AGENT OF ALLAH. He was supposed to be a double agent. Jordan’s intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, was confident that they had “flipped” “suicide bomber Humam Muhammed al-Balawi, the Jordanian double agent who killed seven CIA operatives and his Jordanian handler” in the remote mountains of Afghanistan, on December 30, as reported by ABC.
But al-Balawi was just flipping the bird to Jordan and, more poignantly, to the US.
Al Balawi was born in Kuwait in 1977, raised in Jordan and attended medical school in Turkey. He had been arrested by Jordan’s intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, more than a year ago. Believing they had flipped al Balawi and made him a double agent, the Jordanians released him from prison and sent him to Afghanistan to penetrate al Qaeda by pretending to be an aspiring foreign jihadi.
The naive, American, CIA operatives salivated, setting up a meeting with “the supposed informant” at the “C.I.A.’s Forward Operating Base Chapman in the southeastern province of Khost” (NYT). Having strapped explosives to his body, Al Balawi blew himself up, taking with him one of the spy agency’s elite teams.
Al Balawi had “strong jihadi credentials” for a reason. He was a strong Jihadi.
This is what I’m getting at: The liberal aims to make humanity over in his image. As the creed of left-liberalism sees it, each and every individual has the potential to be a liberal. When operating from the foolish and infinitely arrogant premise that every Muslim is no more than a lesser Westerner struggling to unleash his inner liberal—you’re bound to play footsie with fanatics.
Muslims such as Al Balawi simply possess stronger core beliefs than the average CIA operative can fathom—even the “elites” among them.
How does one cluster of severely compromised pedagogues and parents deal with the reality of aggregate IQ differences between white students, on the one hand, and blacks and Latinos, on the other?
Why, by eliminating the harder subjects with which the stupider students can’t cope. Why allow the smart student to learn science if the stupid can’t?
How do these cretins hope to help fat students? By prohibiting track-and-field meets for the fit? Ugly students, of course, can be pacified by disfiguring pretty ones. That was easy.
The adults described in “Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs,” “working” as they are to cripple clever kids and knee-cap the workforce, have clearly themselves been subjected to the kind of “education” that eliminates the gifted for the sake of the gimps.
Update (Jan. 6): The retards, as expected, are doing the exact opposite of what that genius Thomas Jefferson instructed:
Geniuses, currently the recipients of two pennies out of every 100 educational dollars, must be “raked from the rubbish,” wrote Jefferson in “Notes on the State of Virginia.” Jefferson (he was not perfect) favored a very limited (only three years gratis) public education for Virginians. Unlike Education Secretary Rod Paige, whose most important contribution to literacy was to call the NEA (America’s largest teacher union) a “terrorist organization,” Jefferson understood that not every child can learn “Greek, Latin, Geography, and higher branches of arithmetic.” He did, however, insist that all must know “reading, writing, common arithmetic,” and history (nothing, you will note, about “social science” and “self esteem”). “History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future,” Jefferson noted.
Says John Brennan, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, in an interivew with CNN’s Gloria Borger: “We have made quite a bit of progress this year in degrading the capabilities of Al Qaida organization. We’ve taken the battle to them. We have eliminated a number of their senior leaders and operatives. But that doesn’t mean that they still don’t have a capability of carrying out attacks. And that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to look for ways and vulnerabilities in our system to get their operatives either here to the United States or in other places to carry out these attacks.”
Replies MICHAEL SCHEUER, the chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999: “Mr. Brennan is blowing smoke. You have some dead bodies — I agree with that; it’s all to the good — but no impact on the overall organization. … I think it’s stronger than it was at 9/11, certainly because the support and opposition across the Muslim world to American foreign policy is far greater today than it was in 9/11.”
I’ve covered Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, favorably: “When I think of a libertarian-leaning patriotic warrior, I think of Michael Scheuer. The chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, Scheuer is also the man behind the enhanced interrogation methods, which the hard-left and their friends on the libertarian left would have you believe are as heinous as the war crime at Hiroshima.”
Still, I’m not sure what he’s advising.
“Yemen is bin Laden’s ancestral home,” Scheuer comments. “More Yemenis than any Arab nationality fought against the Soviets. There would have been more Yemenis in the 9/11 attacks, except they couldn’t get visas as easily as the Saudis.”
And he recommends that, “We stop depending on surrogates. We stop depending on Pakistan. We stop depending on Yemen and use our own strong right arm. There is no — there’s no clause in the Constitution that says President Obama can delegate the defense of America to a Yemeni dictator.”
I don’t know what that means. Do you? Gloria doesn’t inquire. Like most journalists today, she possesses very little intellectual curiosity.
Update (Jan. 4): Is there a reason to so carefully distinguish “Islam” from “Jihadist Islam”? The latter is a redundancy. Jihad is part of Islam.
“WE WANT TO FIGHT THEM OVER THERE, RATHER THAN HERE.” Ann Coulter repeats that embarrassing, Bush-era non sequitur, also a center piece of Bush’s foreign policy. With that line, Bush bamboozled Boobus Americanus into believing that war in Iraq and terrorism in America were mutually exclusive conditions.
Andrew Breitbart prefers to forget the many times Bush betrayed “red-state Americans.” But worse than that: AB seems to be accusing the “MoveOn.Org crowd” of maligning Bush’s efforts at preventing 9/11. Is he seriously defending the stumble-bumble Bush administration’s criminal negligence in the year before the most devastating terrorist attack on US soil?
Let us reminds Breitbart of Condoleezza Rice’s bafflegabs:
She ignored “a 1999 report by the Library of Congress stating that suicide bombers belonging to al-Qaida could crash an aircraft into U.S. targets,” stating that it belonged to the realm of analysis, and wasn’t ‘actionable intelligence.'”
On Condy’s watch America experienced perhaps the worst intelligence lapse ever: Remember the Phoenix FBI agent who wrote a memorandum about the bin Ladenites who were training in U.S. flight schools? Agent Ken Williams’ report was very specific. Over and above the standard sloth the memo met in the Washington headquarters, it transpired that the FBI was as concerned about ‘racial profiling’ then as it is today.
Listening to Breitbart and Coulter, you’d think that security breech involving Mr. Hot Pants Abdulmutallab, AKA the Christmas Bomber, rivaled the one that allowed 9/11.
Watch the duo:
Update (Dec. 31): Sigh. Just as long as they spell your name right, right? From where I’m perched, I’ll settle for “them” reading what I write.
In response to the missive accusing me of, hitherto, misdiagnosing Ms. Coulter’s Craft, here’s an excerpt from my 2006 “Coughing Up Some Coulter Fur Balls”:
Mencken certainly would have had few kind words for dirigiste Dubya, the ultimate statist. Coulter, conversely, has shown Bush (who isn’t even conservative) almost unquestioning loyalty, other than to protest his Harriet Miers indiscretion and, of late, his infarct over illegal immigration. Such singular devotion would have been alien to Mencken. Nor would the very brilliant elitist have found this president’s manifest, all-round ignorance forgivable or endearing—Bush’s penchant for logical and linguistic infelicities would have repulsed Mencken.
About foreign forays, Mencken stated acerbically that “the United States should mind its own business. If it is actually commissioned by God to put down totalitarianism, let it start in Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Santo Domingo and Mississippi.” Mencken believed that “waging a war for a purely moral reason [was] as absurd as ravishing a woman for a purely moral reason.” Not in a million years would he have endorsed Bush’s Iraq misadventure.
Since he was not a party animal, but a man of principle, conformity to the clan would not have seen Mencken fall into contradiction as Coulter has: she rightly condemned Madeleine Albright’s “preemptive attack” on Slobodan Milosevic, as having been “solely for purposes of regime change based on false information presented to the American people.” But has adopted a different—decidedly double—standard regarding Bush’s Iraq excursion.
To repeat: Coulter is sui generis, but a Mencken she is not.
What readers find confusing is my unfem knack for fairly detailing the woman’s obvious talents, without fulminating excessively and vindictively about her failings. Coulter is a very talented Republican hack. Since I am quite comfortable in my unappreciated abilities, I see no need to denigrate hers. I know this is unusual, but it’s why rational individualists gravitate to this site.
