CNN Whitewash of Iran's Terror Role in Iraq: Portrays Tehran as Wanting to "Help America a Lot"

During last night’s installment of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper aired a segment titled, “Evidence of Iranian Involvement in Iraq” (transcript here). From this title, a curious viewer would assume that the segment would include evidence or examples of Iranian interference and support for the “insurgents” fomenting attacks on American and Iraqi forces. In classic CNN form, however, Cooper first worked to frame the Iranian interference story in the context of criticism of the troop surge strategy. Cooper led into the expected updated body count from Baghdad with the statement, “If lawmakers needed any more evidence that Iraq will be a tough place to fix, if possible at all, they got plenty more today.” Following that gloomy introduction, CNN efforts to whitewash Iranian involvement in Iraq began in earnest.

Cooper deferred to the “expertise” of seasoned CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour, reporting from Tehran, to provide insight into the Iranian reaction to accusations that Iran is supplying Iraqi militias with powerful weaponry and other forms of support. Amanpour, who notably lacks the word “terrorist” in her otherwise immense vocabulary, used quotations from “sources very close to the government” in Tehran to portray Iran as having no reason for or interest in harming American forces that had liberated their Shiite brethren in Iraq. Fighting the Americans, these sources have convinced Amanpour, is not in Iran’s national interest. Less believable was this gem from Amanpour regarding her Iranian government sources:

They say that they want a democratic and freely elected government in Iraq, which they say exists right now, and that, yes, their position is that they want the U.S. -- quote -- "occupying forces" out, but only have they have laid the groundwork for the possibility to get out, and not to get out precipitously, which would leave -- quote -- "Iraq in a bigger mess than it is in already.”

The idea that Iran would prefer a strong, stable, oil-rich and well-armed Iraq on its border rather than a weak, vulnerable, defenseless oil-rich neighbor is patently absurd. Hitler desired to seize and assimilate neighbors with abundant natural resources (Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc) and Ahmadinejad possesses that same lust for expansion (as well as a similar desire to exterminate Jews).

It is very instructive that a reporter with Amanpour’s extensive experience takes statements like those above from the Iranian government at face value, but does not take seriously that same government’s outspoken threats to annihilate Israel and then the US with nuclear weapons and denies the Holocaust and Israel’s right to exist. How are viewers to decide whether Iran means us no harm in Iraq because we freed the Shiites there or whether Iran wants to destroy America, “the Great Satan,” a term previously coined in Iran? Since actions speak louder than words, and a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps Iran’s continued reckless drive to develop nuclear weapons, its own stated installment of 3,000 new centrifuges, and satellite images of ever-expanding Iranian nuclear facilities should be the basis of our final judgment on Iranian intentions.

Cooper then sets the stage for his next question to Amanpour by first reminding viewers that the Bush administration, despite the urgings of former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, continues to reject any diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Cooper then asks Amanpour whether the Iranian government is open to the idea of talks with the US on the Iraq War. Amanpour offers this remarkable response containing another portrayal of Iran as an innocent, unjustly maligned nation that holds the answers to lasting peace in Iraq:

Well, I think they do want to. And they have made that representation in the past.

Certainly, officially, it's really difficult to get a straight answer on this. But, unofficially, those people who I have been talking to say: Look, we were -- and they use the word partners with the United States over the war in Afghanistan, when the Taliban was kicked out, and we helped the United States, in a very constructive way, usher in the new democratic government of Hamid Karzai.

And even the U.S. admits that. So, these very same people are saying that: We should be having the same kind of cooperation in Iraq. "We know -- who knows Iraq better than us?" they say. We were at war with Iraq for eight years. We have this long border, as Michael pointed out. So many of the leadership and, by the way, the Badr Brigades, the militias, the people in Iraq now who are in the armed camps, were inside Iran. We know a lot, and we can help a lot. And we can help the Americans a lot.

So, on this side, many of the officials are wondering why they can't get to talks to -- with America about this issue.

Cooper and Amanpour neglect to provide the answer to why Iran “can’t get to talks” with America regarding Iraq, despite Cooper having mentioned earlier in this segment that Iran yesterday rejected UN requests to install monitoring cameras or allow inspections of Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Cooper and Amanpour, always quick to point out perceived distortions or duplicity in the Bush administration, seem unwilling to point out the obvious deception from Amanpour’s Iranian government sources. Her sources claim innocence in Iraq and claim no animosity toward American troops or efforts there while funneling weapons, funds, and tactical expertise in terror operations into Iraq, facts acknowledged by the Pentagon and the US intelligence community.

Those same Iranian sources claim to innocently wonder why the US will not negotiate with them while they publicly vow to end Israel’s and America’s existence with nuclear weapons and refuse to comply with UN and UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions intended to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

If Iran will abandon its suicidal obsession with establishing itself as a nuclear power, the US and other nations will be willing to enter diplomatic talks on Iraq and a host of other issues. If these Iranian officials are truly wondering and confused, as Amanpour reports, she could relieve them of that burden by pointing out the hypocrisy of offering to help America and the Iraqi democracy while arming and supplying terrorists in Iraq and simultaneously racing to enrich sufficient uranium to destroy “the Great Satan.”

Perhaps CNN should dispatch its White House Press Corps reporters to Tehran to question Amanpour’s sources with the same impatient zeal and cynical distrust employed to interrogate and embarrass the Bush administration.

Technorati Search Tags: Christiane Amanpour Anderson Cooper Iranian Interference in Iraq Nuclear Diplomacy Iranian nuclear program Ahmadinejad Iraq War Global War On Terror White House Press Corps CNN

Musharraf Orders to Attack Known Terrorists Ignored by Pakistani Military: Military, Government Officials Too Cozy with Radicals

In a fascinating but ultimately disturbing illustration of the internal struggles facing President Musharraf of Pakistan, adnkronosinternational recently reported a growing rift between Musharraf and the Pakistani military, particularly the Pakistani Air Force. Though noticed by Counterterrorism Blog, this particular incident has received surprisingly little media attention despite its ramifications.

To establish the context, last week terrorist bombings were carried out in Peshawar and Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital city. Two Pakistani Taliban leaders, Ghazi Abdul Rasheed and Maulana Abdul Aziz, determined by Pakistani Intelligence to be responsible for the bombings, subsequently took shelter in the compound housing Islamabad’s largest radical madrassa. Thus within the capital city, two known terrorist leaders were hiding in plain sight. Musharraf has been provoked significantly in recent years by Rasheed and Aziz. For example, in 2004 Rasheed and Aziz issued a religious decree, signed by 500 Pakistani “Islamic scholars”, against Pakistani military personnel battling with Al Qaeda in South Waziristan. The decree, which included a refusal to allow Muslim burials in Muslim cemeteries for Pakistani soldiers killed in South Waziristan, resulted in a large number of Pakistani forces refusing to fight Al Qaeda in that region.

In 2005, following the London subway bombings, Musharraf attempted to reign in the radical madrassas in Pakistan, as British investigators determined that the perpetrators of those bombings had been radicalized in the very madrassas challenging Musharraf's anti-terror efforts. Washington and London have since demanded Rasheed and Aziz be arrested, and Pakistani security obtained warrants for both clerics, who cannot leave the Islamabad madrassa for fear of being taken into custody.

Incensed by last weeks attacks, particularly the strike in the capital city, Musharraf weighed his military options and according to a US military intelligence source consulted by Counterterrorism Blog, ordered the Pakistani Army to attack the madrassa and capture or kill Rasheed and Aziz. The Pakistani Army reportedly refused because such an assault would be met with massive resistance from students of the radical clerics. Musharraf this week ordered the Pakistani Air Force to conduct surgical air strikes against the Islamabad madrassa harboring Rasheed and Aziz., but the Air Force refused. As a useful comparison, an equivalent would be a scenario in which terrorists detonated a bomb in Washington, DC, and those responsible for ordering the bombing were hiding in a known location in Washington protected by thousands of loyal radical religious students, many heavily armed, who support the terrorists. President Bush orders the US Army to attack the building and capture or kill the terrorists and the US Army refuses. President Bush then orders a surgical air strike against the building, and the US Air Force refuses. What would be the reason for the refusal? In Pakistan’s case, it was because the military forces have close ties to the radical groups of the same religion to which the soldiers and pilots belong.

According to adnkronosinternational, while meeting with senior Pakistani officials, Musharraf stated the following regarding Rasheed and Aziz, "I don’t want them in federal capital. If you are unable to arrest them…shoot them." Considering the number of assassination attempts Musharraf has survived, mainly from Al Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban followers, the air strike order is understandable. To tolerate the presence of known terrorists responsible for bombings within the capital city would further weaken Musharraf's already tenuous control of his own government. Musharraf’s air strike order was reportedly met with the following reaction:

Those attending reportedly disagreed categorically with the idea of an air strike in the capital city, and pointed out that the students of the influential clerics have already staged a powerful protest in the past few days against the demolition of two mosques in Islamabad and they are a force to be reckoned with.

In essence, the Pakistani Air Force refused the order out of fear of reprisal and protest from radical Islamic students in the capital city. Musharraf appears to be in political peril, unable even to strike or arrest terrorists who bomb Islamabad and take shelter in a nearby building. More ominously, his military commanders are largely operating independently, shaping the intensity, or lack thereof, of Pakistani efforts in the War on Terror. In a previous post I discussed at length the issue of Pakistan’s half-hearted investigations and arrests of known terrorists within that country. Considering the level of control the radical Islamists are exerting over the government and military of Pakistan, the question of how long Musharraf can continue to function as president becomes of grave concern, particularly to the future of neighboring Afghanistan. Emboldened by the political emasculation of Musharraf and operating with virtually no fear of opposition, Talibani and Al Qaeda leaders will likely increase internal pressure on President Karzai.

Counterterrorism Blog crystallized into one sentence the troubling concern this incident raises, “if Musharraf is unable to order an air strike in his own capital city, how can he control his nuclear arsenal?”

What President Bush considers a staunch ally in the War on Terror is impotent to eradicate or even suppress radical Islam within is borders. If the War on Terror can only be won through internal reform of Islam itself, Pakistan provides cause for pessimism that reform is desired or even possible in one of Islam’s largest nations.


Technorati Search Tags: Islamabad Bombing Pakistani Air Force Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Maulana Abdul Aziz Radical Madrassas Islamic Terrorists London Subway Bombings Pakistani military Musharraf Al Qaeda Islamic Extremist

Are You Worth Kidnapping? Do You Know How to Avoid it? Foiled UK Terror Plot Demonstrates Average Westerners at Risk, at Home or Abroad

If you were to evaluate your value to terrorists as a kidnapping hostage, would you conclude that you are a “not high profile” person? Most people, except for the egocentric among us, would likely view themselves as low profile and of little worth to Islamic terrorists seeking to kidnap westerners. According to police sources in Birmingham, England, that should be of little comfort to you as you reside or travel abroad, as the foiling of an “Iraq Style” kidnapping plot in Birmingham this morning demonstrated. It appears to be another instance of home grown terrorism in the United Kingdom, with the terrorists trying “a different approach.”

Kidnappings are not a new tactic for terrorists, as the kidnapping and subsequent murders of British and American contractors and reporters in Iraq in recent years clearly illustrate. However, the British government, which recently focused on improving security on mass transit systems, must now stretch its investigative resources to include potential plots to kidnap its own citizens who would ordinarily be of no value to terrorists. The unnamed potential victim of the Birmingham plot disrupted by police today has been taken into protective police custody, but at this point it appears the man was selected for kidnapping merely because he was a young, average soldier of the British Military home on leave. The soldier had no reason to consider himself worth kidnapping. He was not a ranking officer capable of influencing war decisions or policies. Since that describes a large number of American and allied military personnel stationed abroad in nations with large or predominantly Muslim populations, this particular plot should be of concern to all.

What do we know about the potential victim of this kidnapping plot? He was in his 20s, and was considered a low profile, low ranking soldier. In all respects a low value target. The terrorists selected him based on unrevealed as yet criteria, observed his daily routine and transportation routes while home on leave, and organized a tactical plan to kidnap the young man. The exposed plot did not include plans for ransom, or demands for the release of terrorist detainees or political exiles. The stated intention of the foiled terrorists was to kidnap the young soldier, film his torture and eventual beheading, and broadcast that film via the Internet as a terrorist recruiting propaganda tool.

With that as the goal, realistically any westerner could be utilized as the sacrificial lamb, so to speak, in such films. One need not be a diplomatic, military, or political persona to be effectively used for this purpose. One need only be a westerner. Islamic terrorists will cheer the beheading of a lieutenant, embassy secretary, or accountant as lustily as that of a lieutenant colonel, embassy DCM, or CEO.

Securing mass transit facilities and implementing explosive/chem/bio detection technologies are within the scope of reasonably expected government protection of its citizens. However, this Birmingham plot, apparently involving British Islamic terrorists seeking to kidnap average “infidels” in the UK, is a frustrating nightmare for intelligence and law enforcement agencies. While the potential victim of this plot is in protective custody, how does a government reassure the general population, from which this target was selected, that the government can protect them? The answer is chillingly simple: Governments can make no such assurances of protection from random targeting of average citizens or visiting westerners.

In this case, a trained British soldier of low rank, home on leave, was selected. Such a target would be unsuspecting and unlikely to take precautions to protect himself from fellow British citizens plotting to kidnap him. What should concern the average American or allied business or leisure traveler is the predictable evolution of the Birmingham plot into plots to kidnap westerners with even less training and situational awareness than this unsuspecting soldier possessed.

With this in mind, Spy the News! urges readers who are serving abroad in military or civilian capacities to review the situational awareness and abduction avoidance skills included in government or military provided training. If your employer did not provide training in abduction avoidance/survival, consult the following basic open-source sites for travel and personal security tips that, while seemingly common sense, are often overlooked by harried travelers on tight schedules:

U.S. Department of State “A Safe Trip Abroad”

Wikipedia “How to Thwart an Abduction Attempt”: This basic resource also includes common street crime situations including rape, child abduction, etc.

The government/DOD provided training in these areas is more detailed and tactically oriented, but the USDOS and Wikipedia tips should prove valuable to anyone lacking formal training. The US Government is constitutionally charged with providing for the “common defense,” meaning national security. Individual security is a matter of personal responsibility coupled with government help in educating citizens how to provide for their own personal defense in situations where government protection is unavailable. Hopefully the thwarting of the Birmingham kidnap plot today will slow terrorist plans to implement this strategy on a large scale throughout the world or perhaps convince them this new direction of attack is of little value compared to more visible hard targets. Hard targets are more easily secured and thus, while more desirable, are actually safer than the average citizen or soldier would be if kidnapping replaced IEDs or sniping as preferred terrorist tactics.

Spy the News! reminds readers to be aware, be safe, and be wise. You have more value as a hostage and potential beheading victim than you likely realize.

Technorati Search Tags: UK Terror Arrests Birmingham Kidnapping Plot Counterterrorist Operation Travel Safety Beheading British Military Abduction Avoidance Islamic Terrorists Terrorist Tactics Global War On Terror US Department of State

US Vulnerability Growing, Allies and Foes Note: Chinese General Warns Space "to be Weaponized"

In a timely and well researched commentary yesterday , UPI Editor at Large Arnaud De Borchgrave concisely portrayed China’s growing international economic, political, and technological capabilities while also warning that even our perceived allies are convinced the US cannot win in Iraq largely due to partisan discord in America. Truly China’s reputation is shining more brightly than America’s, and in that light America’s vulnerabilities are illuminated for allies and foes alike to examine closely.

The commentary echoes concerns about intelligence estimates on China expressed in a recent post here at Spy the News! The description of China’s powerful cyberwarfare capabilities lends further credence to concerns that the US intelligence community has underestimated China, to the detriment of our military preparations to combat a foe with equal or perhaps superior technological capabilities, as China’s recent successful test of an anti-satellite missile demonstrated. De Borchgrave delves deeper into the financial strength of China, which is increasing at the expense of America’s former dominance in world markets. While America fights global terrorism, China, unfettered by such drains on its economy, is investing in raw materials and international trade alliances that will ensure sustained growth far into the future.

The entire UPI article is valuable reading, but I wanted to highlight certain portions that will be of interest to Spy the News! readers:


1. US allies, such as Pakistani President Musharraf, are intently watching “the defection of some of President Bush’s Congressional supporters” and see eventual defeat in Iraq because of America’s internal politics.

2. World leaders will perceive premature US withdrawal from Iraq as a defeat for the US.

3. De Borchgrave quoted the following from the Financial Times: "As authority drains from Mr. Bush, so Washington is losing its capacity to determine outcomes elsewhere. Iran is the principal beneficiary."

4. Musharraf and other allies in the War on Terror are “reappraising” their commitments to the US and NATO because US debate on troop withdrawal from Iraq is also convincing them that neither the US nor NATO will complete the mission in Afghanistan, in which Musharraf has invested his political capital and personal safety.

5. America’s dependence on satellites for civilian and military communications and navigation is a largely undefended vulnerability that could fall prey to the so-called E-bomb or Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), which would cripple US communications except for small handheld self transmitting/receiving radio units. [Consider that in 2004, a panel appointed by Congress tasked with evaluating the threat of EMP attack on the US concluded, “While the US military has grown increasingly dependent on computers, electronics and information systems, it has relaxed requirements for EMP-hardened systems since the end of the Cold War and its overall record of adherence to its guidelines for such robust equipment ‘has been spotty’ . . . . This trend continues ‘in the wrong direction’.”]

The US should take at face value the statement of one-star general Yao Yunzhu, director of China's Asia-Pacific Office at the Academy of Military Science in Beijing: “Outer space is going to be weaponized in our lifetime.” As De Borchgrave advises, Yao is 52 years old. Clearly China recognized long ago the need to develop space weaponry, offensive and defensive, and, with enormous economic reserves to invest, has developed them much faster than intelligence analysts predicted.

China’s growing global influence, combined with its cozy import/export oil for weapons trade alliances in the Middle East, particularly Iran, provide ample reason for the US to reevaluate favored nation trade status for China and other economic leverage until that nation ceases funding and equipping the state sponsors of terrorism that the US is spending heavily to defeat.

While John “Pariah” Kerry was in Davos, Switzerland bashing America and the Bush Administration at the World Economic Forum, General Yao Yunzhu attended the same forum and proudly declared China’s primacy in the rush to weaponize space. Democrats and a growing number of Republicans criticize President Bush for concentrating on Iraq and allegedly taking our focus off of the War on Terror. Such critics are guilty of waging war so intensely on President Bush that they are incapable or unwilling to recognize how that internal conflict is affecting world perception of American vulnerability. Our allies and enemies have noticed and are making plans to abandon or attack us accordingly.

Technorati Search Tags: Yao Yunzhu Arnaud De Borchgrave cyberwarfare Electromagnetic Pulse EMP National Intelligence Estimates Davos Switzerland World Economic Forum Chinese Military Intelligence Analysts Space Weapons Satellite Killer Musharaff Iraq War Global War On Terror

Hillary's "Tough" Leadership: "Please, Please, Please Don't Leave Iraq to Me!"

Hillary Clinton’s first campaign visit to Iowa this weekend provided an opportunity for potential voters to test and witness the Senator’s self-proclaimed mettle. Although Clinton sought to demonstrate her forcefulness and caste herself as presidential timbre, she exhibited much more cowardice than conviction when it comes to Iraq.

Pressed repeatedly to explain her vote for war in Iraq, the Senator could have defended her vote with the truth, which was that all available intelligence agreed Iraq possessed WMD and was funding terrorists. Clinton instead trotted out the tired, “If I had known then what I know now . . .” Monday morning quarterback excuse. When truth was on her side, she eschewed it for a partisan attack on the President instead, choosing to ride her Congressional colleagues’ coattails by claiming that President Bush “misled Congress.” Hillary showed her disregard for truth by blaming President Bush, when she and Senator Kerry and nearly all others in Congress accepted as fact the National Intelligence Estimates on Iraq that they, Prime Minister Blair, and the President acted upon in good faith.

While trying to convince potential voters that she had the courage, strength, and background to stand up to “evil and bad men,” Hillary instead communicated a cowardly lament that she, if elected president, may be forced to face difficulties in the Middle East. Hillary is so entrenched in anti-Bush rhetoric that she now refuses to take credit for actually standing up to an “evil man” through her vote to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. When asked to clarify to whom she referred with the phrase “evil and bad men, “ Clinton mentioned Bin Laden but not Hussein, a man who gassed Kurds, waged war on Iran, and tortured and killed thousands of Iraqis. She laudably stood up to him but is now so ashamed of it she blames Bush for tricking her into supporting the war. That Hillary, whom many insist is the shrewdest woman in politics, could be duped by a President endlessly ridiculed by Democrats for being ignorant, stupid, and anti-intellectual, is laughably ironic.

In her Iowa remarks, Clinton disingenuously stated that President Bush intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to resolve: "I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." Compare that with what the President actually stated to USA Today: "The War on Terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again.”

The War on Terror and terrorist attacks clearly will continue through many future presidencies, but the President did NOT state that he intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to conclude. Perhaps she would prefer that President Bush solved the Iranian, Palestinian, and Syrian situations as well prior to leaving office so she can focus exclusively on issues more dear to her than national security, such as socialized medicine. That Clinton would resent being forced to deal with difficult international and national security issues speaks volumes about her alleged competence and toughness.

Was Truman out on the stump while FDR was on this deathbed telling reporters, “FDR told me this war is going to be mine to solve as his successor, and I think that is irresponsible and deeply resent it! He better end this war before he passes away!”? No, Truman took the reins when handed them, and demonstrated a determination to end the war through overwhelming victory. When that succeeded (yes, victory is the best exit strategy), he presided over an amazingly compassionate rebuilding and protection of the former enemy nations, in essence what we are trying to achieve in Iraq on a smaller scale.

Truman was praised for implementing the Marshall Plan after the elimination of Hitler, which protected a new government in Germany from being overrun by the Soviet Union and others looking for postwar spoils until it could stand on its own. President Bush seeks to do the same in Iraq after the removal of a dictator, and the obvious reality is the Iraqi government is not yet ready to sustain and defend itself. Should a time limit be imposed, a drop dead date by which if they are still not capable we should abandon them to whatever fate may bring (it will bring an Iranian invasion)? Fortunately Truman and succeeding administrations were not as shortsighted as the current stable of Democratic presidential aspirants. A viable democracy in the Middle East is no less worthy a goal than rebuilding Germany or Japan, and our commitment to help Iraq until it is self-sustaining or officially rejects American intervention should not depend on any politically motivated timetable.

If Senator Clinton wants to be viewed as legitimately qualified on national security and military matters, she should demonstrate a willingness to take on difficult challenges, not run from them. She should not beg and plead publicly for President Bush to hurry and resolve the Iraq War so she will not be required to resolve it if elected. A true executive would relish the opportunity to step in where others have (in her view) failed, and if necessary, lead in a new direction or finish the work of the preceding executive. In many respects, this is why former governors are generally better prepared and suited for the presidency than Senators or Congressmen. For Senator Clinton to openly shun the responsibilities of executive leadership and plead for issues to be resolved before she might face them personally signals an appalling lack of courage, optimism, charisma, and leadership.

Technorati Tags: Iowa Marshall Plan National Intelligence Estimates Executive Leadership Intelligence Failures Bush Administration National Security Iraq War Global War On Terror Hillary Clinton

"Pariah Kerry" Woos Swiss with New Hit: "America is a Pariah"

The dictionary defines a pariah as “somebody who is despised and avoided by other people.” Synonyms for pariah include exile and outsider. Considering John Kerry’s tearful decision to not run for president again in 2008 after realizing that he is a pariah within his own Democratic Party, it should not surprise anyone that Kerry is out on the anti-American lecture circuit speaking about pariahs. So “avoided by other people” was Kerry last fall prior to the mid-term elections, that his swipe at the intellect of US soldiers (charitably and inaccurately labeled a “botched joke” by the media) resulted in his disgraced withdrawal from scheduled campaign speaking engagements on behalf of Democratic candidates. By order of the DNC, Kerry was muzzled until after the 2006 mid-terms were concluded.

After coming within 118,000 votes of winning the presidency in 2004, Kerry is now an outsider within his party, despised and avoided by the US military, and exiled to speaking in front of the only friendly crowds available to him, i.e. America-bashing international groups such as the World Economic Forum, which he addressed on Saturday in Davos, Switzerland. Responding to a question regarding whether the Bush Administration had failed diplomatically with Iran prior to the “election” of the radical Ahmadinejad, Kerry could not restrain himself from declaring that America had failed in nearly every aspect of foreign policy under Bush. He expanded that sentiment by stating that America is now an “international pariah.”

According to Kerry, American’s have an “unfortunate habit” of looking at America through the American lens, and not engaging in the Anti-American self deprecation that has become a staple of liberal ideology. A twin doctrine, of which liberals are equally enamored and which was touted by Kerry in Davos, is that national security is best achieved through international diplomacy. When the issue of America’s national security is being considered, Americans want their elected officials to do so through the American lens. No other nation will or can protect America, and thus our defense and security policies should be promulgated based on what is America’s best interest for national survival and cultural preservation.

It seems diplomatically schizophrenic to belittle your own nation as a pariah that is “sending a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy” to the world, while simultaneously claiming to seek national security through diplomacy. Kerry’s idea that Americans should view America not as an ideal for the world to aspire to, but rather a pariah as seen through the lens of “other cultures and histories,” is sadly embraced by the current leadership of the Democratic Party. Kerry compares America with the rest of the world and sees only its faults and blemishes. Yet, as author Mark Steyn argues effectively in his book America Alone, what nation would Americans like Kerry prefer? Why are Democrats so insistent that America become more like other nations, particularly Europe? Is it the appeal of the utopian socialist dream of mandatory national healthcare and economy crushing national pensions? Is it the absence of an armed citizenry? Is it the high unemployment rate endemic to EU countries?

Kerry and those who share his views should remember, as Steyn reminds with unmatched clarity, that those countries poured unlimited funds into guaranteed healthcare and retirement pensions because they left their national security expenses to the only nation capable of protecting them: America. Even without bearing the expense of their own defense, the EU nations have proven incapable of financially sustaining these programs into the near future due to demographic decline and increasingly indolent populations too dependent on the state to be entrepreneurs or productive workers.

Kerry and the Democrats claim they want to improve America. Why not start that quest for improvement by ceasing to join the anti-American choruses of Europe and radical terrorist sponsors like Iran? There is nothing wrong with seeking improvement in something you love, and Democrats are quick to defend their patriotism and love of country. However, one does not achieve improvement through constant America-bashing on the international stage.

Just as one could never hope for marital bliss while repeatedly belittling and exposing the faults of one’s spouse, anti-American remarks from its own elected officials will never result in a strong and admired nation. Contrarily, if one constantly praises one’s spouse and offers loyal encouragement to a spouse’s efforts to improve, marital bliss is entirely likely. Like the self-improving spouse, Americans are an optimistic people who thrive when given the freedom and encouragement to find new solutions to old problems. Unfortunately Kerry and many others in his party offer only criticism to please America-haters instead of investing their collective intellect and energy into creating identifiable solutions.

Such remarks further illustrate why politically savvy Democrats have shunned Kerry and declined to give him a second chance for the presidency in 2008, not out of disagreement with his “America is to blame” ideology, but as a practical matter of political survival. By calling America a pariah at every opportunity, Kerry has personally become the embodiment of the word.

Technorati Tags: John Kerry Pariah World Economic Forum Davos Switzerland Anti-Americanism European Union Mark Steyn liberals International Diplomacy