| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Obama chose, early on, the egregious and execrable Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s man. Does Obama really wish to be associated with Jimmy Carter in any way? Brzezinski helped Carter abandon the Shah (with Gary Sick playing his little role as an “Iran expert”), though I doubt that Brzezinski had a hand in composing Carter’s treacly letter to the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was addressed by Carter “as a fellow man of faith.” And Brzezinski, with Carter, was the chief bullier of Begin and the rest of the Israeli delegation at Camp David.
For Brzezinski, to put it mildly, has always been noticeably unsympathetic to Israel. And what is most striking about Brzezinski is that in all his decades out of power, with the usual money-making and careful promotion of his children (Mika, indistinguishable from a thousand others, having risen high, thanks you for your efforts on her behalf), has apparently not felt it his duty to learn a thing about Islam. Yet in the last six years, what has he had to do all day save to attend, a few times a year, a few board meetings? But he pontificates away. And someone -- perhaps Obama himself -- decided that Brzezinski was the man to go to. That worries.
And then there is Samantha Power, possibly just back from her honeymoon. Her entire career has been owed to her “work” on genocide; the Sudan made her. Yet there is no indication that Samantha Power, any more than her fellow traveler or fellow-dabbler in the miseries of the Sudan, Nicholas Kristof (whose career was similarly helped so mightily by his own dispatches from Sudan, or from Darfur -- dispatches that merely reported, but never explained or made sense of things for readers), understands that the Sudan has been an exhibit over the past two decades of two kinds of Muslim Arab malevolence and aggression: toward the Christians and animists of the south, it has been a classic Jihad, designed to continue the push southward by the forces of Islam that has been going on, slowly at first, over the past century in the Sudan. The result has been about 2 million murdered or starved to death. And in Darfur, which for some reason was of much greater interest to the kristofs and the powers that be, exhibits the signs of being not a classic Jihad against the Infidel, but is rather a manifestation of the Arab supremacism of which Islam has always been the vehicle.
Samantha Power is a detail girl about some things. Her last book was an unreadable 642 pages on the life and death, vita morte miracoli, of Sergio Vieira de Mello -- when if she had possessed the gift of summary, and the esemplastic or shaping faculty, she might have produced something one-quarter the size and forty times as good. There is no hint that in all her cellphone calls to Obama, Samantha Power has ever explained to him that in Darfur as in the southern Sudan, the same impulses, from the same texts and tenets, are at work as were at work in the 9/11/2001 bombing, or in the beating to death of a Hindu passing Muslims coming out of Friday Prayers in Bangladesh, or in the “Jihad” (Col. Ojukwu’s own words) against the Christians in Nigeria during the Biafra War, or in the decapitation of Christian schoolgirls by Muslims in Indonesia. Connecting the dots can only take place if you first recognize that the dots have to be connected, and that can only come after having familiarized yourself with the texts, tenets, attitudes of Islam. This Samantha Power -- is the honeymoon over yet, and did anyone think to kiss the Blarney Stone? -- shows no signs of having done. And if Cass Sunstein, whom she just married, remains an adviser to Obama, who in his right mind does not think there will be a place for Samantha Power as an “expert” on foreign policy?
Oh, she’s done very well for herself, but now she may possibly feel obliged to save even a single life in the Sudan. And that can only be done with an American military intervention, one requiring not much by way of soldiers, but simply the overnight destruction of the Sudanese airforce, and seizure of Darfur and the southern Sudan, until such time as a referendum on independence can be held.
One could go on, in a leisurely prosopographical way, holding up for inspection now this “foreign policy adviser” and now that, but this, for now, will have to do.
Posted by Hugh at July 15, 2008 6:14 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Brzezinski was the architect of the plan whereby the U.S. financing for anti-Soviet "mujahadeen" was directed by Pakistan. The Pakistani government gave the lion's share of this funding to the rabid Gulbudin Hekmatyar, whose followers would throw acid at women who were not covered. After the Soviet's were expelled, Hekmatyar made the country ungovernable after reneging on an agreement to share power. This paved the way for the Taliban.
Posted by: Pavlov's dog![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 15, 2008 7:34 AM
Serb "aggression" against Muslims was enough for Clinton to bomb Serbia. Milosevic became the bad guy and Yugoslavia was broken up into several pieces.
Clearly, the same won't be done to Sudan. It's ruled by Muslims. Even if the south is populated largely by Christians, the land itself is Islamic and can never be allowed to revert to Christian control. We can forget independence for the Christians.
European powers would be too afraid of being charged with colonialism to do the right thing so NATO won't do much. China and all other countries that deal with the Sudanese government won't want to risk damaging their relationship. That lets out the UN.
The only reason Darfur is a cause celebre is because it's Arab Muslims attacking black Muslims. It puts a stain on the religion of peace. Arab Muslims attacking black Christians is just business as usual. No news there.
Posted by: PMK at July 15, 2008 7:49 AM
"Brzezinski was the architect of the plan whereby the U.S. financing for anti-Soviet "mujahadeen" was directed by Pakistan."
-by Pavlov's dog
This needs to be brought up again and again and again. Democrats prefer to blame Reagan, Bush and Bush for "funding terrorists in Afghanistan" during the Soviet occupation.
American foreign policy commitments don't change when the White House changes hands. Continuity is important in foreign policy.
at July 15, 2008 9:08 AM
>i>The only reason Darfur is a cause celebre is because it's Arab Muslims attacking black Muslims.
Have you seen a picture of President Bashir? A lot of those "Arab Muslims" appear to be as black as Louis Farrakhan.
Posted by: Seamus at July 15, 2008 11:15 AM
Some of those "Arabs" who look, and are in fact, as black as those they treat, or mistreat, as "black," now think of themselves, or have been allowed to think of themselves, as Arabs.
Posted by: Hugh at July 15, 2008 11:29 AM
We keep pointing out that most people in power in the west have not read the texts, tenants of Islam, nor do they know of the perfect man and role Model Mohammad, and how all that relates today.
It can't be anything other than deliberate, that the power people take on as advisers, others who have not looked at these texts and tenants, or have, but find it 'inconvenient', to mention it.
When all of the time there are people who actually have looked at this, become experts and scholars on the subject, like, Spencer, Fitzgerad, Pipes, R.Ibrahim, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, and many others not mentioned, including many who post here, who actually 'know' what they are talking about. Yet the power, continually seeks out fake experts, or questionable muslims.
There is something wrong with this picture.
Obama will not fix this, he will participate in it and continue it. He will not ask Spencer his opinion, nor seek an interview with Hugh.
Wafa Sultan is out of his picture.
He will seek the advice and opinion of the same people he always has, and you know that list of shady characters....
at July 15, 2008 1:26 PM
Isn't one of the reasons that some of the "Sudanese Arabs" are look black is because they are the children of Arab males and black female slaves.
Isn't that why Saudi Prince Bandar has black African features? Wasn't his mother a slave?
Posted by: 4infidels at July 15, 2008 3:19 PM
Zbigniew Brzezinski gives me the willies, too. One reason is that Brzezinski seems to still see the world through the eyes of a Pole on the eve of not the Hitler-Stalin pact, but of the Chmielnicki rebellion. Some may argue he's a Cold Warrior like Condie Rice, but Rice at least recognized that the problem with the Soviet Union was its Marxist-Leninism. Brzezinski, on the other hand, saw the problem with the Soviet Union as its being Russian.
They say that in grad school, Brzezinski proposed that should Quebec secede from Canada, the rest of Canada would join the USA due to a common language and culture. This reflects the typical blind spots of a "small nations" European nationalist, which can see no farther than the ethnic dimensions.
Further, as Carter's minion, Brzezinski pushed for a supposed "alliance" with Communist China, whose Marxism-Leninism was in many ways more fanatical. There is not a single case in which this supposed "alliance" ever bore so much as a bud, much less any fruit; while at the same time it undercut Taiwan fatally and convinced most of the rest of Asia that American "guarantees" were basically made of used toilet paper. Brzezinski's blinders about China (it's against Russia, so it's for us) also allowed him to totally ignore the rise of dissident religious faiths, organized crime, political dissidence, samizdats, and the like in China while he was triumphantly touting that these presaged the decay of totalitarianism in the Soviet Bloc.
It is also more than a hundred percent likely that for men like Brzezinski, all of Asia, from Hualien to Haifa, is a vast intellectual terra incognita. Rice at least recognized its importance by upping the number of consualtes in India while reducing them in Yurrupp; Brzezninski probably believes Asia is a "historyless" mass.
No, we need new ideas badly. But Washington isn't going to grow them.
Posted by: Kepha at July 15, 2008 6:02 PM
What worries me about Obama is the fact that he is related to more Muslims from his father side and he is closer to them than to his atheist relatives from his mother side that are about a dozen or two at the most. His relatives in Kenya are in hundreds and they are all 100% Muslims. He has been very close to his Muslim relatives. He has visited them many times and less than two years ago he went to Kenya and campaigned for his first cousin (Muslim) who was running against a Christian candidate. When the Christian candidate defeated his cousin, his Muslim supporters burned hundreds of those Christians alive while they took refuge in their churches – they burned the churches while people were trapped alive inside them. Assuming that this story has nothing to do with Obama he still has some loyalty to Islam by virtue of having relation to hundreds Muslims. I question his motive when he opposed the war on Iraq – he was listening to his leaders Luis Farrakhan and Rev, Wright. Both Farrakhan and Wright are very anti American, Anti Whites and anti Jews. I believe that Obama’s Christianity hinged on Rev. Wright who helped him convert to “Christianity”. And I doubt that he became Christian because he had a revelation or belief in Jesus Christ. I believe it was a calculated decision to become Christian to help his long term ambition to run for a high level office. I believe he would have converted to Judaism if it were to help his odds for candidacy. I have no doubt that if Obama were a US Senator in 2003 he would have voted like every democrat. All the democrats supported President Bush’s war on terror and Obama would have been wise enough not to vote against his fellow democrats whom he would need in due time.
Now let’s talk about our troops in Iraq. McCain refuses to specify when he will bring them as any poker player would tell you; you do not play poker with an open hand. Obama is cashing in on the fact that even the pets in the US are sick and tired of Iraq and they all want the US soldiers home. Obama says “Huh, if every one wants the troops home then if I promise to bring them home people will vote for me”. How stupid does he think we are? We are smart enough to know that once Obama is elected as the US President, he will come up with tens of excuses to keep the troops in Iraq to prevent an all out war between Muslims. He would be somewhat sympathetic to Muslims and his relative would not forgive him if he did not prevent an all out war between Muslims. Just because a president promises something to get elected does not mean that he will not back down on his promise. We all remember “No Tax increase, read my lips” when Bush Sr. had to back down on his promise because the situation required it. McCain is more likely to bring home the troops as he has no obligations but to American people and the troops. Obama will have a conflicting situation as he feel obligated to his own Muslim relatives, hundreds of them. When Obama explained the National Anthem Stance, “As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides” Obama said. “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message…” What sides was he afraid to take? American vs. Muslim? Only to Muslims the American flag is a symbol of oppression.
at July 16, 2008 3:12 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)