some social conservatives even dismiss his achievement in reviving New York before 9/11. An August story on the website Right Wing News, for instance, claims that Giuliani governed Gotham from “left of center.” Similarly, conservatives have been feeding the press a misleading collection of quotations by and about Giuliani, on tax policy and school choice issues, assembled to make him look like a liberal.

But in a GOP presidential field in which cultural and religious conservatives may find something to object to in every candidate who could really get nominated (and, more important, elected), Giuliani may be the most conservative candidate on a wide range of issues. Far from being a liberal, he ran New York with a conservative’s priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way. He denied that cities and their citizens were victims of vast forces outside their control, and he urged New Yorkers to take personal responsibility for their lives. “Over the last century, millions of people from all over the world have come to New York City,” Giuliani once observed. “They didn’t come here to be taken care of and to be dependent on city government. They came here for the freedom to take care of themselves.” It was that spirit of opportunity and can-do-ism that Giuliani tried to re-instill in New York and that he himself exemplified not only in the hours and weeks after 9/11 but in his heroic and successful effort to bring a dying city back to life.

The entrenched political culture that Giuliani faced when he became mayor was the pure embodiment of American liberalism, stretching back to the New Deal, whose public works projects had turned Gotham into a massive government-jobs program. Even during the post–World War II economic boom, New York politicians kept the New Deal’s big-government philosophy alive, with huge municipal tax increases that financed a growing public sector but drove away private-sector jobs. Later, in the mid-1960s, flamboyant mayor John Lindsay set out to make New York a poster child for the Johnson administration’s War on Poverty, vastly expanding welfare rolls, giving power over the school system to black-power activists, and directing hundreds of millions of government dollars into useless and often fraudulent community-based antipoverty programs. To pay for all this, Lindsay taxed with abandon. The result: sharply increasing crime, a rising underclass inclined to languish on welfare rather than strive to uplift itself, a failing school system that emphasized racial grievance and separateness, and near-bankruptcy.

Giuliani ran New York City, a hotbed of liberal welfare state politics before his tenure, as a true conservative.

By the time Giuliani challenged Dinkins for a second time, in 1993 (his first try had failed), the former prosecutor had fashioned a philosophy of local government based on two core conservative principles vastly at odds with New York’s political culture: that government should be accountable for delivering basic services well, and that ordinary citizens should be personally responsible for their actions and their destiny and not expect government to take care of them. Giuliani preached the need to reestablish a “civil society,” where citizens adhered to a “social contract.” “If you have a right,” he observed, “there is a duty that goes along with that right.” Later, when he became mayor, Giuliani would preach about the duties of citizenship, quoting the ancient Athenian Oath of Fealty: “We will revere and obey the city’s laws. . . . We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public sense of civic duty. Thus in all these ways we will transmit this city not only not less, but far greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.”

In New York, where generations of liberal policy had produced a city in which one in seven citizens lived off government benefits, in which lawbreakers whose actions diminished everyone else’s quality of life were routinely ignored or excused, in which the rights of those who broke the law were often defended vigorously over the rights of those who adhered to it, Giuliani’s prescriptions for an urban revival based on shared civic values seemed unrealistic to some and dangerous to others. The head of the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter described Giuliani’s ideas on respect for authority and the law as “frightening” and “scary.” But New Yorkers who had watched their city deteriorate were more frightened of life under an outdated and ineffective liberal agenda. Giuliani rode to victory in 1993 with heavy support from the same white ethnic Democratic voters who, nearly a decade earlier, had crossed party lines even in liberal New York to vote for Ronald Reagan.

To those of us who observed Giuliani from the beginning, it was astonishing how fully he followed through on his conservative principles once elected, no matter how much he upset elite opinion, no matter how often radical advocates took to the streets in protest, no matter how many veiled (and not so veiled) threats that incendiary figures like Al Sharpton made against him, and no matter how often the New York Times fulminated against his policies. In particular, offended by the notion that people should be treated differently and demand privileges based on the color of their skin, Giuliani was fearless in confronting racial extortionists like Sharpton. Early in his tenure, he startled the city when he refused to meet with Sharpton and other black activists after a confrontation between police and black Muslims at a Harlem mosque. And though activists claimed that Giuliani inflamed racial tensions with such actions, there were no incidents during his tenure comparable with the disgraceful Crown Heights riot under Dinkins, in which the police let blacks terrorize Orthodox Jews for several days in a Brooklyn neighborhood.

As to taxes and business incentives:

Giuliani’s efforts to revive entrepreneurial New York naturally focused on unleashing the city’s private sector through tax cuts achieved by slowing the growth of government. Giuliani preached against New York’s lingering New Deal belief that government creates jobs, arguing that government should instead get out of the way and let the private sector work. “City government should not and cannot create jobs through government planning,” he said. “The best it can do, and what it has a responsibility to do, is to deal with its own finances first, to create a solid budgetary foundation that allows businesses to move the economy forward on the strength of their energy and ideas. After all, businesses are and have always been the backbone of New York City.”

When Giuliani took office, the city’s private sector was experiencing the worst of times. After four years under Dinkins, it had shrunk to its lowest level since 1978, losing 275,000 jobs—192,000 in 1991 alone, the largest one-year job decline that any American city had ever suffered. Not coincidentally, Gotham also had the highest overall rate of taxation of any major city and a budget that spent far more per capita than any other major city. Despite that, and despite billions of dollars in tax increases during the Dinkins years, New York could barely pay its bills, and Giuliani, immediately after taking office, faced a nearly $2.5 billion budget deficit.

Giuliani’s first budget, submitted just weeks after he took office, stunned the city’s political establishment by its fiscal conservatism. To demonstrate his disdain for the reigning orthodoxy, when the New York Times editorial board urged him to solve the budget crisis with tax and fee increases that a Dinkins-era special commission had recommended, Giuliani unceremoniously dumped a copy of the commission’s report into the garbage and derided it as “old thinking.” It was a pointed declaration that a very different set of ideas would guide his administration.

As far his response during the attack on this country on 9/11:

Today, Americans see Giuliani as presidential material because of his leadership in the wake of the terrorist attacks, but to those of us who watched him first manage America’s biggest city when it was crime-ridden, financially shaky, and plagued by doubts about its future as employers and educated and prosperous residents fled in droves, Giuliani’s leadership on 9/11 came as no surprise. What Americans saw after the attacks is a combination of attributes that Giuliani governed with all along: the tough-mindedness that had gotten him through earlier civic crises, a no-nonsense and efficient management style, and a clarity and directness of speech that made plain what he thought needed to be done and how he would do it.

Like great wartime leaders, Giuliani displayed unflinching courage on 9/11. A minute after the first plane struck, he rushed downtown, arriving at the World Trade Center just after the second plane hit the South Tower, when it became obvious to everyone that New York was under attack. Fearing that more strikes were on the way—and without access to City Hall, the police department, or the city’s command center because of damage from the attacks—Giuliani hurried to reestablish city government, narrowly escaping death himself as the towers came down next to a temporary command post he had set up in lower Manhattan. “There is no playbook for a mayor on how to organize city government when you are standing on a street covered by dust from the city’s worst calamity,” one of his deputy mayors, Anthony Coles, later observed.

Giuliani understood that he needed not only to keep city government operating but to inspire and console as well. Within a few hours, he had reestablished New York’s government in temporary headquarters, where he led the first post-9/11 meeting with his commissioners and with a host of other New York elected officials on hand to observe, prompting even one of his harshest critics, liberal Manhattan congressman Jerrold Nadler, to marvel at the “efficiency of the meeting.” Within hours, the city launched a massive search and recovery operation. Some half a dozen times that day Giuliani went on TV, reassuring the city and then the nation with his calm, frank demeanor and his plainspoken talk. As the nation struggled to understand what had happened and President Bush made his way back to Washington, Giuliani emerged as the one public official in America who seemed to be in command on 9/11. He became, as Newsweek later called him, “our Winston Churchill.”

To me, this is a good indication of how he would behave as a “war President.” Rudy also has the benefit of appealing to Democrats and independents, as well as Republicans.

I know he won’t be popular with religious and social conservatives who consider social conservatism to be paramount. As far as I am concerned this country needs in 2008 a strong, conservative, ethical,independent and fearless leader who can rally not only the American people to the cause of protecting freedom, but the entire free world, and, especially, someone who recognizes the threat to our freedom. As Steven Malanga concludes in his article

These are impressive conservative credentials. And if social and religious conservatives fret about Giuliani’s more liberal social views, nevertheless, in the general election such views might make this experience-tested conservative even more electable.

Read the whole article.


Clear thinking from James Woolsey

Clear thinking from James Woolsey

James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, in an interview with Israel National Radio, has spoken a blunt truth.

Asked his opinion on the establishment of a Palestinian state, the former CIA director recommended that it not happen in the coming decades. He said that though the Jewish presence in this region precedes the Moslem claim – “for some Muslims like Arafat to deny that Jews were ever present here is idiotic” – the Moslems also have national rights in the area.

Openly avoiding the question of the nature or borders of a Palestinian state, he emphasized his opinion that “the Palestinians should not be granted the right to statehood until they start to treat Israeli Jews who settle in the West Bank as fairly as Israel treats its Muslim citizens.”

“An Arab Muslim living in Jaffa,” Woolsey said, “enjoys freedom of speech, religion, and expression, and can vote for his representatives in the Knesset, and doesn’t go to sleep worrying that some government element might come and kill him. I think that once the Palestinians start treating Jewish settlers with that same degree of humanity – and they’re very, very far from doing that now – at that point I think we have to seriously consider how they could have some degree of self-governing. I won’t get into the question of borders, but what I think is that the Palestinians must be held to the same standards as Israel regarding how they treat the other. I am sure this will be many decades from now, though, because their children are taught the Wahhabi doctrine of being suicide bombers and the like.”

Woolsey also says, of involving Syria and Iran in discussion about the Middle East:

Traiman: “There are continuous calls for American troop withdrawals from Iraq; the unilateral withdrawal idea is back on the table here in Israel; and talks with Syria are again being pushed. Why are we playing the appeasement card?”Woolsey: “Appeasement isn’t called playing a card – it’s just folding. I think those steps that you just mentioned are most unwise. Talking to Syria and negotiating should be done only when one has leverage… Unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank would not be a wise step for Israel to take; when one sees what happened in Gaza, and sees the political advantage that Hamas has taken of the situation to claim unilateral victory and now to be part of the PA government – how many failures do you need before you recognize that it’s a failure?”

Read the whole article.

I hope the Olmert Government is listening to Director Woolsey.

I also wonder why the Senate is not listening to former CIA Director Woolsey as they proceed to issue a Resolution, even though non-binding, that will give comfort and hope to our enemy while our troops are in harms way. A despicable act, in my view.

In a separate interview, James Woolsey says that

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process was a “scam” during the 1990s and because of that Washington should not be pushing Israel to make a “land for peace deal” now.Bush is the first U.S. leader to publicly back the idea of a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But former CIA director James Woolsey said this week the U.S. should learn from past experience. Until something changes in the P.A. there would not be an Israeli-Palestinian deal, he said.


Senators need your views today

Senators need your views today

Republicans, particularly Republican Senators, should not be encouraging the enemy in time of war.

In a previous post I urge everyone to Take the Pledge.

In a post this morning, Hugh Hewitt relates that the urgency to contact your Senator has increased. They have not been listening. According to an article in the Washington Post today:

The committee’s partisan vote strengthened the hand of Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and a bipartisan group of senators backing a less forceful resolution of opposition.

Warner and his co-sponsors, Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), went to the Senate floor last night to introduce their resolution of opposition, brandishing a raft of new co-sponsors, including Democrats Ken Salazar (Colo.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), as well as Republicans Gordon Smith (Ore.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.)….

But several Republicans indicated they would vote for a resolution of opposition if the language were toned down. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a presidential candidate, said he was in talks with Warner on a resolution he could embrace. Others were still awaiting some sign of compromise from the president.

According to Hugh:

The Warner resolution encourages the enemy, and that is according to the testimony of General David Petraeus. Not only should it have zero co-sponsors, there should be zero GOP support for any of its first cousin resolutions. In my interview with him yesterday, Norm Coleman indicated that he will reconsider support for the resolution, and every Republican named in this story needs to hear from you as well. E-mailers tell me that Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and George Voinovich of Ohio are also among those who were considering the Warner resolution prior to the Petraeus testimony.

Please spend the day working the phones and the e-mail to let these senators and the GOP leadership know that the Warner resolution is unacceptable.

Sign the pledge and ask your friends and family to do so as well (more than 6,000 have done so in 18 hours.). The country is not defeatist, does support victory in Iraq, and most certainly does not support encouraging the enemy.

Senator Kyl told me that “I think my colleagues have their ears to the ground,” but they are clearly not hearing from the core of the party, a core that will not shrug off a vote for the Warner resolution or any resolution that undermines the policy already in place and supported by not just the President but also by General Petraeus.

Please tell the candidates in the ’08 cycle especially –Alexander, Collins, Coleman and Smith and would-be presidential nominee Brownback—that a vote for the Warner resolution is the end of support for them and the NRSC.

Senator Alexander’s phone: (202) 224-4944. His e-mail is here.

Senator Brownback’s phone: (202) 224-6521. His e-mail is here.

Senator Coleman’s phone: (202) 224-5641.His e-mail is here.

Senator Collins’ phone: (202) 224-2523. Her e-mail is here.

Senator Smith’s phone: (202) 224-3753. His e-mail is here.

Senator Voinovich’s phone: (202) 224-3353. His e-mail is here.

The GOP leadership, which needs to announce that no resolution will be voted on that encourages the enemy, and that includes the Warner resolution or any cousin of the Warner resolution:

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s phone is (202) 224-2541. His e-mail is here.

Minority Whip Trent Lott’s phone is (202) 224-6253. His e-mail is here.

Senator Jon Kyl’s phone is (202) 224-4521. His e-mail is here.

Senator John Ensign’s phone is (202) 224-6244. His e-mail is here.

When you are done calling and writing, start over, and ask your friends to do so as well, beginning with the pledge.

I don’t know what these senators are thinking this morning, but they clearly haven’t been listening to you. No debate will begin or vote be taken until next week, so invest some time in supporting the troops by bringing clarity to these senators: You can’t win a war by encouraging the enemy and undercutting the commander on the ground in Iraq or the Commander-in-Chief in the White House. Not to understand that is a great way to send an irreversible message to core supporters that their time and money is best spent elsewhere.

Hugh states:

It will discourage me to begin the ’07-08 campaign cycle aware that I won’t be able to support with time or money some very fine senators or, in all likelihood, the NRSC. But victory in war trumps party. The senators may say they are voting their conscience. So will I.

So will I.


Take the Pledge

Take the Pledge

I’m with Hugh Hewitt on this:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the President has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Take the pledge, and tell the NRSC:

Ronald Reagan Republican Center
425 2nd Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Then e-mail Senator McConnell and Senator Ensign, and tell them too. Senator McConnell’s phone number is (202) 224-2541. Senator Ensign’s phone number is (202) 224-6244.

GOP activists and donors built the GOP senate delegation, as well as the majority that was punted away. They can disassemble it as well, and GOP support for a neoappeasement resolution is exactly the way to start that process.

The Congressional GOP has to realize it cannot have it both ways –you can’t be for victory after you were against it.

And GOP senators –alone or as a group– definitely cannot count on the support of the base if any of them vote for appeasement.

Go to this site to sign the pledge.




Do you want to be a Border Patrol agent and do your job to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country? Do you want to prevent drug smugglers from bringing drugs across the border?

The Question of Carter’s Cash

The Question of Carter’s Cash

Claudia Rosett writing in the National Review has an article about where the cash comes from that funds the Carter Foundation:

Did Jimmy Carter do it for the money? That’s the question making the rounds about Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, an anti-Israeli screed recently written by the ex-president whose Carter Center has accepted millions in Arab funding.

Even in Carter’s long history of post-presidential grandstanding, this book sets new standards of irresponsibility. Purporting to give a balanced view of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, Carter effectively shrugs off such highly germane matters as Palestinian terrorism. The hypocrisies are boundless and include adoring praise of the deeply oppressive, religiously intolerant Saudi regime side by side with condemnations of democratic Israel. In one section, typical of the book’s entire approach, Carter includes a “Historical Chronology,” from Biblical times to 2006, in which he dwells on events surrounding his 1978 Camp David Accords but omits the Holocaust. Kenneth W. Stein, the founder of the Carter Center’s Middle East program, resigned last month to protest the book, describing it in a letter to Fox News as “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.” As this article goes to press, more protest resignations, this time from the Carter Center’s board of councilors, appear to be in the works.

If there is a silver lining to any of this, it is that Carter’s book has drawn much-overdue attention to some of the funding that pours into the Carter Center, whose intriguing donor list includes anti-Israeli tycoons and Middle East states. Founded in 1982 and appended to Carter’s presidential library, the center has served for almost a quarter century as the main base and fund-raising magnet for Carter’s self-proclaimed mission to save the world.

In recent weeks, a number of articles have noted that Carter’s anti-Israeli views coincide with those of some of the center’s prime financial backers, including the government of Saudi Arabia and the foundation of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, whose offer of $10 million to New York City just after Sept. 11 was rejected by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani because it came wrapped in the suggestion that America should rethink its support of Israel. Other big donors listed in the Carter Center’s annual reports include the Sultanate of Oman and the Sultan himself; the government of the United Arab Emirates; and a brother of Osama bin Laden, Bakr BinLadin, “for the Saudi BinLadin Group.” Of lesser heft, but still large, are contributions from assorted development funds of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as of OPEC, whose membership includes oil-rich Arab states, Nigeria (whose government is also a big donor to the Carter Center), and Venezuela (whose anti-American strongman Hugo Chávez benefited in a 2004 election from the highly controversial monitoring efforts of the Carter Center).

Jimmy Carter pretends to be fair and balanced in his book about the Middle East and his comments, but he fails to disclose that funding for his Foundation comes from people like the king of Saudi Arabia, BCCI scandal banker Agha Hasan Abedi, and Arafat pal Hasib Sabbagh.

Rosett concludes her article as follows:

In a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece defending his new book (and insinuating that the debate over it is being controlled by pro-Israeli lobbyists), Carter wrote that he is merely seeking a “free and balanced discussion of the facts.” It is quite possible that even he may not know for sure whether he has molded his views to suit anti-Israeli donors; whether his center has attracted the money of such donors because they like his views; or whether, while fighting the guinea worm, he simply made the unrelated mistake of writing an appallingly biased and bad book. But having parlayed his former public office into global influence, he owes the public at least this much: Tell us, clearly and directly, enough about your supporters and their money that we can, with full information, decide for ourselves what is going on.

With Jimmy Carter’s refusal to enter into a public debate over the facts contained in his book, and the resignation of many of the Carter Center Board of Councilor Members because of their disagreement with many statements in his book, Jimmy Carter continues to bring shame on himself and his once good name.

Previous related posts:
14 Carter Board Members Resign
Carter: An anti-semitic hypocrite
Jewish Democrats: Does the Party still represent you?
Letter from Ari Fleischer to former President Carter
A Reply to Jimmy Carter
The Movement to Censure Jimmy Carter


14 Carter Center Board Members Resign

14 Carter Center Board Members Resign

Letters Sent by Carter Board Members
January 11, 2007 10:34 a.m.

Below, the text of two letters sent Thursday, Jan. 11, by members of the Carter Center Board of Councilors.
Continue reading “14 Carter Center Board Members Resign”

Why America can’t win the war against Jihad

Why America can’t win the war against Jihad

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, a political scientist, author and lecturer, co-founder of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy published an essay in Israel National News about why the U.S. is not prepared to defend itself against the threat of Islamic Jihad.

He states, in part:

College-educated, pseudo-humanists of the media have eroded American resolve. A poll just days after 9/11 showed that 76 percent of Americans said they would support military action against Al-Qaeda even if it meant 5,000 troops would be killed. Today, a majority no longer identifies the war in Iraq as part of the wider War on Terror. Moreover, less than 10 percent supports military action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Why don’t college students know that a nuclear Iran would dominate the Middle East and the oil resources of the Persian Gulf? Why don’t they know that a pacifist Europe, already Arabized, would succumb to nuclear blackmail? Why don’t they know that the loss of Europe would wreck America’s economy and radically curtail the scholarships and funding on which the education and careers of these college students ultimately depend? Why is there this ignorance?

Relativism closes their minds. By denying the existence of evil, relativism erodes America’s confidence in the justice of its cause against Islamic terrorism. Like the mandarins of the BBC, those of CNN, ABC, NBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post choke on the word “terrorists.” To avoid being “judgmental,” these opinion-makers prefer to call terrorists “guerrillas” or just plain “activists.” But this is not all.

Relativism has degenerated into “moral reversal.” The clearest example of this metamorphosis is the media’s coverage of the war between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Whereas the victim, Israel, is portrayed as the villain, the villains – Arab terrorists – are portrayed as the victims. This moral inversion is conspicuous on university campuses, where Israel has been demonized. But so has President George Bush been so demonized. It is precisely on those campuses where the anti-war movement has flourished. What is singularly significant, the anti-war movement facilitated the victory of the Democratic Party in the recent November elections.

Exceptions notwithstanding, the Democratic Party of today differs radically from that of Franklin D. Roosevelt or even of John F. Kennedy. The difference between today’s Democratic Party and the floundering Republican Party is not merely political; it’s also cultural. The Democratic Party now includes powerful anti-American elements. Some call them the “cosmopolitan Left.” I think it’s more accurate to call them the “anti-National Left” – the same Left that now dominates Europe and Israel.

I find it incredible that Americans do not recognize the very real threat facing our culture and way of life. So much has been published by writers such as Stephen Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Lawrence Wright, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, Bat Yeor and others about what Jihad is all about. Why is it that the educated elite, mostly on the Left, don’t recognize the threat? The doctrine of uncritical multiculturism and moral relativism will destroy the American way of life.

Prof. Eidelberg further writes:

Although America has always been multicultural, its ethnic diversity was based on a tradition of freedom, self-reliance and self-restraint modulated by Judeo-Christian ethics. Today, multiculturalism has been tainted by the dispiriting moral nihilism of academia. The most prestigious universities have educated America’s political, diplomatic and media elites, an increasing number of which are anything but champions of the American political tradition. American democracy is in trouble.

Since the American government is not about to curtail the freedom of expression on which the universities and the media depend – and which Muslims exploit – America can hardly win the war against its most dangerous enemy and still retain its reputation as a democracy.

I am more optimistic and feel that ultimately Americans will rise to the challenge. I just hope it isn’t too late.

Read the whole article.