Translate

Saturday, October 20

Iranian mullacrats and Obama agree to one-on-one talks. Gee, Batchelor was right again. [yawn] How boring, always to be right. (UPDATED 2X(

UPDATE 7:57 PM EDT
Uh oh. Valerie Jarrett chasing NYT editorial board with her taser gun.
White House denies report that US, Iran agreed to hold one-on-one talks about nuclear program
See, this is why so many daytime TV soap operas went out of business here in the USA.  Who needs soaps with this crew in the White House?  Now I promise to go find the Times report that started the ruckus.
UPDATE 8:10 PM EDT
Here is the New York Times report, which mentions the denial by the White House.  The escape hatch for Obama seems to be that his administration has agreed only "in principle" to hold the talks; Tehran, for its part, says it wants to wait until it sees who wins the U.S. presidential elections before it's willing to go ahead with the talks.....
**************************
"Tehran does not fear the US, because POTUS Obama has worked since 2009 to sign a peace deal with the Supreme Leader that will resemble appeasement.  The Grand Bargain calls for the US to permit the Iranian nuclear enrichment program as a non-military enterprise in exchange for Iran promising to work in the region as a source of stability.  It is a decidedly one-sided deal brokered by the hard-trading Bazaar-keepers of Tehran.  POTUS Obama has traded away the US relationship to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Israel, in the hope of getting the deal done during the Election cycle of 2012."
-- John Batchelor, October 19

Batchelor has been warning for years that Barry is trying for a grand bargain with Iran in the manner of Nixon's grand bargain with China.  The New York Times reported about two hours ago that Iran's government and USG had agreed to one-on-one talks. While I'm finding the link and reading the report, here's Batchelor's October 18 report for Larry Kudlow's audience, plus his October 19 write-up on the terrorism threat that Americans face now from al Qaeda, and on the grand bargain. 

 
 John Batchelor
 John Batchelor Show
 October 19, 2012  
 Spoke to Larry Kudlow on his CNBC Kudlow Report in re the taunting by Iran President  Ahmadinejad ... that the US is a second-rate power with a grotesque debt load.  Larry Kudlow asked if the US is under threat of terror attack on our financial foundations, and the answer is yes.  
 More generally, Tehran does not fear the US, because POTUS Obama has worked since 2009 to sign a peace deal with the Supreme Leader that will resemble appeasement. The Grand Bargain calls for the US to permit the Iranian nuclear enrichment program as a non-military enterprise in exchange for Iran promising to work in the region as a source of stability. It is a decidedly one-sided deal brokered by the hard-trading Bazaar-keepers of Tehran. POTUS Obama has traded away the US relationship to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Israel, in the hope of getting the deal done during the Election cycle of 2012. The fresh turn is that POTUS is now said to be convinced that, in the event of his defeat, he can still close the deal with the Supreme Leader during the Lame Duck session of Congress. The POTUS thinking, inspired by Valerie Jarrett, is that the Obama administration's troubled first term will be offset by the success of Obama as a peacemaker just as Richard Nixon's disastrous second term was eventually offset by Richard Nixon's peacemaking with China before and after his resignation. As for the terror attacks on US, yes, they are most likely from lone wolf agents like a sad sack who thought he could bomb the Federal Reserve in Manhattan.   Far more damaging to US worth is the retreat from the confrontation with the Devils in the Middle East.  The present path to the Grand Bargain leads to darkness visible.

Mr Obama, Mrs Clinton, when were you planning on telling the American public about your actual policies on MENA? Or have you redefined "policy" to mean "It's all secrets"?


October 19, Foreign Policy magazine: "House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials."

Whether or not any Libyans were placed in danger by the release of the documents (read the rest of the FP piece for both sides of the argument), my concern at this moment is that the American people have been placed in danger by the Obama administration's actions in Libya and God Knows where else.

Even the America-friendly government in Tripoli, to the extent it can be called a government, was surprised, nay shocked, when a bunch of fleeing Americans it didn't even know were in the country, much less running a covert operation in Benghazi, showed up at the international airport on September 12 seeking a speedy exit.

I hasten to add that I have nothing against pussyfooting in the name of U.S. national security; I've made that clear more than once. But you see -- and at the risk of sounding like Dr Seuss -- when it's all pussyfooting, this tends to negate the concept of pussyfooting.

To put this another way:  it shouldn't have taken the death of four Americans in Libya for the American Congress and public to start feeling their way to an idea of what the U.S. Department of State and the White House were actually up to in Libya.

I know, I know; this is the way they do things in Brussels but when last I checked the United States of America was not yet a member of the European Union.

Mr President, Madam Secretary:  pardon my being instructive but the general idea of defense policy is that first you have a policy -- by its very nature something clearly communicated to others -- then you have tactics for implementing the policy, which can include covert actions.

Video of Greg Palkot's timeline for Fox News of Benghazi attack

The timeline was shown during the Fox News one-hour special, "Death and Deceit in Benghazi," first aired Friday night.  The videos don't show investigative reporter Greg Palkot's review of several details of the situation leading up to the attack; e.g, when Stevens arrived at the Bengazi compound (Sept. 10). The videos, produced by Fox and shown on the Fox website, are just the timeline part of the special report.

Timeline of Benghazi terror attack, Part 1

Part 2



Correction to post on Fox special on Benghazi with Greg Palkot's report

UPDATE
Fox has posted videos of Greg's report. Reviewing now then will post links.

In my rush to get up the original post I initially wrote that the attackers never got inside the main residence; I corrected that almost immediately -- they got inside the residence but couldn't get past the security gate that marked off the "safe haven" inside the residence.

I watched Greg's report again; one thing I missed first time around: he said that eyewitnesses to the attack heard foreign accents among some of the attackers.

For readers who missed the earlier airings of the special report, I'm assuming that Fox will re-broadcast it ("Death and Deceit in Benghazi") this weekend. Again, the special might not show up on your cable schedule under that title; Fox aired the special in the time slot for Greta Van Susteren's "On the Record" and that's how it might be shown on the weekend schedules. I am hoping Fox will post a video of the special and back this up with a transcript of Greg's report on the attack on the compound and annex.

I'll take this opportunity to thank Greg and his team and Bret Baier and everyone else who worked on the special report. Sometimes I get so angry with Fox's reporting, or lack thereof, on many international affairs, but this report makes up for a lot of omissions over the years. 

And from the start, Fox reporters have been tireless in digging into the entire Benghazi.affair. Those who would say they did this for political reasons haven't been paying attention. This is an American tragedy, a terrible tragedy that has profound implications for American defense policy.  Fox recognized this from the start, and showed what it can do by way of investigative reporting on international incidents when it puts its mind to it.  It's to be remembered that Fox made a name for itself with its great coverage of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. 

CHRIS STEVENS WAS FOUND BY LOOTERS, NOT ATTACKERS OR STATE PPL OR LIBYAN SECURITY GUARDS (Update 1:46 AM EDT)

Email exchange:

P: URGENT AT ALL COSTS WATCH FOX NEWS RE-BROADCAST OF THEIR SPECIAL TONIGHT ON BENGHAZI. IT WILL BE ON AT 1 AM.  Ignore 'Greta Van Susteren tag' -- the show in that time slot is about the attack. Greg Palkot has the first clear report of what actually happened at the Benghazi compound during the attack. Palkot's account differs strikingly from State's in some key aspects. And it clarifies several confusing aspects of earlier descriptions.

I will trust Greg's investigative reporting over State's reports any day -- he's been around a long time -- long before coming to Fox, and I swear the man is half ferret.

From Greg's report, which includes helpful animation illustrations, Stevens was found not by any of the American security ppl or the "Libyan Feb. 17 brigade" guards but by looters. At first they thought he was dead then someone called out that he was still breathing.  They didn't know who he was but were relieved to find he was alive and cried, "Allah Akbar!" (God is great) They then pulled him out a window and raced him to a hospital. Either he died enroute or was already dead when he was found, and those who thought he was still breathing were wrong. 

So that explains the 'mystery Libyans' shown carrying him in the photos, which might have been stills from amateur video (see Palkot's report.)  The Libyans carrying Stevens were looters, who'd gone into the compound after the worst of the fire had died down. 

That explains the foggy description in parts from State. The truth is that the Americans, etc. simply abandoned the compound when they couldn't find Stevens.

THERE IS MORE IN GREG'S REPORT.  DON'T MISS IT."

Is it possible for someone to survive that kind of fire as long as Stevens did, assuming he was still alive when the looters found him?  The fire, from photos, never had that much to feed on so, yes. he could have found an air pocket.  If so, he might have died more from carbon monoxide poisoning than from smoke inhalation.

Greg said the looters found him 'dazed' -- the daze could have been from a concussion. Recall the blood on the outside of the toilet and the bloody hand print  on a nearby wall in the "safe haven" that Arwa Damon found when she searched the compound on Sept. 13.  The blood could comport with what seems to be a gash on Stevens's forehead shown in one of photo of him being carried.  He could have cracked his head against the hard enamel toilet bowl while stumbling in the pitch black of the diesel fuel smoke, then righted himself, then found an air pocket.

In any case, one of the things clarified by Greg's report is that the attackers never got to him, never got past the security gate blocking off the 'safe haven' inside the main residence where Stevens was.  So all stories about Stevens having been raped are baseless gossip or disinformation put out by some Islamists.

UPDATE 1:46 AM EDT
In my rush to get up this post I initially wrote that the attackers never got inside the main residence; I corrected that almost immediately -- they got inside the residence but couldn't get past the security gate that marked off the "safe haven" inside the residence -- but I did want to note this and will post a correction for any readers who saw the original version of this post and haven't yet seen Greg's report. 

I just watched Greg's report again; one thing I missed first time around: he said that eyewitnesses to the attack heard foreign accents among some of the attackers.

For readers who missed the earlier airings of the report, I'm assuming that Fox will re-broadcast the special report ("Death and Deceit in Benghazi") this weekend.  Again, the special might not show up on your cable schedule under that title; Fox aired the special in the time slot for Greta Van Susteren's "On the Record" and that's how it might be shown on the weekend schedules.  I am hoping Fox will post a video of the special and back this up with a transcript of Greg's report on the attack on the compound and annex.

Friday, October 19

Obama has Big Bird and binders. Romney has this era's version of Watergate and The Pentagon Papers plus $16 trillion in national debt, almost 8 percent unemployment and the resurgence of al Qaeda


See also my earlier post tonight,  Subpoenaed cables show that for months prior to his death Amb. Chris Stevens repeatedly and strongly warned State HQ that Benghazi security was very bad and driven by Islamists

Now it's also coming out that Obama outsourced the arming of Libyan rebels to the Emir of Qatar and the Saudi monarch, who are Islamists. Hillary Clinton is involved up to her eyelashes. That isn't even to speaking to Obama, Clinton, Petraeus, Gates, Panetta and everyone on the NSC studiously looking the other way while weapons and training and American money for the Arab Spring went to al Qaeda. And all of them covering up what was happening so the American public wouldn't know. It's taken the murder of an American ambassador for the truth to start to come to light. 

All this is saying nothing about the Obama administration's attempts to cover up its crazy scheme to promote 'moderate' Islamists, in an echo of crazy Cold War schemes to promote anti-Communist tyrants, dope dealers and nuclear proliferators and the schemes to cover up the schemes.

Yeah, I know the younger generation of Americans is tired of hearing my generation haul out Vietnam War analogies to talk about the war on terror and Watergate to talk about Benghazi. I understand. I also hoped the younger generation would never have to go through anything like mine did.  It was the extent we were lied to about the Vietnam War, and what it took to bring to public light how much we were lied to -- that's why the wounds can't heal.

Not in America; understand? Somewhere over there in the Soviet Union, somewhere down in Latin America, somewhere in Asia or Africa -- but not in the United States of America. It couldn't be happening.  Not here.  Not here.

Subpoenaed cables show that for months prior to his death Amb. Chris Stevens repeatedly and strongly warned State HQ that Benghazi security was very bad and driven by Islamists

"Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya," the ambassador wrote, adding that "the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities ..."

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department's denials of requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.

Don't miss the report for Fox News filed by James Rosen. Another don't miss:  Fox will be airing a special tonight at 10 PM on all aspects of the Benghazi incident and political aftermath ("Death and Deceit in Benghazi").

7:35 PM EDT UPDATE
The original title of this post mentioned only the months Aug. and Sept. in referring to the warning cables but actually they go back at least as early as June, so I changed the title in the attempt to better convey the seriousness of the release of the cables. 

Thursday, October 18

To what extent is Obama administration backing al Qaeda fighters in MENA?

Last week I explained in answer to a reader's question that the U.S. compound in Benghazi isn't a consulate, but I couldn't recall how the Obama administration had termed it in the early reports about the attack on the compound. Yesterday WND's Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron Klein, in his report This is what Benghazi 'consulate' really was filled in the blank; they'd termed it a "mission" or "U.S. mission." As to what the mission was doing in addition to reportedly functioning as a CIA listening post -- from Klein's report:
The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya actually served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials. Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
[...]
Last month, WND [Klein] broke the story that Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials. Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.
[...]
As WND reported, questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Muammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels.

Similarly, the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army. Earlier this month, Obama announced $50 million more in aid to the Syrian rebels.

During the revolution against Gadhafi’s regime the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups. At the time rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”

Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”

In Syria, meanwhile, the U.S. may be currently supporting al-Qaida and other jihadists fighting with the rebels targeting Assad’s regime.

In August, WND quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at least 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, were killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month.

Also last month, WND reported Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks.

There have been widespread reports of al-Qaida among the Syrian rebels, including in reports by Reuters and the New York Times.

WND reported in May there was growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq [emphasis mine], according to an Egyptian security official.

The military official told WND that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates in Libya [...]
Somehow I don't think the U.S. use of al Qaeda fighters is Zenpundit's idea of America's "Light Footprint" Era.  Nor do I think that when Tom Dispatch's Nick Turse reported on the "surrogate" army the U.S. was building from "native' forces as part of the light footprint era he envisioned that would include using al Qaeda as surrogates.

If all the above sounds vaguely familiar, reference U.S. use of Pakistan's military (and the House of Saud) to train Afghan mujahideen in order to stick it to the Soviet Union:
[President Carter's] National Security Advisor Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which was run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the Central Intelligence Agency and Britain's MI6.This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces.
[...]
Carter and Brzezinski started a $3–4 billion covert program of training insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan as a part of the efforts to foil the Soviets' apparent plans. Carter's diplomatic policies towards Pakistan in particular changed drastically. The administration had cut off financial aid to the country in early 1979 when religious fundamentalists, encouraged by the prevailing Islamist military dictatorship over Pakistan, burnt down a U.S. Embassy based there.
Don't they ever learn? Sure they do, which is why I'm wondering what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama are up to. I hasten to add I'd be relieved to learn those Washington versions of Bonnie and Clyde hatched a devilishly clever plot. The alternative -- that they're so clueless they think it's a great idea to help topple regimes unfriendly to the Muslim Brotherhood by arming and financing al Qaeda fighters -- would cause me to relocate to Switzerland.

Wednesday, October 17

Summary of Town Hall presidential debate: Obama tries to play Clint Eastwood, fails

It was a foregone conclusion that President Obama would try to overcome his lackluster performance in the first debate, but he overshot the mark.  So, first Vice President Biden tried to show that the Obama campaign has cojones by putting on a truly manic performance in his debate with vice-presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, and now Obama has put on a performance that verged on the camp in his effort to show he's as much a man as Mitt Romney.

These things happen when a political party has nothing to run on except failed promises.

Oh and by the way, the next time you hear from Barack Obama or anyone that his early relationship with former Weatherman terrorist William Ayers was only in passing, you might want to read Stephen Diamond's report, Obama ties to Ayers reach back to 1980s, published October 16.

And the next time you hear the campaign rhetoric that Obama "killed bin Laden and saved General Motors," read Diamond's October 13, Al Qaeda lives and GM is moving to China.

Dr Diamond is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. If you're assuming he's a Republican or political conservative, you're assuming wrong. He's a leftist -- a genuine leftist, which is as scarce in today's Democratic Party as hen's teeth.

  

Tuesday, October 16

New information indicates Obama's relationship with former terrorist William Ayers reaches back to 1980s

The Daily Caller has obtained copies of two letters written by Obama, one to [then-Chicago mayor Harold Washington] and one to an aide of the mayor, as well as an attachment to the second letter listing the proposed board members. The list includes the name of John Ayers [brother of Bill Ayers], as well as that of the black nationalist minister Jeremiah Wright and the controversial and radical white Chicago priest Michael Pfleger. Also on the 1987 list is Ann Hallett, then with the Wieboldt Foundation, who would co-author with Bill Ayers the proposal to form the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1994. ... 

Obama ... steered millions of dollars from the CAC to multicultural curriculum programs and local control efforts led by Bill Ayers and [radical] Mike Klonsky, among others. Ayers, in turn, supported Obama’s effort to enter electoral politics as part of the “long march” tactics favored by Bill Ayers after the failed effort to stoke a 'revolution' through violence and terror.

Obama ties to Ayers reach back to 1980s
By Stephen Diamond
October 16, 2012

New evidence that the relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers reaches back to the 1980s surfaced today.

In 2008 I was one of the first to blog (Who "sent" Obama?) about the important and longstanding relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, a founding member of the terrorist organization known as Weather Underground. I pointed out then that Ayers appointed Obama as Chairman of the board of directors of the education reform group known as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) in 1995. David Remnick of The New Yorker later confirmed this fact in his biography of Obama. This appointment was a critical step in the career of Obama who went on later that year to run for state senator, his first political office, a campaign that he launched at an event held at the Hyde Park home of Bill Ayers and Ayers' wife and Weather Underground comrade Bernardine Dohrn.

I also noted that given the importance of the Annenberg appointment that Ayers would never have appointed Obama unless he knew Obama was an ally in the ongoing “Chicago School Wars.” Those Wars were taking place between three key groups: the Daley Administration which wanted to centralize control of the Chicago schools in the Mayor’s office, the Chicago Teachers Union which wanted to protect the wages, job security and working conditions of its members, and a loose coalition of reform groups of which Obama, and three members of Ayers' family, including Bill, his brother John and, earlier in his life, their father Tom, were a part.

Each of these three groups jockeyed for position and for for the nearly $50 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation. (A fuller description of the three way conflict can be found here.) Ayers led the reformers' successful effort to secure that grant and set up the Annenberg Challenge in late 1994 and early 1995. Ayers (together with Ann Hallett) exchanged letters in 1994 with the Annenberg Foundation’s representative, Vartan Gregorian of Brown University, confirming that Ayers was working to assemble a board of directors for the Challenge. Obama joined the Challenge board in the spring of 1995.

Only if Obama had proven himself to Ayers would Ayers have appointed Obama to the board. The latest evidence confirms that, despite the denials by The Times and the Obama campaign, the relationship between Ayers and Obama reaches back as far as 1987 when education reform burst into a major political issue in Chicago. In the spring of 1987 Barack Obama lobbied the mayor of Chicago at that time, Harold Washington, to set up a “local control” education reform effort that would include Bill Ayers’ brother John on its advisory board. Obama wrote the mayor as Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP) a position Obama held for three years prior to attending Harvard Law School.

The Daily Caller has obtained copies of two letters written by Obama, one to Washington and one to an aide of the mayor, as well as an attachment to the second letter listing the proposed board members. The list includes the name of John Ayers, as well as that of the black nationalist minister Jeremiah Wright and the controversial and radical white Chicago priest Michael Pfleger. Also on the 1987 list is Ann Hallett, then with the Wieboldt Foundation, who would co-author with Bill Ayers the proposal to form the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1994.

John Ayers, now head of the Cowen Institute at Tulane, shares the same passion for education reform as his brother and his late father. He became a participant on behalf of business groups in the push for local control and later for the charter school movement, which was a natural evolution from the local control and small schools approach advocated by Bill Ayers and his former SDS comrade Mike Klonsky.

Despite this background, Obama supporters, including The New York Times, maintained that Ayers had no serious connection, if any, with Obama and that Ayers played no role in the selection of Obama to chair the Annenberg Challenge. Although I was interviewed 5 times by The Times and provided them this background, they ignored this information and published a long page one story by Scott Shane that repeated the Obama campaign position that Ayers had no role in the appointment of Obama to the Annenberg entity.

At the time I also reported that a senior and longtime Democratic Party activist said that the Ayers relationship with Obama went back to the mid-1980s. This same source also said that Ayers and Dohrn played a significant role in the Obama campaign including helping devise lists of individuals for appointments in the new Administration. The appointment of former marxist-leninist Van Jones to the Obama White House would seem to be evidence of this.

This same source also said in 2008 that a senior campaign operative, who is still today a senior member of the Obama campaign, was aware of conversations between David Axelrod and Bill Ayers aimed at blocking access by conservative writer Stanley Kurtz to records of the Annenberg Challenge held at the University of Illinois. More on the CAC records flap here.

I also interviewed and reported on the fact that the mailman who delivered mail to the home of Bill Ayers’ parents had met Obama outside that home in the 1980s. That mailman also spoke to me about a conversation he had during the 2008 campaign with Tim Ayers who vigorously defended his brother Bill and his wife Bernardine Dohrn.

It made sense to me that the relationship with Ayers would reach back that far because in 1987 the DCP played a very active role in the loose coalition of groups referred to above interested in pressuring the Teachers Union and the Mayor’s office to institute reform of Chicago schools. The primary goal of the DCP and many in this coalition was a variation on the theme of “local control” - an attempt to involve parents and surrounding communities in local schools.

“Local control” is widely viewed as hostile to teachers' unions because it can become an easily manipulated source of pressure on teachers and principals without any rational basis in education policy. In fact, Bill Ayers and Mike Klonsky were explicit about their interest in influencing schools through this method and the Annenberg Challenge money was used to do this. Some education policy figures, such as Dorothy Shipps, view "local control" as undemocratic because it prevents district wide transparent and accountable reforms.

Local control first emerged as a part of the ideology of black nationalists and elements within the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, in the 1960s. SDS was the left wing antiwar student group that fell apart in the late 60s and gave rise to, among other sects, the terror group Weather Underground. SDS and black nationalists advocated local control and opposed the teachers union in a bitter strike in New York City in 1968. Some SDS members went so far as to scab during the strike.

Bill Ayers and Mike Klonsky were leading members of SDS then. Ayers later helped found the Weather Underground and Klonsky became a hard core Maoist. Klonsky along with Ayers became an active backer of Obama. Klonsky hosted a blog on educational issues on the official Obama campaign website in 2008 that was deleted once the maoist background of Klonsky was discussed during the campaign.

In 1980, Ayers and his wife Dohrn surfaced from hiding during their Weather Underground days and turned themselves into authorities. They avoided jail time for their terrorist activity but Dohrn was refused admission to the bar despite graduating from the University of Chicago law school. She was able to reinvent herself as a "law professor" of sorts and is now a member of the law school faculty at Northwestern University. Bill Ayers entered graduate school in education in New York and then returned to Chicago in 1987 to join the faculty of the University of Illinois at Chicago, then known as the “Chicago Circle” campus.

In the fall of 1987 a strike of the Chicago Teachers’ Union took place just a few months after Obama asked the mayor to support the DCP's community based education effort that would include John Ayers. The strike angered many in the city and led to a lobbying effort in the Illinois legislature to institute local control in the Chicago schools through elected "local school councils" (LSCs). Over union opposition and opposition from groups such as Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH, which feared (correctly) the LSC's would undermine teachers many of whom were black, the state legislature backed the LSC idea.

Bill Ayers was active during the strike as well in this reform effort, as was his brother John. Bill rose to chair the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools, or ABCs, a key group in the LSC lobbying campaign. although precisely when Ayers became chair is not known. Obama’s DCP was also a member of ABCs, the only black community organization to join. Another member was Chicago United, a business group that had been founded many years earlier by Thomas Ayers, the father of Bill and a powerful Chicago business leader who was active in education reform on behalf of the business community. Chicago United played a key role in organizing ABCs.

John Ayers, Bill Ayers, Tom Ayers, Mike Klonsky and Barack Obama shared a commitment to "local control" ideology from at least the late 1980s through the Chicago School Wars of the 1990s. Obama brought his DCP into the local control movement and thus proved himself a valuable ally of the Ayers family in that battle. Bill Ayers rewarded Obama for that commitment by appointing Obama to chair the Annenberg Challenge in 1995.

Obama, in turn, steered millions of dollars from the CAC to multicultural curriculum programs and local control efforts led by Bill Ayers, Mike Klonsky, among others. Ayers, in turn, supported Obama's effort to enter electoral politics as part of the "long march" tactics favored by Bill Ayers after the failed effort to stoke a "revolution" through violence and terror.

There is also evidence that Ayers, and his allies in the education reform movement, continue to influence education policy of the President. It is no surprise that the Obama campaign, including its media team at The New York Times, has done everything it can to bury this story.

MAJORLY PROFOUND HAS RETURNED

Thanks to a reader for alerting me to this momentous news!  The Major is none the worse for wear, it seems, for his absence from the blogosphere, and in fine fettle. This time I'm taking no chances that he will delete his blog again so I am publishing in its entirety WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION (come and get me, Major) his latest take on the joys of Pakistani society:
14 year old girl NOT shot in the head for Blasphemy

In a positive development in Pakistan, a fourteen year old girl was shot in the head but NOT for Blasphemy.

Malala Yousafzai, a ninth grade student from Mingora — (Editor’s note: There was some controversy as to whether she was a young girl or a grown man, but that controversy was settled when it was pointed out that adults in Pakistan usually don't have the courage to oppose the taliban) — who was an outspoken proponent for girls’ education rights, was shot in the head.

Initial reports indicated that she was shot for being a Shia and the incident was largely ignored as a routine occurrence.

The next few reports from Mingora were contradictory. It was reported that she was shot for being an Ahmadi, and it was greeted with increasingly voiceferous media coverage expressing outrage that there were still Ahmadis left in Pakistan.

A retired army general who also served as a diplomat, famous for his op-ed columns, claimed that he had personally traveled to the region, met the girl, spoke to local authorities, and reported that she was shot for Blasphemy. It later emerged that like most op-ed columns in Pakistan, the op-ed columnist was making things up and had only gone as far as his bathroom.

Then it emerged that she was shot in the head for her vociferous support for women’s education in Pakistan. This was greeted by a huge sigh of relief by many who had gathered for a candlelight vigil at the Lahore Gymkhana Club. A woman who declined to be named said:
It came as a huge relief that she was shot in the head for supporting education. If she had been shot for Blasphemy we could not have gathered to protest, na? At least it is now safe to express solidarity and outrage. I called up all my friends and said that it is safe to protest. You will be seeing more of us in twitter, TV, newspaper columns and marches. It is a huge disgrace that we had to be cooped up at home and not express ourselves because the shootings so far have been for Blasphemy. This shooting is a welcome change for all of us and is just what Pakistan was craving for.
Senator Rehman Malik, who initially claimed that he would shoot any 14 year old girl who wanted to study with his own hands, recanted his statement and said that the perpetrators would be dealt with an iron hand. He also said that he could not rule out a foreign hand in the shooting.

President Asif Ali Zardari in a speech recalled the sacrifices made by his wife Benazir Bhutto for women’s education in Pakistan in 1969, when she left to study at Radcliffe College to educate herself while being a woman.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry when pressed for comments, directed the government to write to Swiss authorities for reopening corruption cases against Zardari.

The rising politician Imran Khan said that drone attacks were responsible for girls wanting to study in Pakistan and the taliban reaction was a natural resistance for newfangled western ideas like education. Imran’s statement was met with dismay by some, but common Pakistanis refused believe news reports or Imran Khan and were convinced that it was a Mossad conspiracy perpetrated by the CIA.

General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani was unavailable for comment as he had rushed to the US to demand drone technology and more air-to-air missiles to educate Pakistani girls.

Sunday, October 14

Sen. Graham: Obama and Clinton knew EVEN BEFORE the attack on the Benghazi consulate that it wasn't preceded by riots about an anti-Islam video

"Mr. Graham said that Obama administration officials knew within hours of the Sept. 11 attacks in Libya that they were well-coordinated, not a spontaneous riot spurred by an anti-Islam video, as administration officials first said they believed." -- Wall Street Journal, Oct 14

I'm breaking radio silence to express concern that no one in the GOP involved with Romney's election or the press has picked up yet on the obvious fact that Fox News host Greta Van Susteren pointed out on national television on Friday night -- a fact that had eluded everyone else in the news media and blogosphere as well as the GOP political campaign:

Although security and fortifications were inadequate for the consulate, State had installed CCTV cameras there with a live feed to State headquarters. The feed could be activated by anyone in the consulate pressing a 'panic' button. This would allow people at State to see. almost in 'real time,' what was going on in the consulate environs. Given this sophisticated danger notification system, Obama administration officials would have been informed immediately if there had been riots or even peaceful protests outside the consulate in the hours preceding the September 11 attack on the consulate.

This fact came out during the October 10 hearings on Capitol Hill about security for U.S. diplomatic personnel serving in Libya. The obvious implication is that because of the very volatile situation in eastern Libya, the consulate would have immediately informed State if there had been any disturbance outside the consulate. 

[Oct. 15 Update:  It turns out that the information about CCTVs at the Benghazi compound came out a day earlier than the hearing, on October 9, at a State Dept. background press briefing, but the reference, which only mentioned "cameras" at the compound, was clearly lost in the shuffle of the discussion.]   

In fact, activating the live feed would have been backed up by a phone call to State -- another point that came out at the hearing.

This means State and all relevant officials in the Obama administration who claimed to be depending on the "intelligence community" to learn whether there were protests outside the consulate on September 11 were lying.

Again, all this was implied by testimony in the hearing. Yet only Van Susteren picked up on the implications of the testimony. On Friday night she spelled out the implications to a panel of journalists -- male journalists -- one from Roll Call, another from The Hill, the third I can't remember, but all three are savvy and well informed on the Benghazi incident and the political fallout it created. So all three understood immediately the full import of Van Susteren's observation, which was political dynamite.

Although she didn't call out administration officials as liars, she didn't have to. It's now tragically obvious that they'd blatantly lied about needing to wait on the intelligence community to learn about conditions outside the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack.

Yet here we are on Sunday night, in the wake of the Sunday-morning talk show chatter about Benghazi and the blizzard of reports today about Sen. Graham's incendiary statements, and still the obvious hasn't dawned, not even with help from Greta Van Susteren.

I did my part on Friday night by posting about Greta's comments. But where is the press? 

I hope this isn't an instance of male bias against genuinely intelligent females being the first to bat a home run on an issue.  The stakes are too high this time for envy to show its face.

Saturday, October 13

I can haz rest now, Pundita?


Hah! I see a member of my research team is flagging.  Yes I'll concede it's been a very busy news month.  All right; we could all use a break. I will return to blogging on Thursday.  
Until then, best regards to all.
Pundita
PS:   Don't miss my earlier post today on Greta Van Susteren's great triumph. An attorney worth her weight many times over in gold, it seems.   

Greta Van Susteren checkmates Obama on Benghazi


There was a panic button in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. On this fact, not brought out until an October 10 hearing on Capitol Hill, much turns......

With one remark Greta Van Susteren, an attorney and the host of FNC's On the Record, has exposed that Obama administration officials were outright lying about their knowledge of the genesis of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. In doing so she identified a point that had gotten overlooked in the uproar that followed startling revelations during Wednesday's congressional hearing on security in Libya.

One revelation was that a live feed could be activated between CCTV cameras at the Benghazi consulate and State Department headquarters in Washington, DC.

[Oct. 15 Update: It turns out that the information about CCTVs at the Benghazi compound came out a day earlier than the hearing, on October 9, at a State Dept. background press briefing, but the reference, which only mentioned "cameras" at the compound, was clearly lost in the shuffle of the discussion.]

This arrangement served as State's danger notification system. During the hearing Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, said, after explaining the system to the congressional panel, that shortly after the attack on the consulate began, a security agent there activated the system. This meant she was able to watch the attack as it unfolded "almost in real time."

Last night on her TV show Greta mentioned the notification system, then pointed out that given the live feed, State would have known immediately if there'd been protests outside the consulate earlier in the day. By gum she's right.  Of course the live feed would have been activated in the event of protests outside the consulate!

That means President Barack Obama and Ambassador Susan Rice would have been notified by State on that same day if there had been protests outside the Benghazi consulate on September 11. They would have needed to know, particularly in light of the violent protests earlier that day outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

So, again, officials were flatly lying these past weeks. They lied every time they told the public that the administration had based its early assumptions on initial reports from the intelligence community that the attack on the Benghazi consulate had grown from protests outside the consulate over an anti-Islam video. The officials didn't need to wait for the intelligence community to do its work. Again, State would have informed them immediately if there had been protests, based on virtual real-time data.

What does it all mean? For starters, I think it means the pundits who've compared the administration's smoke-blowing about the attack on the consulate to the Watergate scandal have turned out to be right.  Only this is worse in one way than Watergate because nobody died in the Watergate break-in.

For a good backgrounders on the issues, see Bloomberg's October 10 report, State Department Followed Benghazi Attack as It Happened and Jennifer Rubin's October 12 column for the Washington Post, Obama's Libya Debacle: Willful Blindness.

Friday, October 12

On the killing of an American ambassador

Okay; who wrote to ask Pundita whether the Benghazi compound is a consulate or embassy?  Getting into the weeds is one thing; that far into the marshes is ridiculous. However, from the way the question is worded, I think the reader is trying to learn if there's a difference between those diplomatic missions when it comes to security considerations. So I'll answer the question.

The Benghazi compound, which for now seems to have been abandoned, wasn't a consulate. There wasn't a consul in residence; all consular business was handled through the embassy in Tripoli.

It wasn't an embassy, either, unless you want to be very technical and say it was an embassy when the ambassador was in residence there. The State Department travel section at its website, under its August 27, 2012 entry, describes the place as an "embassy office:"
June 2012, an unknown group of attackers detonated an improvised explosive device outside the compound of the U.S. embassy’s office in Benghazi.
But the mention was given only by way of warning that the situation in eastern Libya was dangerous for American travelers there; it wasn't meant to inform people about the office. The website provided no address or contact information. There wasn't even a sign announcing the compound's business, from photographs I've seen of it.

As to why it came to called a consulate -- there was confusion at first in the press about how to term it, after news of the attack broke. Calling it a consulate was the simplest way to refer to something that was neither fish nor fowl, and the term stuck.

As to whether there are different security considerations for a consulate and an embassy -- there are probably fortifications associated with an embassy that aren't found in a consulate, at least not under normal circumstances. However, with regard to providing adequate security guards for State Department employees abroad, there's not supposed to be any distinction related to where the employees are sited. This is the ideal; as to how often it's met, the reader would have to ask someone who specializes in the subject.

Now with specific regard to whether security for the Benghazi consulate was adequate, much of the congressional inquiry on Wednesday was taken up with just that question, which could have been what precipitated the reader's query.

The hearing, which included opening statements, lasted a little over four hours. I missed about 40 minutes of the Q&A period, which I'll try to make up next weekend. But from what I heard of the questions, the inquiry focused on the issue of guards rather than fortification. And within that area of questioning, it focused on security for the entire compound rather than security for the person of the ambassador.

This very narrow focus let the State employees who were being questioned off the hook in some ways.  So while the employees stated in one way or another that the attack on the compound was virtually unprecedented and that no number of armed guards could have repelled such a massive attack, this had nothing to do with key questions that might not have been asked.

One such question would be:  How many bodyguards does the State Department provide to a U.S. ambassador in a high-level threat environment, and was this regulation number provided to Ambassador Christopher Stevens?

It could be that such a question would be considered off limits to State for security reasons, but there would be a way to pose the question without asking for a specific number.

It's a question that was posed by Daniel Bongino, a former Secret Service agent who also served as an officer on the New York City police force:
Bongino said he has heard from his own back channels that there is great unrest about the situation in Libya among agents at Secret Service and Department of State Security, the agency that protects diplomats. [...]

"From what I am hearing, there may have been just a two-person detail.  I cannot confirm that but that is what I am hearing,” he said. "A two-person detail? A two-person DSS detail -- in our parlance, that is not even for a low-level threat, that is a nonexistent-threat detail.  To protect an ambassador in Benghazi with a two-person detail, you might as well put a bull’s eye on his back.”
Other observations Bongino makes in the same report point to a problem with State's oversight of security for American foreign service personnel that is both systemic and specific to the Obama administration's policy on Libya. 

Yet the thing is that I don't recall President Obama boasting about the great success of the American intervention in Libya or crowing about the 'new' democratic Libya.  I'm not saying he didn't do this; I take in so much news every day that several items are bound to escape my recollection.  But you see I do recall some ranking members of Congress going on television day after day, and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing for Obama to intervene in Libya.  Members of Congress such as John McCain. And I well remember Mr McCain proudly and somewhat defensively talking about the great success of democratic elections in Libya.

Just as I remember BBC America and CNN pushing day after day, week after week, for the "international community" to intervene in Libya. As to how the international community was to ride herd on Libya once Gaddafi was overthrown --  Don't worry, McCain told a perplexed Fox News anchor. "We know these people who will be running the government. One of them went to the University of Pennsylvania."

And I also remember quite clearly, as if it all happened just yesterday, how desperately hard Obama was working at that time to hold the ISAF coalition together and gain support from NATO governments for a post-2014 U.S. strategic pact with Afghanistan's government.

Here's the link to the C-SPAN video of Wednesday's congressional inquiry into security for the Benghazi compound.  But somehow I don't think you'll ever see the congressional inquiry that the American public needs to see. That would be the inquiry into just who, and which governments, are actually running American foreign policy and what connections those governments might have with several ranking members of Congress.

But that's where you'd need to start, if you really wanted to know how an American ambassador was killed in Libya.  You'd first need to drill down to bedrock.



Thursday, October 11

Summary of vice-presidential campaign debate: Joe Biden goes off his meds



All I could think during the debate was, 'Can you imagine that hysteric as president?'  

A big part of the vice-presidential debate is to display behavior that allows voters to imagine what kind of president the candidate would make, if God forbid he had to take over the presidency at no notice. 

Paul Ryan, for all his youth, came across as mature -- calm, measured, in command of himself, not rattled by the banshee at his elbow.

The kindest thing I can say about Joe Biden's debate performance is that he came across as immature. But mostly he came across as mercurial to the point of mental instability.  The grinning and giggling and laughing he did during Paul Ryan's debate time was unsettling.

Maybe toward the end of the debate someone was gesturing at him to calm down; in any case he got a little quieter in his tone and stopped the weird laughter. But by then it was too late to counteract the impression he'd cemented over the course of more than an hour, which is that this is not what you want answering the White House phone at 3:00 AM.

Video of Lara Logan's keynote address in Chicago to warn Washington is downplaying terrorist threat (Updated)



UPDATE
Ah!  I see Long War Journal posted the video at 6:24 PM on the 10th; from my glance at Google News it's been posted elsewhere as well. That's great; the more the merrier! If you have a blog, please post the video!
********************
After posting around 4:00 AM yesterday on the media buzz generated by Logan's controversial speech, then grousing that no transcript was available, I spent the rest of the day immersed in the hearing on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi raid.  So imagine my happiness when I stopped off at Zenpundit 'round midnight and discovered that lo and behold Scott Shipman had scooped up a video of the speech!

What's this? [opening an email] A correspondent has just informed me the video is also up at Chicago Boyz with commentary from Lexington Green!

Yipppeee! This calls for some cumbia music from Bomba Estéreo!  For those just joining the party, see my October 9 In keynote address CBS reporter Lara Logan warns that for two years Washington has been downplaying the terrorist threat: "There is a major lie being propagated".

Scott's comment about the speech:
 This is worth the 20 minutes. Strategy without clarity, isn’t. There is no clarity or strategy to our current problems in Afghanistan.

“We have killed all the slow and stupid ones. But that means the ones that are left are totally dedicated.” Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
Comment from Lex:
Sun Tzu said tactics without strategy is the slow road to defeat. We need a strategy. And the first element in that strategy is, quite literally, sanity. Seeing facts and events and people as they actually are, not as we wish them to be, or pretend that they are. Then, based on reality, determine who our enemies are, then destroy them. We have wasted 11 years. We had a detour into Iraq, and we have pretended that Pakistan, our enemies’ patron and haven, is an ally.

Tell me how this ends. Tell me how we destroy our enemies. Tell me what will replace the current non-strategy, which is the slow road to defeat.
Well there are still plenty of stupid ones left -- the zombie army:  the brainwashed ones, the cannon fodder, but yes, there's plenty of brainpower.  And it's like that Pakistani official told what's his name [I'll settle down shortly] "You've killed al Qaeda's Number Three man five times."

And it's not only Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. foreign policy and war strategy have come to resemble a giant game of Twister, with the U.S. government and all its 'allies' doing horse trading (You support me with Syria, I'll support you with Afghanistan.' You support me with Iran I'll support you with Libya' and on and on, until in place of strategy there is a tangle of arms, legs and promises.

Wednesday, October 10

Lara Logan's "war cry" generates media buzz (Updated)



UPDATE
Here's the video of Logan's entire speech
**********************
After posting in the wee hours of the 9th about Logan's remarks during her keynote address in Chicago I worried they'd be lost in the shuffle of other news. I needn't have worried. It turns out that Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Beast, FNC's show "The Five" and other pundits and news organizations discussed her remarks on the 9th -- and National Review Online discussed them on the 8th, the day after a Chicago Sun-Times reporter belatedly broke the news about Logan's September 2 speech.

See this link at FNC for links to the Daily Beast report and Rush's remarks. The transcript for the 9th "The Five" show should be up later this morning. I think the Daily Beast piece is interesting because it highlights just how controversial Logan's remarks are.

Lara Logan is no stranger to controversy; in 2008 she touched off a media uproar with her harsh criticism about the dearth of televised reporting on the war campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

One of the many good things about the current uproar is that it's brought more attention to Logan's important September 30 investigative report, The Longest War, which had gotten lost in the shuffle of other news.

So now we await a transcript of Logan's keynote address, I hope.

Oh come now, DNI Clapper. How much tea-leaf reading did it take after the British shut their consulate in Benghazi?

Intel chief on criticisms about Benghazi: "Enough already"
By Suzanne Kelly
CNN
October 9, 2012

The top U.S. intelligence official said on Tuesday there was no obvious warning ahead of the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and rebuffed criticism of the intelligence community's initial assessment of the incident.

James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, said in raw and revealing remarks to a group of intelligence professionals and contractors in Orlando that there is a "message" the intelligence community has learned since the September 11 attack that is "applicable to the executive and legislative branches of government" as well as to members of the media.
[...]
Clapper said an increased security risk is the new normal overseas, and that people need to understand what intelligence can and cannot do.

"The challenge is always a tactical warning, the exact insights ahead of time that such an attack is going to take place and obviously we did not have that," Clapper said in answering questions after the speech.

"This gets into the mysteries versus secrets thing. If people don't behave, emit a behavior or talk or something else ahead of time to be detected, it's going to be very hard to predict an exact attack and come up with an exact attack," he said.
[...]
Let's dispense with the metaphysics of intelligence work, shall we?  The security situation in Benghazi was so bad for months prior to the attack on the U.S. consulate that the British government shut its consulate there after a brazen assassination attempt on their Libyan envoy. It was so bad that transnational oil companies were giving clear signs to the U.S. State Department that they were thinking of pulling out of Benghazi if the security situation didn't markedly improve.  Given how used those companies are to functioning in dangerous region, that's saying all that really needs to be said about how dangerous Benghazi was at the time of the attack on the Benghazi compound.

As for the "new normal" -- uh, what's the new normal if your consulate is bombed twice in the five months running up to an all-out attack? Telling American foreign service employees to play a round of Russian Roulette before they can collect their paycheck?

Tuesday, October 9

On the Taliban shooting of Malala Yousafza: Pakistani human rights activists need to stop believing in American fairy tales

Subhas Chandra Bose


A 14 year-old Pakistani girl who idolizes Barack Obama and became famous in Pakistan and the U.K. as a critic of the Taliban and advocate for girls' rights in her country -- and received a national award for bravery for her efforts -- has been shot in the head and chest by the Taliban.  A spokesman for the Taliban said that if she survives they'll keep trying to murder her because she's anti-Taliban and a secularist.

As to how a child became a noted anti-Taliban activist in Pakistan and the U.K. -- because BBC Urdu published a journal she began keeping at the age of 11 to document Taliban brutality in Pakistan's Swat Valley, where she lived, for the BBC. Although the journal was published under a pen name, after the Taliban were cleared out of Swat in 2009 her identity was revealed.

Her shooting has set off outrage in Pakistan and the U.K. and the uproar will make onto the nightly news in the USA and many other countries around the world, if the flood of press reports about the shooting is any indication. 

An Indian Pundita reader who's usually cool-headed sent me this comment and asked that  I mention the shooting at my blog:
Where is the obligation/right to protect when we need it? Hillary Clinton betrayed more than her country, she made a mockery of her status as role model and voice for girls all over the world. How is it that Romney doesn't bring up Pakistan in his campaign? Oh I know why, but am just upset.
I'm going to give an answer that the reader -- and Pakistan's human rights advocates -- might find surprising and even upsetting.

I do not know, and I am completely sure I do not want to know, how a child was allowed and encouraged to become an anti-Taliban activist. But the obligation and right to be protected is first the responsibility of the individual adult. The history and Bill of Rights of the United States of America are testament to that.

The United States and its struggles for human rights are written in human blood.  Yet many Americans don't know this because for more than a generation American history has been given little attention in the country's public schools. And what history is taught gives overwhelming attention to the nonviolent civil rights protests that began in the 1960s and the issues of human rights.

So while I do think Hillary Clinton has betrayed her country, she's not the one who thought up the fairy tale that with enough education, fair elections and peaceful civil rights protests this world can become a paradise for democracy. 

The teachings of the American democracy activist Gene Sharp and his handbook of nonviolent protest went a long way to cement the fairy tale as actual fact in the popular imagination.  This, despite the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE AUTHORITARIAN REGIME HAS EVER BEEN OUSTED USING NONVIOLENT TACTICS WITHOUT TACIT OR OVERT COOPERATION FROM THE COUNTRY'S MILITARY AND/OR  POLICE.  Anyone who says differently is lying or misinformed.

I'm going to repeat this for the benefit of 11 year-olds and all those democracy activists who've confused reality with Tinker Bell. 

NOT ONE SINGLE AUTHORITARIAN REGIME HAS EVER BEEN OUSTED USING NONVIOLENT TACTICS WITHOUT TACIT OR OVERT COOPERATION FROM THE COUNTRY'S MILITARY AND/OR  POLICE.  

ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU DIFFERENTLY IS LYING OR MISINFORMED.

Not only that, all of the successful "color revolutions" using nonviolent tactics from the Gene Sharp playbook were backed with money and tactical support from American and West European governments.

As for the great triumph of Mohandas Gandhi's nonviolent approach:  I hate to be the one to break the news but his approach had nothing whatsoever to do with the British decamping India. 

The real story is that the British government was rightfully scared that the Indian activist Subhas Chandra Bose was preparing a full-scale armed insurrection at a time when the British military was least prepared to deal with it.  That's why they finally capitulated to Gandhi's demands.  Everything else is another fairy tale.

It's the kind of fairy tale the State goes to great trouble to promote for the obvious reason that no government, including the U.S. one, wants to see replays of the American Revolution every time a large number of citizens become disgruntled with their government.

The State has a point. So what's the tiebreaker between myth and reality?   The tiebreaker is when the State is clearly unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from brazen terrorists, criminals and rioting mobs.
It's times like these that citizens have to take matters into their own hands, and by this I don't mean peace marches or writing letters to the editor to demand that the State do something to better protect its citizens. 

The London Riots were a case study in how quickly the world's goons back off when citizens band together in a show of force and demonstrate a willingness to fight to the death to defend themselves and their property.

There are many other case studies, although for understandable reasons they never get much press.  Even with the London Riots, the government tried to downplay the pivotal role that the citizen patrols played in stopping the crime wave set off in England by the rioters.

The biggest 'untold' story about Mexico's crime wave is that in several regions where Mexico's indigenous peoples hold sway, the heavily-armed crime cartels have been driven away or prevented from moving in. 

There was even one situation where the townspeople were so determined to keep out the gangsters that they dug a deep moat around the entire town to flummox the SUVs driven by the mobsters and posted armed sentries around the perimeter.

Why the rural indigenous peoples?  Why not the urbane Latino Mexicans who cower inside their homes while the mobsters terrorize them?   Because those Indians have always had plenty of evidence that when it comes to receiving help from the State, they're not even last on the list. They're off the list.

Same with the Turkish, Indian and Pakistani shopkeepers who led the charge against the London rioters.  Those shopkeepers initially fled to England to get someplace where they could get better protection from the State than in their own countries. But when they saw that England's government was deliberately downplaying the seriousness of the rioting and that the police had been hamstrung, they quite literally swung into action.  They armed themselves with tire irons and baseball bats and set up patrols -- patrols that the beleaguered native English shopkeepers joined after they got tired of waiting for the State to show up and rescue them.  

Those are the kind of things individuals and collections of individuals must be prepared to do, when the State is no help, and when they want to illustrate to thugs that they really and truly don't want to be terrorized.

The nonviolent civil rights protests in the United States that ended virtual apartheid in the American South were successful without firing a shot because the American nation was already one that accepted the rule of law.  Pakistan has never had a rule of law, much less a humane set of laws. So the country is a long way from the day that it can afford to hand out bravery awards to 14-year olds. And it's criminally negligent of Pakistani adults not to admit this.

It's not by education or economic prosperity or demonstrations on behalf of the downtrodden that one establishes a rule of humane laws.  There's only one way such laws are established and protected, and that's when citizens show a willingness to kill and be killed to achieve the principles upholding the laws  A terrible paradox, to be sure, but that's the way things are.

So nobody should wonder who and what is going to end up running Pakistan. No matter how much can be said against the Taliban and al Qaeda, they've demonstrated that they're willing to kill and be killed to bring in the strictest form of Sharia law and rule the country as its guardians.

If Pakistanis who don't want that kind of rule think they can best such resolve by shaming their government and imitating the American Civil Rights Movement, they should become aware that in this, they're leaping over much American history.