October 11, 2011
This Is A Parody--Right?
Well, now they've done it, and the United States is fighting back with every tool at its disposal:
1) The United States "…will use the plot to marshal international pressure…" against those responsible.
2) Attorney General Eric Holder said: "The United States is committed to holding [them] accountable for [their] actions."
3) A "State Department Official" called it a "flagrant violation of international law."
And then we brought out the really big gun:
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said we'd work with allies to "send a very strong message that this kind of action, which violates international norms, must be ended."
She also said:
This "crosses a line," and she and President Obama are calling international leaders to tell them what happened. She said Mr. Obama and she intend to "pre-empt" any efforts by [them] to deny responsibility, and to "enlist more countries in working together against what is becoming a clearer and clearer threat…"
One might be tempted to think that this situation—whatever it is and whoever it involves—is a very serious matter and that our government will respond with the kind of righteous rage demonstrated after 9-11. It is a very serious matter indeed, but that's where reality breaks down.
As reported at Fox News, we've intercepted an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to America, with explosives, on American soil. Iranian members of the Quds Force," a paramilitary spy/internal security force pursued a hit on the Ambassador by trying to hire what they thought was a Mexican drug cartel to make the attack. Two Iranian agents were captured and others remain at large.
Would this be the same Iran:
1) that constantly threatens to obliterate Israel and the United States?
2) that has been killing Americans and American soldiers for decades?
3) that is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world?
4) that sponsors terrorists that kill the citizens of our allies around the world?
5) that threatens to turn the Middle East in a charnel house of unimaginable proportions?
6) that is feverishly producing nuclear weapons and which plans to use them in an EMP attack on America?
7) that is building missile bases in Venezuela and infiltrating every Latin American country that will have it?
8) that is working daily to infiltrate sleeper cells into America for future attacks?
9) that is working with cartels and Marxists south of our border to facilitate any and every kind of harm to Americans they can devise?
10) that declared war on us in 1979 when they seized our embassy and took hostages?
11) that is ruled by Islamist lunatics who want to provoke Armageddon because they believe it will produce the return of the "hidden Imam," and lead to a new caliphate?
Yes. It's that very Iran.
Our elected representatives are resolute and incensed:
"Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., urged the administration to revisit a request by dozens of senators to target the country's central bank, calling it the 'paymasters' for the Quds Force.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called the plot an 'outrage' and called for increased sanctions against Iran.
[Senator Durbin has now, without question, cinched the title of the most-irony challenged politician of all time. He's calling for financial sanctions, which will have to be imposed through the cooperation of the very banks he first slammed with idiotic legislation, and then excoriated for implementing the completely predictable results of his ill-considered stupidity.]
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, speaking on Fox News, called the plot an 'act of war' against the United States.
'We have to do something,' he said, saying the specifics of the response should be left up to the Defense Department and the president."
And which serious steps commensurate with Iran's actions against us since 1979 is the Obama Administration planning?
"But a senior Defense official told Fox News the announcement Tuesday "'s not a trip wire for military action in Iran.' '
'No one should read into this as a pretense for any type of military response," another senior Defense official added.
Speaking to Fox News on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the subject, the officials said the Pentagon sees the alleged plot as a criminal act that is rightly being handled by the Department of Justice. "
"The Treasury Department said the other Quds officials named were also involved in the plot. The sanctions will freeze any U.S. assets held by the individuals and prohibit anyone in the U.S. from doing business with them."
Mrs. Clinton is reported to be planning to speak with the Swiss Ambassador to Iran who will in turn likely present a strongly worded message to the Iranians on our behalf.
There are several possible scenarios at play. With the Gunwalker debacle and the Solyandra scandal threatening to overwhelm the Obama Administration and absolutely devastate Mr. Obama's already fast-failing re-election chances, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Obama Administration is exaggerating the involvement of the highest levels of the Iranian regime, and Stratfor, the private intelligence firm, is suggesting just that, according to Fox. However, Stratfor also notes that the Iranians have been conducting "preoperational surveillance," in the US, but have not yet carried out a high profile attack. Obamites would surely welcome the diversion of public attention from the alleged malfeasance and possible criminality of the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, and a plethora of federal alphabet agencies. As more and more damning evidence against the Administration and its allies becomes public, the Obama Administration must be desperate to escape scrutiny.
A lengthy civilian trial—the Obamite preferred vehicle for dealing with enemy combatants--of Iranian agents extending well into the election season could potentially help Mr. Obama burnish his anti-terrorist warrior credentials when even the Lamestream Media has taken to calling him isolated and withdrawn from the day to day performance of his duties.
But the possibility that the Iranians, emboldened by what they must surely believe to be the unlimited fecklessness of Mr. Obama, would embark on such a provocative course cannot be dismissed. If Mr. Obama will take no obvious, affirmative steps to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons it has repeatedly sworn to put to immediate, genocidal use, why should the Iranians worry about Mr. Obama's response to a much lesser provocation? What will he do? Threaten to impose really serious sanctions by a date certain, and this time—unlike all the previous times--he really, really, pinky swear, double dog dare, means it?
What must the Iranians think of our response thus far? We're imposing sanctions on individual Iranian spies? American firms won't be able to do business with them? Just how many Americans firms, pray tell, do a considerable portion of their business with Iranian operatives such that these sanctions will have any effect—other than provoking uproarious Iranian laughter—on Iran? Will the threat of treating their spies as common criminals accorded the full protections of the Constitution the Iranians not only refuse to recognize but see as a sign of weakness strike fear into the hearts of the hardened terrorist murderers running that despotic nation? Will it cause them to abandon their nuclear designs? Beg for mercy and forgiveness from Israel?
At least Hillary Clinton knows the score. Our own "Lady Of Jello" knows that Iran's action "violates international norms." She recognizes that Iran represents a "clearer and clearer threat." She believes that working with other nations might "further isolate Iran." This is a parody—right? Right?
On the international stage, Mr. Obama has made several noteworthy accomplishments. One of the most remarkable has been making the French seem—compared to Mr. Obama--resolute defenders of freedom. Another has been making it possible for fiscal basket case nations to lecture us on our economic policies. But the most truly noteworthy accomplishment of Barack Obama and his Administration has been the absolute transcendence of parody. Ironhawk? The Onion? Reality? Who can say with certainty? Who would wish to expend the effort?
It is not unreasonable to wonder if even a nuclear attack against Israel, American interests, or even America itself would provoke the Obama Administration to anything beyond strong language, a stirring invocation of the "international community" and "international norms," criminal charges against individuals and sanctions which might "further isolate Iran."
America—and the world—will be very fortunate indeed if our many enemies do not take advantage of what they must surely believe to be a historic opportunity between now and November of 2012. On the other hand, with leadership that bows to despots, reflexively supports Marxist and Islamist despots and which actually delivers arms to our deadly enemies as a cynical and incredibly stupid means of imposing anti-freedom domestic policies, do we really need enemies?
Same old BS from Washington. Perhaps a massive missle strike on Tehran would be in order?
Posted by: CI Roller Dude at October 11, 2011 09:26 PMNo weapons from Gun Walker/Fast & furious were used by the Iranian.
Posted by: Dapandico at October 11, 2011 09:33 PMShouldn't they have waited until the (alleged) Iranian Official / Quds agent to give the 'go' before rolling this up?
Ya know, to tie-in official Iranian intent a little tighter, rather than breaking it up at the planning phase (no harm possible given that Iran inadvertently hired US agents as the trigger/fall men).
Seems a little premature to me - planning for an attack was stopped vs. an actual (though thoroughly countered) ineffective attack.
Almost like the cover was prematurely blown off the counter-operation intentially...
/adjusts tin-foil hat
Posted by: Druid at October 11, 2011 10:31 PM
America—and the world—will be very fortunate indeed if our many enemies do not take advantage of what they must surely believe to be a historic opportunity between now and November of 2012.
I expected something spring of 2010 then last spring.
Spring because that's invasion season in eastern Europe and I figured there would be stuff going on all over the world, including Putin in some former SSRs and the middle east with a side worry about NoKo.
I'm not sure about China, I just don't think they're ready to try for Taiwan, but who knows? I can see Obama telling the Chinese and the Taiwanese to both cool it, China with the missiles and the invasion, Taiwan with the dying and bleeding all over the place.
Next spring will be their last chance. April or May could be very interesting.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 11, 2011 11:47 PMClearly, Zero needs to have Hillary issue an emphatic "Tsk, tsk", then redouble his efforts to overwhelm the USA's enemies by inducing more adoration for his wonderful self. A few threats to convene a committee to discuss additional sanctions might be in order if that adoration is lacking.
Posted by: Yrral Dleifsarb at October 12, 2011 01:02 AMWell, obviously, this calls for a stern bowing to I'madinnerjacket.
Posted by: Bill at October 12, 2011 07:51 AMThanks to being intentionally bogged down on two fronts, our military CAN NOT respond effectively to any provocation. The bogging down was absolutely forseeable but accepted by the previous Administration and this crew of clowns.
What bogs our troops down? Well how about completely idiotic "rules of engagement" that prohibit actions such as bombing a graveyard if the enemy leaders are congregated there? Does THAT qualify and BTW, it's one of the less foolish rules our military are following in order to "win hearts and minds". Phooey!
Add to that the use of our armed services as a sociological petri dish and the attendant exit of all too many highly qualified members, we're then well on our way towards another "hollow military" such as we had under Carter.
But Carter is really starting to look good compared to the present numbskull in the Oval Office.
Posted by: Subvet at October 12, 2011 07:58 AMSubvet,
You are wrong on several points.
1. The US military is sufficiently large enough to easily get bogged down in a third front. Most of our troops have already withdrawn from Iraq and the Air Force and Navy have been mostly sitting on their hands for the past ten years. Nor does every military action look the same. We may be able to accomplish the objective of making Obama look good with just a few cruise missiles and maybe a clandestine op to destroy a training camp.
2. Despite the petri dish example you used, there is no indication of a hollow Army forming. Units that are deploying are doing so at full strength. Soldiers who need schools and training are getting them. If anything, the SECDEF is planning a massive cut in personnel to save money (over 100K active Amry alone) and disbanding the units that go with them. No hollow army here.
There are two issues here that trouble me:
1. This is yet again one more terrorist attempt that never got beyond the planning phase because of FBI infiltration. In every case, it seems the terrorists were completely incompetent to even plan operations and gather resources without direct assistance from teh US Federal government. Then we move in and bust them for it. One wonders if they would have ever posed a threat without the assistance of our own government agencies.
2. Iran has been actively at war against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for ten years. We didn't care aboout that. Why is this suddenly a big deal now that we won't stand for?
Posted by: Professor hale at October 12, 2011 09:06 AMAlso, in all fairness, it wouldn't be opening a third front.
It would be moving to consolidate them into one front. Iran is, after all, smack between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Phelps at October 12, 2011 10:17 AMProfessor Hale,
Thank you for a reasoned & civil response. However I disagree with both points you raise.
1) The only reason the military has been able to meet their commitments in Iraq & Afghanistan is by the activation of National Guard units. I'll grant that contrary to what some fools believe, this hasn't been so widespread as to seriously affect the Guard's ability to respond to domestic tasks (hurricane relief). But it IS needed for the military to address it's assigned tasks in combat areas.
2) My argument for the hollow military is more a prediction. Just my opinion but with the open embrace of active homosexuals and their behavior I feel that hollow military will be seen really soon. I base this on my own experience in the military. Admittedly that only qualifies as anecdotal evidence but in talking to other military retirees I find the same mindset. Perhaps you are also intimately familiar with the armed forces, in that case it's "toMAYtoe versus toMAHtoe".
Regarding SecDef planning a drawdown, history has also shown that our military is not immune to having leadership that enthusiastically follows whatever is politically correct at the time. An example would be the torpedoes supplied to the Navy during WWII. I recommend you read up on it if you have the time. To summarize the problem: Although there was no doubt the "fish" supplied to combatant craft were defective, no formal complaints were allowed and anyone caught making field modifications to improve the effectiveness of the weapon would be courtmartialed PDQ. It literally took years before the problem was finally acknowledged and corrected.
As for your other concerns, while I don't share your concern about the Feds helping to further the schemes of incompetent would-be terrorists, I'll admit its something that is done and has been done for decades at least. An example would be a sting in the late '70's that netted two conspirators planning to steal a sub from the State Pier in New London, CT., take it to sea and sell it to the Russians once the boat was beyond the 12 mile limit. Believe me, THAT is a fantasy from the getgo!
Yet they were finally indicted and served about 10-15 years apiece if I remember correctly. Like I said, this efforts by the Feds isn't something new.
Regarding your other point about the aid Iran has given to fight our forces over the years, I'd say you're absolutely correct as far as it goes. But this could be seen as an effort to up the ante in the game. Therefore it warrants attention.
Posted by: Subvet at October 12, 2011 11:22 AM"...to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons it has repeatedly sworn to put to immediate, genocidal use..."
Don't come down to hard on me here and forgive me if I'm missing something obvious (I can only be so informed) but are we sure about this?
And, professor hale, can yo clarify this?--
"Iran has been actively at war against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for ten years."
Don't get me wrong, if these things are indeed true then I would like to know but I'm always hesitant and cautious when talk of lobbing missiles comes up. And if we're going to engage in military activity, let's engage in war no nation-building/hand holding/j***ing off.
Posted by: rechill at October 12, 2011 01:29 PMWas this the same country that threatened to put warships off our coasts ?
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-28/middleeast/world_meast_iran-navy_1_iranian-announcement-iranian-state-news-iran-today?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
Posted by: Neo at October 12, 2011 07:42 PMDear Rechill:
Merely Google "Ahmadinejad threats." You'll find more than sufficient information to satisfy you that Iranian threats are real and substantial. They consider it their religious duty. Most Americans have a hard time understanding that other cultures, despite wearing blue jeans, using American consumer goods and watching American movies, really are nothing at all like Americans.
Posted by: Mike Mc at October 12, 2011 08:34 PMDruid, I wouldn't discount your suspicions as a tin-foil hat theory. Something about this story just doesn't smell right. The motive is unclear at best - the Saudi ambassador to the US? Why him? The method was sloppily amateurish for Quds - hiring a drug cartel to commit an assassination? There's a lot about this story that makes little to no sense. I'm suspecting the Obama Regime is exaggerating it for the obvious reasons. That DOES make sense.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano at October 12, 2011 11:01 PMMick Mc, I was discussing this last night with a guy who's always been an anti-war activist and pulled the same card on me that "they're more like us than we know" and it was based on this superficial blue-jean level. I conceded that I would bet that the Persians, as a people, on average have a higher IQ than the surrounding Arabs but them being "just like us" seems to be a stretch.
And I realize that we're not engaged in hostilities with the entire population of Iran, we have been adversaries of the ruling regime since 1979. I can get behind the idea of keeping Iran from obtaining nukes but I'd really like to know why Pakistan STILL is allowed to have them and can we do something about that too?
Posted by: rechill at October 13, 2011 09:31 AM
