Pres. Obama to give Huge Swath of Permanently Occupied U.S. Back to Spain, Mexico.

@CapitalCloak: Israel should return to pre 1967 war border lines when the US returns to its pre-Spanish-American & Mexican-American war border lines. Shared via TweetCaster

As absurd as it may sound, yesterday President Obama urged Israel to give up land it won in the 1967 war from the host of nations and peoples who jointly attempted to wipe Israel from the map.  Never before in American history has a President given a speech containing more historical ignorance and word choice so blatantly designed to appease radical Middle Eastern anti-Semite regimes.  The President who thumped his chest in pride over making the "tough" decision to raid Bin Laden's compound a few weeks ago, has now embraced violating America's long-standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists.

The lead Palestinian organization, Hamas, is an avowed terrorist group, whose self-proclaimed mission is the destruction of Israel.  Yet, through his speech yesterday, President Obama has sided with Hamas against Israel by in effect demanding that Israel give the Hamas terrorists (and Fatah, and Hizbollah, and al Qaeda, etc) the land they've been suicide bombing Israel to cede for decades.  Giving terrorists what they want, after terrorists have been terrorizing Israel through suicide bombings and rocket attacks into civilian neighborhoods for so long, is worse than negotiating with terrorists.  It is surrendering to them.   In a few short weeks, President Obama has squandered the deterrent factor from a great victory over a terror mastermind, and is now jumping into bed with the terror mastermind's Palestinian cohorts. 

The U.S. has no record of giving our occupied territory back to nations we defeat in wars.  The Western U.S. was added after the Mexican-American War.  Wars with Native American Indians transferred more occupied land to the U.S. Government.  The Spanish-American War added territories and island protectorates to U.S. territory.  An American president demanding that tiny Israel, surrounded by hostile nations that want to see it eradicated, give fairly seized land back to the nations that attacked it in 1967 is more than a little ironic.  Has President Obama forgotten that Israel did not invade its neighbors in 1967?  Israel was the victim.  Israel pushed invading nations back behind their own borders and then maintained possession of the strategic border areas to be in better position to defend itself from future unprovoked invasions.

Terrorists will be emboldened by President Obama's mention of Israel's 1967 borders as a basis for a two-state solution with Palestinians.  The idea that the U.S. supports the notion of Israel being forced to cede lands it acquired during a war of self-preservation, will encourage Hamas and like-minded terror organizations to strike Israel with impunity, especially in these controversial border areas.  President Obama has invited attack on Israel, and Prime Minister Netanyahu rightly rejected Obama's short-sighted terrorist appeasement plan as "indefensible."

President Obama and Neville Chamberlain, separated by nearly 80 years, faced historic encounters with and stared down radical leaders and nations bent on annihilation of the Jews.  Both men blinked.  Both men appeased.  Both men suffered from delusions that appeasement brings peace in our time, or in any epoch of time.

In Praise of Obama, Remember Bush.

President Obama deserves praise for acting on intel that led to locating and killing Osama Bin Laden.  That is what Presidents do as Commander-in-Chief.  They make decisions, sometimes right and sometimes wrong, with only the available intel and their gut feeling.  President Obama made a great decision based on overwhelming evidence gleaned over nearly 10 years, and it paid off in the successful operation that avenged 9/11 by executing its chief architect.

As new details emerge over the coming days and weeks, it will become increasingly clear that this operation's success hinged on key decisions made by two very different Presidents.  President Bush assured Americans and the world in the wake of 9/11 that America would bring al Qaeda and Bin Laden to justice.  He issued an Executive Order on 9/17/01 authorizing US troops and intel assets to assassinate Bin Laden.  Wanted: Dead or Alive was Bush's doctrine, and his later decision to capture terrorists as enemy combatants and hold them at Guantanamo was grounded in a strategy of ferreting out information about al Qaeda's leaders and their locations.  Take the fight to the terrorists and disrupt/destroy their infrastrructure.  Remove their safe havens.  Put them on the run or in hiding.

Interrogations at Gitmo produced the first-known references to a trusted Bin Laden courier.  Bush-Era Interrogations Provided Key Details on Bin Laden's Location - FoxNews.com Interrogations then led to further intel regarding the location in Pakistan where the trusted courier was operating.  Intel obtained during the Obama administration finally provided the courier's true name and facilitated surveillance and the remainder of the necessary details to launch this week's successful strike operation.  Clearly, without the information gleaned from Gitmo detainees through the interrogations so  harshly criticized by Obama and his party, Bin Laden would still be haunting America today, living in luxury, free to run his terror network behind the wilfully blind eyes of Pakistan's military, intelligence, and government.

President Obama's deliberateness in not acting on intel until the CIA was highly confident Bin Laden was at the Abbottabad compound seems to have been a blessing to this operation.  The decision to not share key intel about the planned operation with even our staunchest allies was also wise.  Although Andrea Mitchell and other media figures have mocked Bush by hinting that Obama got the "mission accomplished" celebration that Bush dreamed of, Obama's classy action to call Bush and Bill Clinton to tell them the good news before announcing it to the world was a recognition on his part that he could not have succeeded in finding and killing Bin Laden without the tireless fight carried on by Bush/Cheney and to a much lesser degree, Clinton.

It is time for Republicans to be generous in their praise for President Obama's handling of this matter, in which he has been more Presidential than at any time since being elected.  It is likewise time for Democrats to cease their derision and apoplectic hatred for George W. Bush, who made decisions based on available intel, launched a war on al Qaeda, authorized interrogations that made Obama's successful operation possible, yet receives only spite and irrational loathing for his efforts to protect America and its allies from vicious terrorists.  It took the best qualities of Bush and Obama to bring Bin Laden to justice.  The two Presidents can stand side by side, join hands, and raise them together in this important victory.  Both men also know that we won a battle, but not the war.  Yet.

Opportunity to Topple Gaddafi is Passing Quickly

It appears my optimism for a coalition of Western and Arab nations to jointly enforce a Libya no-fly zone was premature.  France and England are strongly urging action before Gaddafi's airstrikes cripple rebel forces and the opportunity to assist Libyans with their revolution is lost.  The Arab League supports the no-fly zone and is requesting that the UN Security Council move swiftly.  So far, movement has been glacial and the Obama administration may be squandering a chance to help Libyans remove a terrorist from leadership of a strategic North African nation, with the approval of virtually the entire Middle East.

The hesitancy from the Obama administration stems from its desire to not act without support from China and Russia, both of which have expressed concern or overt opposition to intervention in Libya.  China in particular is wary of seeing another successful overthrow of an oppressive government, as China seeks to quell any similar uprisings from its own people.

Ultimately the Obama administration will have to choose whether to displease it biggest creditor, China, or the Arab League, an entity with which the President hopes to establish an alliance for diplomatic, strategic, and economic reasons.  Given America's precarious debt situation and China's ability to exploit that to our detriment, it will take an act of courage for the President to defy China's warnings and act to assist Libyan rebels before the window of opportunity closes and Gaddafi crushes the revolutionary spirit of Libyans.

Flying Libya's Friendly Skies

After a week of waiting for the inevitable invitation, UN Security Council nations, led by European nations and the U.S., have finally been asked by the Arab League to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.  Rebel forces who have courageously taken, lost, and retaken strategic cities throughout Eastern Libya, have been hampered consistently by Gaddafi's air strikes.  Air superiority is essential to any eventual military victory, and Gaddafi's ability to pin down rebels and bomb their weapons depots was perhaps the only remaining obstacle to a successful rebel march on Tripoli and removal of Qaddafi from his decades long dictatorship.

Photo by Sky News

The UN and the Obama Administration have received ample criticism for, in the view of some, waiting far too long to intervene directly in the struggle between Libya's rebels and the Qaddafi government.  The rebels who led the revolution against one of the world's most ruthless dictators have been driven back and are in real danger of defeat if Qaddafi continues air strikes with impunity on rebel positions.  Some argue that the U.S. should have immediately sent aid to the rebels at the beginning of the revolutionary conflict, and imposed a no-fly zone weeks ago.  However, lessons learned from the removals of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban came into play in the decision to wait for a coalition in support of intervention.  An unusual coalition was needed; not simply a coalition of our usually reliable allies, but a coalition placing the UN Security Council nations and Arab League nations on the same side, supporting the rebel cause with united desire to see Qaddafi removed and the Libyan people choose new leadership.

The Arab League has reliable intelligence sources within Libya's rebel forces, and according to those sources, the situation is approaching desperation almost entirely due to Gaddafi's air superiority across the nation.  Successful ground wars depend on air support, and the rebels' ground war is stalling.  Having U.S. and Arab nation fighters working together to enforce the no-fly zone offers new opportunities for cooperation, respect, and achievement between vastly different cultures.  The U.S. could have intervened unilaterally weeks ago, and the move would have been applauded in America and in a handful of other allied nations.  However, the Arab world would have objected to our exercise of military prowess over a fellow Arab leader, even one as universally despised as Qaddafi.  Establishing a no-fly zone jointly with Arab partners is a good move militarily and diplomatically.

U.S. F-22s are already in position to begin operations once the coalition is assembled, and the days of Gaddafi's terrorism against his own people and the world, are numbered.  The world should expect desperate acts from Qaddafi in the final days of his dictatorial rule.  Whatever he has stockpiled, he will use.  He knows all too well that his fate will be no different than Saddam's if captured and tried by his own people.  He is unlikely to let that happen.  The no-fly zone will not only end aerial bombardments of rebel bases and supply lines, it will also end the possibility of Qaddafi escaping Libyan justice by air.  The noose is tightening, and a truly international coalition will soon create friendly skies over Libya for the first time in 40 years.  A man who funded and encouraged terror in the skies, including over Scotland, will soon find his world crashing down upon him from above once more.

Newt, Get in to Win, or Get Out of the Way

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich announced this week that he is exploring whether he will possibly, maybe, but probably at least consider whether he will officially announce what we already all know:  he is running for president in 2012.  He claims he needs 6-7 weeks to "explore" the viability of his potential candidacy, which, translated into Washingtonese, simply means he will see how many donations his exploratory organization can generate in 6-7 weeks as an indication of the support he can expect from conservative backers.  Am I the only observer out there who finds it ironic that in the same interviews in which Newt criticizes the Obama Administration for exhibiting indecisiveness in its handling of uprisings in Libya and Iran, Newt himself exudes indecisiveness on running for president?

Newt, President Obama may be indecisive in handling world affairs, but at least he did not hesitate for one second to make it clear to the world in 2007 that he wanted very much to run for and win the presidency.  We knew what he wanted, even if we were unsure of exactly what he was politically, or what he might do once in office.  His ambitions were no secret.  Neither are yours, yet you approach them as if you should keep them to yourself until the last moment.  Campaign seasons are starting earlier and earlier, and those who know what they want and go all out for it, like candidate Obama did in 2007-2008, have more opportunity to influence voters.

Newt has had since the late 1990s to explore his viability as a candidate for the presidency.  He has been a rumored candidate in several previous presidential elections, and his strengths and weaknesses (skeletons may be a more accurate term) have been vetted in the media ever since he led the Congress that impeached President Clinton.  The media will continue to attack him and dredge up any and all past indiscretions whether he throws his hat into the presidential campaign ring or not, because Newt has palpable influence on conservative political thought.

Whether he enters the race today, 6 months from now, or not at all, he will be targeted by the White House and its media accomplices who view him as an ever-present threat to liberal ideology.  President Obama does not want to participate in any televised debates with Newt, who is far more prepared, articulate, and experienced in world affairs.  The White House would prefer almost any other potential GOP candidate to square off against.  What Newt will discover during his announced 6-7 week exploratory period is that he scares people on the left, and I don't mean because they consider his views radically conservative.  He scares them because he would be their most formidable foe.  Likewise, fellow conservatives seeking the White House fear Newt above all other potential opponents.  Newt's war chest is already building more rapidly than any other potential conservative candidate's.

In his sharp criticisms of the Obama Administration delivered at CPAC 2011, Newt aggressively stated his domestic priorities:  dramatic cuts to Federal government spending; dramatic permanent tax cuts for all taxpayers, which leads to business expansion and more jobs; and aggressive pursuit of domestic energy sources to lessen our dependence on Middle East regimes.

Although Newt wasn't exactly decisive on running for president in his exploratory announcement, his broadside attack on President Obama's foreign policy and national security indecision covered a lot of ground in just three sentences and illustrated why a debate matchup of President Obama and Newt Gingrich would be intriguing:

This was an administration which was very aggressive about an American ally, Mubarak in Egypt, and very confused about an American opponent, Gadhafi in Libya. This is an administration which doesn't notice the demonstrations and the brutality in Tehran, and it confuses Israelis building apartments with Iranians building nuclear weapons. And I think it's very, very dangerous.

Newt, if, as you say, at the end of your exploratory period (that you've had 15 years to explore) you expect to be in the race, get in now and be a decisive conservative leader.  Candidate Obama was in the race to win it already by March 2007.  He even had Secret Service protection that early, which certainly enhanced his image of viability as potential winner of his party's nomination.  Potential voters knew his ambitions, and he was not apologetic or modest about them.  Voters want decisiveness in their leaders.  Be all in, or all out, but never waffling in between two choices.  The Bible tells us it is better to be hot or cold, than to be lukewarm in our commitments.  If you lack the heart or the stomach for the long-haul campaign and the incredible pressures of the presidency if victorious, step aside now for someone with more vigor who is sure of what he or she wants.  If you have the heart and stomach for the brutality of a campaign and the job itself, then get in it to win it.

Chief Justice Obama?

President Obama is a Harvard Law graduate with emphasis in Constitutional law.  He is a shrewd enough politician to get himself elected President.  He surrounds himself with advisers who, on paper at least, should be capable of simple tasks.  Apparently, at least one simple task is just too complex for President Obama's legal team:  understanding the difference between the executive and judicial branches of our Federal government.  If you retained attorneys who consistently advised you that you could do things that are unconstitutional, how long would you continue to pay for their services? Of course, if they advised you that you could ignore the Constitution and declare yourself the Commander-in-Chief, the chief executive of the Government, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court all rolled into one omnipotent juggernaut of personality, you might like what you are hearing from those attorneys. 

First the White House Counsel advised the President that a Democrat House and Senate, upon his signature, could enact a law compelling citizens to purchase health insurance.  Thankfully, federal judges are voiding that law as unconstitutional, most recently in Florida, and states are moving to halt implementation of government-mandated health care.  Ultimately "Obamacare" as many call it, will be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  As it should be under our separation of powers.  The judicial system determines constitutionality of laws.  This power is, in no way, given under the Constitution to the executive branch, which is empowered only to nominate individuals to serve as judges.  Court decisions are steadily demonstrating that the President's legal advisers missed the mark.

President Obama's advisers, however, have convinced the President to take an unprecedented unconstitutional action that is even more alarming:  unilaterally declaring a law unconstitutional and intentionally refusing to perform his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It would behoove President Obama and his advisers to review carefully the oath of office he swore to in January 2009 in light of his utter abandonment of a law:  The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Currently this law is in effect, signed into law by President Clinton.  It is the law of the land until the judicial system, rising to the Supreme Court, declares definitively whether it is Constitutional or not.  Instead, the President's advisers, driven by the smallest percentage of his constituents numerically but loudest vocally -gay rights activists- convinced the President to announce that his Administration considers the DOMA unconstitutional and has directed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the law by declining to defend it in legal actions brought against it by plaintiffs seeking for Federal recognition of same-sex marriage.  Naturally, this refusal to defend the law was not accompanied by a citation of constitutional authority permitting such action, nor could it have been, since the power to declare laws unconstitutional belongs to the Judicial and not the Executive branch.

The political left and willing accomplices in the media are currently attacking former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for pointing out the "Constitutional crisis" the President's action has created.  They have focused on one word Newt mentioned in an interview, "impeachment", and are portraying Newt, the impeacher of President Clinton, as simply being up to his old tricks, now calling for President Obama's impeachment.  However, as is usually the case in media coverage, the truth of what Newt actually said is being intentionally obscured.  Newt did not say that President Obama SHOULD be impeached at this time for his action.  What he DID say was that if a Republican president declared a law unconstitutional and directed the Justice Department to stop enforcing it, political liberals and the media would come unglued and certainly call for that president's impeachment.  Newt used an effective analogy in his NewsMax interview:

Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people. Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act.

The precedent that would be established by allowing a president to suspend a law, any law, that was passed by Congress and signed by a previous president, is indeed dangerous.  Capital Cloak believes that President Obama, in his heart, agrees with the DOMA, as he has spoken in favor of traditional marriage consistently until this sudden lurch off the Constitutional path.  The fact that he has agreed to this course of abandoning enforcement of law is a sign that in his Administration, the tail really does wag the dog.  A few loud voices representing gay advocacy groups appear to be convincing President Obama that their volume is indicative of how the entire nation feels about traditional marriage.  It is not, and if the President continues in this extra-legal action, he could find himself a one term President. 

Prop 8 vote breakdown in CA 2008

President Obama must keep in mind that 70% of African-American voters in ultra-liberal California supported Proposition 8Obama's advisers are already gambling that he can win reelection in 2012 with or without the support of traditional marriage advocates by steering him to suspend the DOMA despite having no Constitutional power to do so.

Drug Cartels Chuckle at Our Muppet-in-Chief's Priorities

There will be a lot more drugs for sale at the corner of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood and Sesame Street thanks to questionable budgetary priorities in the Obama Administration.  Of the few and clearly defined enumerated powers of the Federal government, noticeably absent from the list is funding television and radio stations.  Noticeably present in that list is protecting the United States from all enemies and maintaining public safety so citizens may pursue their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Grateful to the Obama Administration for the $451 million vote of confidence!

Yet, when faced with a budget priority decision between funding efforts to protect the United States from its "greatest organized crime threat" and funding NPR and PBS, the Obama Administration chose the priority with the greater potential political profit:  keeping Muppets on the air.  Capital Cloak has nothing against Muppets, mind you. Likewise Capital Cloak has nothing against cartoon character Arthur, except when he shows up at the Capitol building along with Bert and Ernie to pull on the heart strings of Members of Congress before they vote on "GOPink slips" for the beloved animated friends. However, Capital Cloak DOES have something against increasing funding for NPR and PBS to extraordinary levels - $451 million for the coming fiscal year- at the expense of cutting $38 million from an agency fighting what the Administration's own Homeland Security Secretary declared as our greatest crime threat in America today. 


It would seem a no-brainer for a Commander in Chief to try and secure his nation's borders and dedicate sufficient resources to fight international criminals bent on enslaving his countrymen.  Not so, with our current Muppet-in-Chief.  In the same budget which gives such a windfall to NPR and PBS, the Department of Justice agency tasked with combating organized drug cartels on American Soil, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), received a reduced budget - $38 million in cuts - from the previous fiscal year.  The Administration likes to chide Americans that everyone needs to tighten their fiscal belts and sacrifice, but apparently that sense of sacrificial duty only applies to agencies that actually safeguard Americans from crime and work to stem the tide of drugs pouring across our borders daily.  If you host news shows on PBS and speak glowingly of the Administration, or if you provide children's programming that could easily be provided, and is provided, in the private sector by companies such as Disney and Nickelodeon, you not only are not expected to sacrifice, you are handed $6 million more than last year, bringing your total to a staggering $451 million budget.  That is a belt-tightening that will only encourage further wallowing in the government trough.

Lest anyone think that NPR and PBS employees can maintain any degree of impartiality in their news coverage of current events involving President Obama, representatives of both entities expressed that they were "grateful to the Obama Administration" for the "vote of confidence".  How does one repay a debt of gratitude totaling $451 million?  With truthful but sometimes unflattering news stories and documentaries about the Administration?  Not likely. Where is intrepid Sesame Street Muppet Newsflash reporter Kermit the Frog to get to the truth of biased NPR and PBS news coverage of Democratic administrations? Somehow this video seemed all too applicable to any assurances we may hear from NPR or PBS officials about their political impartiality after being "rescued" budget after budget by Democratic administrations:

An Administration's priorities are best observed in what it desires to spend money to accomplish and what it is willing to cut from its budget.  Despite tough talk about drug cartels by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in 2009, the Administration's latest budget proposal to cut DEA funding by $38 million while throwing money at PBS and NPR clearly demonstrates that controlling the messages broadcast over public television and radio is of far greater importance than controlling drug-related crime and the alarming spread of drug cartels in nearly every American city.  This is what Secretary Napolitano warned in 2009:

Mexican drug cartels maintain drug-distribution networks, or supply drugs to distributors, in at least 230 American cities, leading the Justice Department to call Mexican drug cartels the ‘greatest organized crime threat to the United States

 Americans of all political stripes and economic classes are being murdered by cartels and gangs over drugs.  Americans of all ideologies and incomes are becoming addicted to drugs supplied by cartels.  Families are literally being ripped apart by the ravages of illicit drug activity in homes and schools.  These cartels are operating brazenly in our streets, knowing that our government lacks the spine to commit adequate resources to the task of fighting them with any semblance of efficacy.  They operate in real cities, on real streets.  Except, of course, on Sesame Street, where everything is "A-okay" as long as the taxpayer spigot never slows by even one drop.  If funding public broadcasting is a high priority for the Obama Administration, then let it find those funds at the expense of agencies with no explicit duties to protect our national security and keep us safe to continue in our pursuit of happiness.  Keeping the men in the picture above off our streets is more important to most Americans than keeping Arthur in our living rooms.

Libyan Muslim Declaration a Model for Islamic Nations

As reported by Reuters today, a coalition of Libyan Muslim leaders has issued a declaration that it is the duty of all Libyan Muslims to rebel against Libyan Government leaders because of their "bloody crimes against humanity."  The language of the declaration is noteworthy because of its potential ideological applicability to citizens of all Islamist governments that foment violence or support radical Islamist groups, such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others.

Here is the statement against the Libyan government:

They have demonstrated total arrogant impunity and continued, and even intensified, their bloody crimes against humanity. They have thereby demonstrated total infidelity to the guidance of God and His beloved Prophet (peace be upon him).  This renders them undeserving of any obedience or support, and makes rebelling against them by all means possible a divinely ordained duty.

This statement is equal parts powerful and muddled.  When applied by Libyan Muslims to violent elements within their own government, it is a call to revolution, directly stating that because the government uses violence ("bloody crimes against humanity"), the government is unfaithful to the teachings of Islam and is thus unworthy of allegiance or obedience from its people.  However, when applied to eliminating radical Islamist terrorists from Muslim nations, bold statements such as this one are few and far between.

When taken at face value, the statement from the Network of Free Ulema of Libya could be applied to al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and hundreds of other terrorist organizations worldwide.  They commit "bloody crimes against humanity", such as bombing hotels, pizza parlors, World Trade Center towers, and lines of civilians waiting to vote in democratic elections.  Does this not demonstrate"total infidelity to the guidance of God" as the Libyan Muslim leaders imply?  Or is it only infidelity to Muslim principles when violence is used on other Muslims?  Are non-Muslim peoples part of "humanity", thus violence against them makes the group who brought the violence undeserving of obedience or support from other Muslims?


The Libyan Muslim leaders made a bold and laudable declaration, removing any sense of guilt Libyans might have about protesting and physically rebelling against their government.  The logic of the statement is reflective of the language set forth in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which presented a list of grievous acts committed by King George that rendered the Crown undeserving of any further allegiance from the Colonials.  In any revolutionary movement, it is critical to keep the government's sins in the forefront of popular memory.  By removing any religious hesitations Libyans may have because of their Islamic beliefs in obedience to government, the Network of Free Ulema of Libya makes the revolution's success more likely.  For those Muslims who adhere to this declaration, it has become religious duty to rebel in every way possible.  Gaddafi's guns, tanks, helicopters, and brutality will be no match for a united people who view it as their divinely ordained duty to rebel against him and remove the current government from power.


Capital Cloak applauds the statement from this coalition of Libyan Muslim leaders.  Now, if only more Muslim leaders worldwide would be similarly outspoken about the infidelity to God and his Prophet displayed by Islamic terrorist groups who have been killing through "bloody crimes against humanity" for decades.  If such statements are not issued, the non-Muslim peoples of the world are left with little doubt that they are not considered part of "humanity" by their Muslim friends and neighbors.

Social Media are a Stuxnet for Middle East Freedom

Facebook. Twitter. Google Buzz. Stuxnet? Though the latter is not a social media platform, the events in the Middle East make it clear that social media and sophisticated espionage software have something in common: both have penetrated, and will continue to penetrate, sophisticated ideological and technological defenses established by entrenched dictators or extremist theocracies. Social media are penetrating ideological and political defenses that maintain various regimes' power over their citizens; Stuxnet penetrated military and intelligence networks that maintain secrecy surrounding the true nature and progress of Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. All of these penetrations by modern technology into the ideological and cyber domains of non-democratic governments throughout the Middle East work together to expand and protect freedom in a potentially safer environment for all.

The Stuxnet super worm, or "cyber missile", was a remarkably effective tool designed to accomplish a single mission: jump from computer to computer, penetrating every layer of Iran's complex cyber security systems protecting the computer networks operating the Mullahs' uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Bushehr, and destroy those control systems. Stuxnet embedded commands into the software controlling centrifuges and other key machinery, causing breakdowns, incorrect spinning speeds, and other glitches that damaged more than 1100 centrifuges which had been working 24/7 to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium.  For months, the Iranians had no idea they had been hit by arguably the world's first weaponized computer worm.  It worked silently until its damage was done.  The Iranians made repairs, ordered replacement equipment, scratched their heads, and watched as their uranium production ground to a halt.

Many regimes and governments in the Middle East are likewise scratching their heads over the sudden boiling point their citizens have reached, taking to the streets and demanding reforms, resignations, and even democratic elections.  Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Iran.  From whence, they wondered, did this viral push for reform spring?  The answer, like Stuxnet in Iran, is found in technology, but not a master work of espionage, but simple social networking platforms that carry discussions and dreams of better lives and more freedom.  Facebook, Twitter, Buzz, and other social media penetrate net filters, arriving on personal devices protesters rely upon to coordinate rallies, launch marches, and direct media attention to brutality. Words of encouragement from around the world, including the U.S., reach into the hearts and homes of protesters for reform via Facebook and Twitter despite the efforts of various oppressive regimes to block citizens from seeing that their protests are known and supported in many lands. The tinderboxes we see today throughout the Middle East may never have spread so broadly, with such speed, and with such effectiveness were it not for the wide availability of social networking and technologically savvy users who, like their more advanced Stuxnet peers, found ways through and around government firewalls and filters to bring reform ideology to the masses, and in some cases, to bring dictators to their knees.

Like Stuxnet, social networking quietly goes about its business, ultimately finding the vulnerabilities of a regime's power and secrets, exploits them, and exposes them to the world. Also, like Stuxnet, social media penetration is not a burden of one nation's people alone, but rather an alliance of like-minded people from any nation intersted in assisting with the ruin of regimes. It is not by coincidence that regimes, when facing protests and international scrutiny, move first to sever communications and Internet access. Yet as Stuxnet and Facebook/Twitter demonstrated, the tech geniuses in the general population always find a way through even the most determined regime's barriers. Freedom, like nature, will always find a way.  Keeping communications open despite clampdowns is a heroic act which has its heart a base desire for human freedom.

Stuxnet crippled Iran's nuclear program for many months, buying nations valuable time to assess the true progress of the Iranian nuclear program and prepare options for an inevitable showdown with the Mullahs. It also reminded Iran that when nations unite their brightest minds for a common cause, anything is possible, even the world's most sophisticated cyber weapon designed for peacefully fighting nuclear proliferation. Social media remind us that likewise, the world's great freedom-loving minds and voices can unite to topple dictators or force reforms that expand human rights and opportunities for self-determination. Technology penetrates barriers to freedom, and carries news of successes to other oppressed peoples who merely need to see what is possible.

Former National Security Advisor: WH Was Not Central to Events in Egypt

MSNBC, in its eternal quest to make us all feel a thrill up our legs while pondering the great achievements of President Obama, interviewed Former national security adviser to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Morning Joe program regarding whether the President's critics are right in claiming he "blew it" in his handling of events in Egypt. Clearly the interview, led by MSNBC co-host and Brzezinski daughter, Mika, was set up for Brzezinski to debunk the criticisms and state, as definitively as a failed national security advisor can, that no, Obama did not blow it in Egypt.  MSNBC displayed a photo of the cover of Newsweek Magazine, which bears the headline, "Egypt: How Obama Blew it" and Mika asked Brzezinski if he agreed with that assessment.

To his credit, Brzezinski did not take that bait.  He sidestepped the question deftly by reminding the disappointed MSNBC hosts that it is still too early to tell what will happen in Egypt.  Then he went on to make an observation that surely took the thrill right out of Chris Matthews' leg, assuming he was watching.  As you will recall, Matthews recently made the audacious and wildly inaccurate claim that "it took Obama to have this happen" when discussing the protests and Mubarak's ouster, giving the President all the credit for inspiring Egyptians to seek reform.  Of course Matthews never observed of the purple-fingered voters in Iraq, "It took Bush to make this happen," but that's another topic for another day.  In today's interview, Brzezinski burst that MSNBC and White House self-importance belief bubble by declaring, "The fact is the U.S. and the White House weren't all that central" to what happened in Egypt, giving the credit to Al Jazeera's coverage of events, the Egyptians themselves, and widespread use of American social networking technology that spread news and helped protesters organize.  The cameras panned back to Mika and Joe Scarborough, who fumbled for words trying to ask a follow-up question to a sound byte they obviously had not anticipated.

Next time, Mika, you might consider asking "dad" what he will answer before you bring him on the air.  Your colleague Chris Matthews will now spend a great deal of his time trying to get that thrill back in his leg instead of focusing on reporting to us nothing significant can occur in the world without President Obama making it happen.  Most importantly, the White House, through its surrogates at MSNBC, needs to stop seeking to take credit for an uprising in Egypt that the President did precious little to inspire.

Hillary Tougher Talk on Iran than Commander in Chief

Having survived working with and routinely around the Clintons and their staffs over the years, I admit I once thought that anyone, literally ANYONE, would be preferable as President than Hillary Clinton.  When she announced her long-suspected candidacy for the White House, I found myself, as a conservative Independent, looking upon her Democratic challengers as the last line of defense against another Clinton in the Oval Office, an office I on which I strongly believed her husband had left a stain, figuratively and literally.  During the 2008 campaign, it was clear she would not win her party's nomination, and although I had misgivings about an Obama presidency from a tax and spend point of view, I also noted that in their head-to-head debates, Hillary Clinton was much more conversant on world affairs and expressed, courageously for the times in her party, a concern over withdrawing troops too precipitously from Iraq.  She was usually hawkish on the Iraq War, much to her credit, although the pressures of trying to win a nomination in a party bent on pulling troops out and declaring the war "lost" eventually drove Hillary to echo some calls for a draw down in troop strength.  I do not believe she actually favored that strategy, but it took a back seat to her immediate need to strategically fight for the Democratic nomination.

Now, a few years removed from the bravado of the campaign trail, I wonder if the Democrats made a mistake in nomination as I watch President Obama, as Commander in Chief, taking nuanced non-committal stances on most international developments, as illustrated by his administration's confusing range of responses to the uprising in Egypt.  Eventually, after two weeks of protests against Hosni Mubarak, President Obama spoke in favor of the protesters, some of whom were seeking democracy, others of whom, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were seeking and end to Mubarak's tight controls over their terrorism-related ideologies and activities.  President Obama called for our staunchest long-time ally in the Arab world to step down from 30 years of keeping the peace with Israel, in favor of temporary rule by the Egyptian military until "democratic" elections can be held later this year.  To this day, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian uprising was solely a popular swell for democracy or something insidious organized by groups with violent goals for the region, specifically ending the treaty with Israel.  One must entertain this as a possibility if for no other reason than observing the Iranian government gleefully praising the protesters and their toppling of Mubarak.

Although we have yet to hear any definitive statesmanship from President Obama on today's protests in Iran and the violent methods security forces utilized to disperse the marchers, Hillary Clinton voiced today precisely the message that the President should be delivering to the Mullahs in Tehran.  Although the White House has been noticeably understated on the events in Iran, in marked contrast to the open calls for governmental change in Egypt days earlier, Hillary was front and center pointing out, in refreshingly blunt language, the utter hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs for praising the Egyptian "revolution" and change of government in Egypt while simultaneously suppressing their own people attempting to march for reforms in a notoriously oppressive regime.

Listen to Hillary state, more eloquently and more forcefully than the President, what needed to be stated to the Mullahs:  Iranian government is hypocritical on issue of protests against government

Capital Cloak gives credit where it is due.  Hillary made the right comments today about Iran.  The question that we must ask is why President Obama, who claims to champion freedom and democracy in Egypt, is mostly silent on Iran, particularly after missing the opportunity to support the Green Revolution in Iran in June 2009.  Iranians who genuinely desire freedom from the oppressive Mullah rule have already experience abandonment once from the Obama White House.  Now, after the events in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Middle East have inspired courageous revolutionaries in Tehran to test the waters of support from the U.S., they are finding the waters tepid at best.  Unless they listen to Hillary, whose message to the Mullahs today was music to Iranian revolutionary ears. 

More such messages are needed, from Hillary, from President Obama, from our Congress, and from heads of state of our allies worldwide.  We can only turn up the heat on the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad if we speak candidly and with unwavering support for the protesters in Iran.  Unlike in Egypt, where it really DOES matter what type of government replaces Mubarak in the long-term, in Iran it DOES NOT matter what would fill the vacuum left by the Mullahs if toppled.  The current regime is hotly pursuing nuclear weapons capability, funding and equipping Hezbollah, infiltrating Iraq and working to shatter fragile coalitions there, and training terrorists who routinely attack allied forces.  We would be hard pressed to imagine a worse government in Tehran.  Supporting any flicker of desire for democratic reform in Iran should be our highest priority.  Speaking bluntly about the regime's hypocrisy is a step in the right direction.

"Spread Democracy" or "Spread the Wealth" Revolutions?

Before stepping down as Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak had harsh words for the Obama administration's vocal support for democracy movements in Egypt, Tunisia, and the entire Middle East.  Mubarak warned former Israeli cabinet minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer:

We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East.  They may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam.

Ben-Eliezer told Haaretz that on the eve of Mubarak's stepping down as Egypt's President, Mubarak shared his prediction for what will follow in the Middle East:

He contended the snowball (of civil unrest) won't stop in Egypt and it wouldn't skip any Arab country in the Middle East and in the Gulf.  He said 'I won't be surprised if in the future you see more extremism and radical Islam and more disturbances -- dramatic changes and upheavals'.

Will Mubarak's warning prove prophetic, or was it merely the parting bluster of a man who believed, with good reason, that he alone held the religious radicals in his nation at bay for more than 30 years?  Events in other Arab nations offer an immediate opportunity to observe the accuracy of Mubarak's predictions.  In Yemen and Algeria, protests are creating fertile ground for radical Islamist elements to merge their long-term goals with the short-term protesters' goals of toppling their existing governments. 

Photo by Reuters

When the many thousands of Algerian protesters claim they are marching for liberty and freedom, are they actually demanding self-determination - a worthy goal consistent with America's democratic values - or are they seeking to level the economic or social playing field because others within their culture have more opportunity and wealth?  Reports out of Algiers suggest that many ingredients that led to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are also influencing the street protests in Algeria: (1) high unemployment; (2) Growing gap between rich and poor; and (3) large and restless youth population.  All of these ingredients, if not also motivated by a desire for self-determination and common law, will lead to the same half-baked confection: redistribution of wealth, and, in the case of the French and Soviet revolutions, purging of the wealthy and influential classes in mass bloodshed.

At this point, the ultimate goals and democratic desires of the Algerian and Yemeni protesters remains undefined and frighteningly fluid.  Protests nearly always begin by riding rapidly on a wave of emotion that crests when it appears the initially specific goal has been reached.  In Egypt's case, that initial specific goal was to oust Mubarak.  That goal has now been reached, but what goals beyond the ouster do the protesters have in common?  Iraq proved that toppling a dictator and gleeful celebrations are not the end of political upheaval.  The devil is in the details, and the "details" that established a democratically elected government in Baghdad included much bloodshed, radical Islamist terrorism to discourage the people, and eventually a constitution.  The purple-stained index fingers of voting Iraqis came with a price paid long after the statues of Saddam Hussein were jubilantly dismantled. 

In the absence of clear leadership among protest groups, confusion mounts as to the way forward in the vacuum left by the toppling of an existing government.  In Egypt, the "details" remain to be determined, but Mubarak is likely right that many devils, as it were, will work feverishly to gain strong footholds in vulnerable political climates.  Protesters in Yemen and Algeria face a similar conundrum.  Calling for "government reform" is ambiguous, carrying very different connotations for the myriad largely incompatible political, social, and religious groups united for one moment in time for the sake of "change." 

The Obama administration is in a difficult position.  The world expects America to support democracy and democratic revolutions wherever they arise.  However, the administration must recognize its limitations and avoid knee-jerk support to civil unrest, or "change" for the sake of "change", before gaining a clear understanding of the forces and motives behind Middle East protests.  Revolutions can become ugly very quickly if they are engaged in for societal or economic leveling rather than for constitutional freedoms and protection of inalienable rights. 

The governments in Algeria and Yemen are currently in a dangerous state of vulnerability.  Yemen has been a strategic ally of the United States in the War on Terror.  That term is not popular in the Obama administration, which took office pledging to purge all things Bush.  However, President Obama has slowly recognized when faced with stark reality, that this IS still a war against terrorist ideology.  In war, key allies should not be abandoned at the first opportunity, even if standing with the ally means ignoring its warts and impurities.  Stalin was murdering millions of his own countrymen before, during, and after, WWII, but in the larger was against a radical ideology, the United States turned a blind eye to Stalin's atrocities because the war against Hitler could not be won without him.  By its strategic location and past assistance in identifying and locating terror suspects and operational networks, overlooking Yemeni President Saleh's imperfections may prove the best course for America's interests in a larger struggle against radical Islam.  America's presidents are elected to serve and protect the interests of America, even if that means that at times we form temporary alliances with unsavory or even oppressive governments.  Even in these cases, however, we must never cease encouraging even the most bloodthirsty dictators or regimes to reform.




Mubarak's prediction of a snowball of unrest in the Middle East, that will leave no country untouched, is, in my estimation, accurate.  Radical Islamists will undoubtedly attempt to fill power vacuums throughout the region, attempting to expand their spheres of influence.  President Obama must walk a fine line between encouraging freedom and democratic reforms, as he must, while holding onto key alliances in the War on Terror. 

"Clap On, Clap Off": Is the light on at the DNI?

"Clap on, Clap off . . . way off on Muslim Brotherhood"

When Congress is in session, crowds in the gallery, when allowed to observe, are reminded to hold their clapping until the session concludes.  If only the White House could have held its Clapper until the end of a hearing on Capitol Hill today.  Instead, the Obama administration made the unfortunate decision to allow Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper to answer questions and deliver his assessments of the situation in Egypt without the much-needed benefit of a teleprompter.  

 DNI Clapper, as widely reported, testified that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had worked peacefully for the "betterment of the political order" and, in a whopper that would have caused Pinocchio great nasal growth pains:

"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood' ... is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."

 So far out in left field was this assessment, that the White House rushed to correct DNI Clapper's mind-boggling inaccuracy.  A DNI spokesman clarified later today that DNI Clapper was aware the Muslim Brotherhood is a religious, not secular, organization, but that it had largely operated in Egypt in a secular manner under Hosni Mubarak's rule in that country.  What he failed to explain in the hearing was WHY Mubarak kept the Muslim Brotherhood under his thumb for 30 years.  The reason of course, is that the Brotherhood, when speaking to gullible Western media, portrays itself as a minor secular political party with no clout in Egypt, dedicated to building hospitals and other social projects to save humanity.

The peaceful hospital-building political party, the Muslim Brotherhood, no doubt welcoming Egyptian voters on election day in September 2011. 

When one speaks with Egyptians and other citizens in the Middle East, or if one watches Al Jazeera for 10 minutes, one can learn very quickly that the reason the Brotherhood builds hospitals is because the Brotherhood creates a demand for emergency medical facilities by fomenting terrorism and anti-Semitism with a violent tinge to it.  People get hurt around the Brotherhood.  Ask Anwar Sadat whether the Brotherhood "eschews violence", and it might help explain why Mubarak used an iron fist to limit the group's activities in Egypt for decades.  Read the words of the Brotherhood's supreme religious leader and decide for yourself if the "secular political party" is a benign entity as DNI Clapper testified today.  Judge for yourself if the Brotherhood, in its ideology and goals, is any different than al Qaeda, which the Brotherhood allegedly claims is an abomination of Islam.  For a group that is so tightly embracing Hamas that it is impossible to determine where Hamas ends and the Brotherhood begins, its faux condemnation of al Qaeda is ripe with comedic value
beyond anything even the Onion could concoct.

What is most disturbing about DNI Clapper's testimony isn't simply that it was inaccurate, which it clearly was, but that it is in direct conflict with assessments of the Brotherhood produced by the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and a host of other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, not merely in the U.S. but among all of our key allies across the globe.  Simply stated, no agency in an allied country has ever assessed the Muslim Brotherhood as anything but a terrorist organization that has participated in violence, directly and through financing and recruitment.  DNI Clapper must know this.  The CIA's and FBI's assessments of the Brotherhood are nothing like what DNI Clapper presented today.  It is no wonder he is backing away from his testimony at a speed only Usain Bolt has experienced among mortals.

We must wonder why DNI Clapper, who should know very well the intelligence (that is the "I" in DNI, after all!) the CIA, FBI, and others have gleaned about the Brotherhood, would testify that the group is of little concern and is a bit player in the "revolution" taking place in Egypt since January 25.  Members of Congress in attendance at today's hearing should obtain for themselves the assessments of the Brotherhood from the intelligence and law enforcement agencies DNI Clapper is supposed to listen to, and brief the Obama administration accordingly.  Clapper clapped on about the humanitarian achievements of this terror-sponsoring group, and then he clapped off when one of his staffers with access to simple intelligence sources, such as Google, discovered that no one in the intel industry, except perhaps himself, believed a word of the fiction that the Brotherhood is benign.  Clearly his testimony was politically motivated. Somehow, in all of this Clapping on and off, we must hope and pray that a light came on somewhere in the administration to reveal the very real threat to Egypt and Israel the Brotherhood presents, and that no real political power will be afforded it before or after Egyptian elections are held to replace Mubarak.

The Cloak Returns and a Word about WikiLeaks

As my readers back in October 2007 will recall, a new work assignment took me out of the blogging loop, and Capital Cloak lay fallow until I returned to the "grid," as it were. During the 3 years "off the grid" I continued to follow current events beyond those I was living daily, and tried to read my favorite blogs and news sources whenever opportunity arose. Picking up a blog about national security, counter-terrorism, threat assessment, and politics, after a 3-year hiatus is not easy. Many of my original readers gave up waiting for my return, as I could provide no updates or indication I would ever write for Capital Cloak again. Feed Burner probably considered putting Capital Cloak's pilot light out, and Blog Burst, which placed my 2006-2007 posts on Reuters thinks I fell off the face of the earth. I went far, but not quite THAT far!

During the 3 years I missed, Obama won an election and the political landscape has changed. The House has changed hands twice. The war in Iraq is drawing down and Afghanistan continues as an incredible challenge. Russia remains an enigmatic "ally"and China is truly now a force to be reckoned with, or at least checked in its military ambitions. Technology and Smart Phones now allow many more convenient ways for posting to Capital Cloak, and I have quickly integrated my @CapitalCloak Twitter presence into this blog, as you will note in the right-side column. You can say a lot in 140 words when a full blog post is not in the cards. I hope you find @CapitalCloak tweets useful in what they say and in the news items they link to at my favorite sites, liberal and conservative alike.

Now, a word about WikiLeaks. You will not find them here. They divulge info from sources I am, in many cases, familiar with, and I may analyze world events in the context of what I am exposed to in my assignments. However, I will not share classified information here, and I do not support what WikiLeaks is doing either in method or morality.  From a practical perspective, I believe all nations rightly have their secrets in the course of national security and diplomacy, and leaking classified documents makes everyone in the world less safe. Some classified material is embarrassing to governments and individual leaders.  Wars have begun over wounded pride and personal embarrassment.  It is also true that for many Government employees and Military members, reading classified WikiLeaks documents is an actionable offense, and I will not put my readers in a position where they have to scan this blog for any unauthorized classified material. I will not link to any WikiLeaks related articles. The @CapitalCloak twitter stream will not retweet or link to any WikiLeaks-related items. I am not doing battle with WikiLeaks and I will not discuss the group or its activities here. In short, that is one beehive I won't be poking to see how loud the buzz can get.

I am glad to be back in a position where I can resume writing and sharing with you my views on current events. Although the world is crazier than it was 3 years ago, it is never beyond hope of improvement and, ultimately, redemption. If you are a former reader who still subscribes to this feed, thanks for waiting! If you are new to Capital Cloak, welcome! Peruse the archived posts to get a sense of writing style, and offer your suggestions for topics you would like the Cloak to address.

An Egyptian Urges Obama to Chill

The White House seems determined to encourage the loudest voices in Egypt to push Hosni Mubarak to relinquish the reins of Government. Perhaps White House and State Department staffers have been too enthralled by the beatings inflicted on U.S. reporters to notice that the real beating is being inflicted upon the true Egyptian voices for democracy and meaningful reform who initiated the first peaceful protest that has since been hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood. The New York Times would have us believe the Brotherhood has little clout and should not be taken seriously.

That's not what a prominent Egyptian, who knows a bit more about conditions in Egypt than the college professor writing for the NYT, thinks. His reasons for telling President Obama to slow down and back off are presented here.

At this point, no one knows whether the protests in Cairo will be a step toward democracy or a step toward a radical Islamist regime. Calling for Mubarak to turn his government over to an uprising that has yet to be defined is ill-advised and reckless.

According to this well-informed businessman, Egypt will descend into chaos if President Obama, and some "conservatives" such as Senator John McCain, continue their knee-jerk reactions to the protests by pushing Mubarak for an immediate transfer of power. The link above leads to an excellent overview of who was protesting what, and when, and what is at stake for Egypt, the region, and the U.S.

Obama Legitimizes Muslim Brotherhood One Day, Brotherhood Vows War with Israel the Next

One day after stating to a global audience that many groups, including the radical Muslim Brotherhood, should play roles in governing post-Mubarak Egypt if they would swear off violence, the Brotherhood dropped any charade of peaceful intentions by assuring they would cause Egypt to withdraw from it's peace treaty with Israel.

Apparently a decade of intelligence reports naming the Brotherhood as a terror sponsor and supplier wasn't enough to convince the President they really meant it when they said they want to establish a global Islamic caliphate on the smoking ruins of Israel, so the Brotherhood had to spell it out clearly for him today. Good luck Mr. President. Your diplomatic relations with a provisional Egyptian government will be very productive with such level-headed beheaders as the Muslim Brotherhood playing a role in Egypt's power structure.

Timing is Everything in Middle East Revolutionary Uprisings

Is it mere coincidence that revolutionary uprisings bearing high global stakes seem to occur when the U.S. is led by foreign policy-weak Democratic Presidents and Secretaries of State?  Jimmy Carter never saw the Ayatollah Khoemeni and his radical Islamic followers for what they were, and as a result, Iran never attained freedom and democracy that seemed possible when the initial protests against the Shah began.  The product of Carter's waffling was a radical Islamist state bent on Israel's destruction and supplying anti-American terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East to the present day.

Today we see the same thing happening in Egypt.  What may have begun as an uprising against Mubarak and for freedoms and democracy is rapidly being hijacked by Islamic radicals, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood.  Intel experts worldwide have long identified the Brotherhood as a spawner of terrorist organizations, with ties to everyone from Hizbollah to al Qaeda.  Yesterday, President Obama described the Muslim Brotherhood as a political entity in Egypt that should have a say in the future governance of that nation.  President Obama is on the same floundering path that Jimmy Carter trod on the way to losing Iran, perhaps forever, to radical, Israel-threatening Islamists.

This column in the Washington Post warns that George W. Bush was right about supporting true democracy in the Middle East and that its peoples have an inborn desire for freedom  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html.  What freedoms will the Muslim Brotherhood establish or protect?

It is most unfortunate that the revolutionary spirit and uprisings for freedom in Iran and Egypt did not occur when Presidents were in office who could see groups like the Muslim Brotherhood for what they are, terrorist sponsors and suppliers.  The Democrats thought George W. was a pie in the sky dreamer, or worse, for his fundamental belief that freedom and democracy in the Middle East is the long-term solution to global terrorism.  Now, when given an opportunity to further democracy in Egypt, President Obama ignores the lessons of the past and embraces a radical Islamist group hijacking a revolution and steering it toward Iran part II.

Similar revolutionary uprisings are sprouting in Jordan. Lebanon appears to have already been lost to Hizbollah rule, controlled by Iran and Syria.  If President Obama fails to stand with true revolutionaries for democracy in Egypt, and perhaps eventually in Jordan, against radical Islamist takeover, the ability to act will be taken from him just as it was from Jimmy Carter as he meekly allowed Iran to be taken hostage by Islamic militants, along with the ill-fated U.S. Embassy staff.