Iraq to United Nations: We had chemical weapons and now Islamic State has them — sorry!

Last month it was reported that Iraqi chemical weapons had fallen in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) hands. Now, a letter by Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon confirms the seriousness of the situation.

Reuters reported Wednesday:

Iraq’s government has lost control of a former chemical weapons facility to “armed terrorist groups” and is unable to fulfill its international obligations to destroy toxins kept there, the country’s U.N. envoy told the United Nations.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, made public on Tuesday, Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim said the Muthanna facility north of Baghdad was seized on June 11. He said remnants of a former chemical weapons program are kept in two bunkers there.

“The project management spotted at dawn on Thursday, 12 June 2014, through the camera surveillance system, the looting of some of the project equipment and appliances, before the terrorists disabled the surveillance system,” Alhakim wrote in the letter dated June 30. …

“The Government of Iraq requests the States Members of the United Nations to understand the current inability of Iraq, owing to the deterioration of the security situation, to fulfill its obligations to destroy chemical weapons,” he said.

Translation: “Oops-e-doodle!”

In June, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said that it was “not likely” that the weapons would be used on anyone. How reassuring.

Given this latest news, it might be a good time for a flashback to January, 2014. You might remember a the moment in time where President Obama referred to ISIL as a “J.V. team” who were wannabe Kobe Bryants. (Note: flippantly referring to Islamic jihadists with sports analogies apparently proves to reporters and young voters that you are cool.)

The New Yorker’s David Remnick reported in January:

I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Falluja, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.

“Let’s just keep in mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”

It turns out the “J.V.” team now controls large swathes of Syria and Iraq. Would the president still say his analogy was “accurate”? It also turns out that the “horrible actions” taking place in Syria and Iraq are exactly what the president didn’t want us to think — the work of an Islamic ideology that is a direct threat to the United States.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi

Fact: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi told American troops in 2009 “I’ll see you in New York.”

Fact: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is now the “caliph” of Islamic State, a terrorist Army with weapons, funding, new recruits flocking to the region, and a scary-saavy understanding of social media platforms.

Add to this that Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri — the terrorist engineer behind the underwear bomb that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab used to try and bring down a Detroit airliner on Christmas, 2009 — and you’ve got a serious national security situation.

So George W. Bush is an idiot because there were no chemical weapons in Iraq — except that there is, by the admission of the Iraqi government to the United Nations. We now have a groveling letter to the international community asking countries to “understand” that Iraqi officials didn’t want to let those toxins get into the hands of terrorists, but that the “J.V.” team Obama laughed at wasn’t really a J.V. team. They were really hard-core Islamic radicals intent on creating a caliphate in the heart of the Middle East.

Here’s something else to chew on: the CDC freaked out on Tuesday because of six forgotten vials of smallpox at a Maryland lab, but yet terrorists steal two bunkers filled with chemical weapons in Iraq and George W. Bush is still a liar. (How does one forget that he has vials of smallpox in his possession?)

Reuters reported on the vials of smallpox on Tuesday:

Infectious disease expert Dr. Michael Osterholm said the discovery of abandoned vials of smallpox is a reminder to labs globally to take stock of what is in their freezers.

Although there have been concerns smallpox could be used in bioterrorism, the CDC says the chances of that occurring are very low. Currently, the government has a stockpile containing enough vaccine for every U.S. citizen.

The bigger threat, Osterholm said, is that these vials could have fallen into the hands of someone who would convert them into an aerosolized form and use them as a bioterror weapon.

“That could be a disaster,” he said.

Apparently the standard for finding chemical weapons in Iraq isn’t a handful of vials or even bunkers filled with chemical weapons, but a large castle with a neon glowing sign that says in Arabic and English “Chemical Weapons Found Here!” where Iraqi soldiers in Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP gear) roll around in chemical weapons like Scrooge McDuck rolls around in money.

Regardless, I’m looking forward to seeing reporters grill the president on his “accurate” assessment that ISIL is just a “local” group of Sunni malcontents with no long term plans to attack Americans or American interests around the globe. Or not, because Mr. Obama was sold as the world’s most intelligent man and now media personalities are invested in saving their last remaining bits of credibility.

 

Advertisements

Kerry determined to go full-Chamberlain with Iran ‘deal’: Peace for our time!

Kerry Chamberlain

John Kerry and most of the world are determined to go full-Chamberlain on Iran, and the late-breaking “deal” in Geneva over the country’s nuclear program proves it. Compare the headline of The Washington Post’s write-up on the nuclear agreement — ‘Iran, world powers reach historic nuclear deal’ — with the reality already playing out.

Not long after the accord was reached, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said the deal recognizes Tehran’s “right” to maintain an enrichment program.

Rouhani said, “Let anyone make his own reading, but this right is clearly stated in the text of the agreement that Iran can continue its enrichment, and I announce to our people that our enrichment activities will continue as before.”

But Kerry said in response on Sunday that the deal does not recognize a “right to enrich.”

“There is no inherent right to enrich,” Kerry said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And everywhere in this particular agreement it states that they could only do that by mutual agreement, and nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on.”

Ouch. This sounds more like a “deal” that does nothing but give a number of nations more cover with which to blame Israel when it takes military action against a threat to its very existence. Could it get any worse? Yes.

Politico reports:

“There’s nothing built on trust,” Kerry said. “You don’t have to trust the people you’re dealing with, you have to have a mechanism put in place whereby you know exactly what you’re getting and you know exactly what they’re doing. … We’ve done arms control agreements in other parts of the world. … You don’t trust. It’s not based on trust. It’s based on verification.”

So the deal is so vague that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says it recognizes the country’s “right” to enrich uranium while Kerry says it does no such thing — but yet we’re supposed to believe it includes mechanisms that telegraph to the U.S. “exactly” what’s going on? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a sane man in a largely-insane world, doesn’t buy it for a second.

AFP reports:

Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday that “what was achieved yesterday in Geneva is not a historic agreement but rather a historic mistake.”

Speaking later at a ceremony in Jerusalem, he said that the more details emerged on the deal, “the more it becomes clear how bad the deal is for Israel, the region and the world.”

“Iran gets billions of dollars in sanction relief without paying an actual price,” said Netanyahu. “Iran gets written permission to breach UN Security Council” resolutions.

Sadly, the sane man in an insane world is insane. While the world deludes itself into believing it can play Patty Cake with Holocaust denying nut-jobs who are on record as saying they seek to erase Israel from existence, Netanyahu plugs away. While the world seems to be living in its own version of Christopher Nolan’s ‘Memento,’ Netanyahu’s memory is quite sound.

Flashback, November 2011:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — New intelligence the U.N. atomic agency plans to release on alleged nuclear weapons work by Iran is fabricated, the Iranian foreign minister said Saturday.

Diplomats have told The Associated Press that the International Atomic Energy Agency plans to reveal intelligence in the coming week suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead, as well as other previously undisclosed details on alleged secret work by Tehran on nuclear arms.

The world needs a scapegoat for its own impotence in the face of Holocaust-denying monsters. What better scapegoat than the targets of said aggression? When Israel defends itself — and it will — prepare for the world to collectively howl at its true saviors.

Related: The World On Iran: We’re Christopher Nolan’s ‘Memento’

Reagan on the United Nations: No thanks on the Karl Marx propaganda

Shortly after President Obama began making the case for military action in Syria a few weeks ago my Facebook feed was again peppered with comments by the usual people making the usual pleas to work within the confines of the United Nations to find a way to settle the chemical weapons dispute. What has consistently escaped these friends since I joined Facebook during the Bush administration is that the composition of the United Nations almost always sets the stage for explosive endings to the most difficult diplomatic rows because free societies and fear societies have completely different visions for the world.

George W. Bush was a Texas rube and President Obama was the cosmopolitan cool guy who was going to win over the world with his wit and intelligence. Well, that didn’t work out. There are many things the president could have done over the past five years to make his life easier, but at the end of the day it’s hard to convince thugs and goons from police states to behave in ways that are not conducive to perpetuating their little fear-based fiefdoms.

Ronald Reagan understood this, which is probably why his presidential star continues to rise as time passes:

November 30, 1976:

If you thought the United Nations was a debating society more or less dedicated to peace keeping chores (at which it isn’t very successful) brace yourself. I’ll be right back.

Last June in Vancouver, British Columbia, (which is very nice in June — which is why they met there no doubt) the United Nations held a conference — title: “Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements.” They’ll sell you a copy of the report through their sales section in N.Y. for $10. Before you send off a check give a listen — maybe you’ll save $10.

The gist of their findings is a call for complete planning of all land, nation by nation. By coincidence no doubt, the program they recommend is virtually a restatement of Point 9 in the Communist Manifesto as written by Karl Marx in 1848.

Before they get down to the specific program the report expresses concern with unequal incomes, pollution and a number of other social ills as they perceive them. But then they get down to the business of the aforementioned Point9, “the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over country.” I thought that was what some of our environmentalists were objecting to and calling urban sprawl.

Well the conference took note of that last and warned against “uncontrolled urbanization.” It also was concerned with “rural backwardness” and “rural dispersion.” They want to use land planning to encourage “massive shifts in population into specifically designed habitats.”

Here is the principle as they announced it. “Every state” (that means nation) “has the right to take the necessary steps to maintain under public control the use, possession, disposal and reservation of land. Every state has the right to plan and regulate use of land, which is one of the most important resources, in such a way that the grow of population centers both urban and rural are based on a comprehensive land use plan.”

They use terms that may not frighten them but they sure scare me. For example, they describe federal land use planning as a basic step in setting up “the New International Ec. Order.”

Now this was a U.N. conference it’s true, but somehow bureaucracy has a kinship and a communications grapevine that crosses all borders. We already have a “new town” program by our own Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. There are some 15 cities involved, lured no doubt by federal funds. HUD as the department is called also has it’s own “habitat” division.

I know we don’t pay much attention to vote in the U.N. General Assembly but remember that grapevine communications system. When the jungle drums are pounded by one set of bureaucrats, another set is listening.

Congress will return in January and there will be land planning legislation introduced — re-introduced is the proper word because it was unfinished business when they went home. This time the various permanent employees of HUD and other agencies will appear before the Congressional committees with that U.N.report fresh in mind.

This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. (Reagan: In His Own Hand, 164-165.)

Perhaps President Obama should have read more of Reagan’s diaries over the years and less of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” Ronald Reagan was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union; Alinsky was a community organizer who dedicated a book to Satan.

Annan admits U.N. useless, fails to indict Obama on Syria

Here we have President Obama, ever the professor, pondering why Syrian thugs continue to execute people despite his sheer awesomeness. Clearly, they didn’t get the memo that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Or, perhaps it’s all George Bush’s fault. Yeah, that’s the ticket. I think I’ll go with that one.

It was only three years ago that a bunch of Norwegians awarded President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for, apparently, being Barack Obama. The world was told that finally, here was a man who understood diplomacy. Here was a man who would get results. There would be no more “coalitions of the willing” because a community organizer of first class temperament was in the White House. Hollywood stars wept, believing that the  “dead” nation under George W. Bush was  “alive” again with the ascension of Obama.

Fast forward to today, where Bashar al-Assad’s archipelago of torture chambers are open around the clock, the Syrian regime slaughters thousands and then lobs mortar shells into Lebanon when it gets bored. Russia sends in the tech, because no hellish reign of terror can be complete until people are mowed down with a Hind (the Grey Poupon of helicopter gunships). China sits on its hands while 14,000 people are executed and says, “I admire your work, Bashar. You’re a murderer after our collective heart.” All this is going on, and yet no one says, “Dude. What happened to Barry?”

Instead, the United Nations takes the blame.

Special U.N. envoy Kofi Annan acknowledged in an interview published Saturday that the international community’s efforts to find a political solution to the escalating violence in Syria have failed. …

“The evidence shows that we have not succeeded,” he told the French daily Le Monde.

Kofi Annan failed because he is a failure (unless he’s getting kick-backs from a billion dollar oil-for-food scandal). The United Nations failed because it is a failure. And the United Nations takes the rap this time around because George W. Bush isn’t available to play the fall guy.

When a Republican is in the Oval Office, it is his fault that dictators and thugs and despots act like dictators and thugs and despots. When a liberal Democrat is in office, the blame is dispersed amongst the “international community” to shield him from criticism. Furthermore, liberals seek to obscure the fact that, often times, the only thing that ruthless regimes respond to is the very real threat of force.

The United Nations as it currently exists is useless. It does not act to forward freedom and liberty and human rights throughout the world because it is largely comprised of nations that oppress their own people. Governments that treat their own people like dirt were never going respond well to “hope and change,” but that’s not a message that can easily penetrate the mushy mind of the quixotic college kid.

Does anyone doubt that if George W. Bush was still in office that there would be “die ins” on college campuses across the country, blaming him — and not Assad or his Shabiha “ghost” militias — for the carnage?

You can argue that we should let the Syrians kill each other and not get involved. (There’s a convincing case to be made, since the Islamic “rebels” might actually be worse than Assad’s goons if given half a chance.) You can argue that a “coalition of the willing” should play referee with its own military hardware. You can argue for a number of other strategies. But what you can’t do is deny that if George Bush was in office, commentators would track the Syrian body count with stunning accuracy, and each death would be framed as a referendum on the “failed” Bush foreign policy.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to read a few more reports of Hillary Clinton demanding Russia and China “get off the sidelines.” I need a good laugh.

Why the West matters: Buried alive in Syria, sex with the dead in Egypt

If only that head sticking out of the ground belonged to a little kid at the beach having fun with his brothers. No, that’s Assad’s henchmen burying someone alive.

They are two different tales, but they belong to one culture. In Syria, Assad’s thugs are burying men alive. In Egypt, the “moderate” Islamist parliament seeks to pass a law that would allow men to have sex with their wife for up to six hours after her death. Meanwhile, in college classrooms across the United States, liberal students are scratching their head after the prof just spent the last two hours explaining that all cultures are equal.

First, to Syria:

Video footage uploaded to YouTube shows what appears to be Syrian soldiers burying a rebel activist alive.

The video, which went viral Thursday, shows a blindfolded man buried up to his head as armed soldiers call him an “animal” and a “dog,” ynetnews.com reported.

And then, to Egypt:

Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives – for up to six hours after their death.

The controversial new law is part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.

It will also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to 14 and the ridding of women’s rights of getting education and employment.

Take a stroll onto any college campus and strike up a few conversations. It won’t be too long before you find someone who’s willing to lament the “American Empire” or perhaps the bygone colonialism of our dear, dear British friends. It is my contention that Syria and Egypt would actually benefit from a Western power that moved in and set up shop. The rule of law is a grand thing, and the last time I checked the American military wasn’t burying its own citizens alive and British chaps weren’t clamoring in large numbers for legislation only a necrophiliac could love. (The British equation might change in the near future, since they have a weird predilection for letting radical Islamic clerics run roughshod over their customs and traditions.)

When your liberal next door neighbor tries to engage you with some foreign policy chit-chat this summer he’ll eventually mention the need to respect the United Nations. Ask him why he would put so much faith in an organization that is composed largely of Junior Syrias and Egypts. The U.N. is a joke, in large part because it gives dysfunction junctions of the world a seat (and a voice) at the adult table. Western nations really should split off and form a new organization composed of countries that respect freedom and liberty. Since we’re able to walk and chew gum at the same time, the United States and its allies would obviously have diplomatic channels available to deal with the dregs of society…if necessary.

The bottom line is this: Western Civilization is something special, but people have a way of taking the special things in their life for granted. For a long time now the United States—and more broadly Western Civilization—has been a beacon of light in a really dark, really weird world. The guys who are burying their countrymen alive and the ones crafting laws that would make it okay to defile a dead body—they play for keeps. If we don’t find our moral compass, speak up, stand up and fight for our culture then they’ll take that too.

Morocco: Where rapists get to marry their victims.

After having covered Syria’s torture chambers, I thought I might as well cover Africa. I was looking for something cheerful and upbeat, but all I found was court-ordered marriages for rapists and their victims. Who would have thought—it ended badly:

A 16-year-old Moroccan girl has committed suicide after a judge ordered her to marry her rapist, according to Moroccan media reports.

Last year Amina’s parents filed charges against their daughter’s rapist, a man 10 years older than her but it was only recently that a judge in the northern city of Tangier decided that instead of punishing him, the two must be married.

The court’s decision to forcibly marry Amina to her rapist was supposed to “resolve” the damage of sexual violation against her, but it led to more suffering in the unwelcoming home of her rapist/husband’s family.

Traumatized by the painful experience of rape, Amina decided to end her life by consuming rat poison in the house of her husband’s family, according to the Moroccan daily al-Massae.

According to the newspaper, this type of forced marriage is rooted in local rural traditions to safeguard the honor of girls who are raped.

Moroccan penal code exempts a rapist from punishment if he agrees to marry his victim.

Question: What kind of culture suggests that rape victims are the ones who lose their “honor” after an attack? In a sane society, wouldn’t the rapist be the one without honor? In vast swathes of the Islamic world, laws are made to shield men from brutish, vile behavior. Meanwhile, the ladies of The View make constipation-faces at Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher worries about the non-existent threat from fundamentalist Christians, and MSNBC worries about the religiosity of a Santorum administration. They’re so busy tearing the country apart that stories like “Amina’s ” go unnoticed and unexamined.

There’s something extremely sick and twisted about a culture that puts the onus on the victim to prove she was wronged, even when the evidence before the court is self-evident. Media shield Americans from the warped reality of these parts of the world because it doesn’t fit into their multi-cultural narrative, the one that posits we’d all be able to get along if we just listened to each other a little harder.  Wrong. Some cultures are incompatible with freedom and liberty, and they must either do away with their scurrilous sides are be banished from dealing with the adults at the table. It speaks volumes that the NAACP would turn to the United Nations for help in American election laws, considering the United Nations gives legitimacy to some of the most vile and disgusting abusers of human rights in existence.

All those rapists in American prisons…and to think, if they had just been born in Morocco they’d get to marry their victims. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to watch Joy Behar complain about the danger posed to the world by white Christian men.

Angelina Jolie calls for action in Syria, plans to blame Bush for blowback.

Angelina Jolie: Bring the troops home! Well, unless is Democrat is in office. Then there are really sad, upsetting things happening all around the world that require U.S. firepower and Hollywood stars mugging tough for the camera. Besides, we can always blame George Bush for the consequences.

Hollywood’s “United Nations High Commissioner,” Angelina Jolie, has called for intervention in Syria, which can only mean one thing: She’s found a way to blame George W. Bush for all the unintended consequences. Syria is part of the dysfunctional Middle Eastern spiderweb littered with Iranian spiders, but she doesn’t bother to think about that because a Democrat is in office. Have you ever plucked a web like it was a Spanish guitar, Ms. Jolie? The spiders come running… Military adventurism without accountability is one of the benefits bestowed upon Democrat presidents.

“I think Syria has got to a point, sadly, where certainly some form of intervention is absolutely necessary,” Jolie told Al Jazeera Balkans in an interview shown on the channel’s Internet site.

“It’s so sad, it’s so upsetting, it’s so horrible what’s happening,” Jolie said. “At this time we just must stop the civilians being slaughtered…When you see that kind of mass violence and murder on the street, you must do something,” added Jolie, who has served for years as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees…

Without naming China and Russia, she condemned “these countries that are choosing not to intervene” in Syria despite “global efforts,” (emphasis added).

What does Code Pink think about this? What does the mysteriously absent anti-war movement think about this? No one knows because they’ve been MIA since Barack Obama took office. Or perhaps they’re just confused as to what’s going on, because Hollywood’s “United Nations High Commissioners” don’t even have the courage to call out thug state actors like Russia and China.

Pay close attention to your liberal friends because they’ll often say we need to “do something.” They usually won’t give specifics. The passage of bad legislation is often better to them than no legislation because it indicates “something” is being done. Giving the people “something” indicates you care—never mind the fact that the cure is often worse than the disease.

If you want to kill a zombie, you need to chop off its head. If Angelina wanted to have a lasting impact on Syria she might want to consider an attack on Iran (especially since Leon Panetta thinks military escalation is only a matter of months away, anyway).

Question for the former Tomb Raider: If we militarily engage Syria and it spirals into a world war, will you call President Obama a warmonger, or will you wait until the next Republican is elected to conveniently call for his impeachment?

Do you know what else is “sad” and “upsetting”, Angelina? That liberals take any opportunity they can get to cut funding for the military, only to find new ways to treat them as humanitarian playthings when a Democrat is in office.

Barack Obama, Youtube Diplomacy, and Iran.

When Iran isn’t busy killing its own people or sending Ahmadinejad around the world to deny the existence of gay people, it’s busy moving ahead with its nuclear program.

Usually, we only get the standard screw you to the United Nations in diplomat-speak, but everyone once-in-awhile you get a story like this, that really highlights the extent to which nutcase mullahs will go for their “peaceful” nuclear program.

All of this begs the question: What were the kids thinking when they voted for a guy who thinks he can win over a religious police state that monitors your every move on the internet, deems you an enemy of God, and then kills you?

And why do people continue to have faith in the United Nations when it perpetually demonstrates that it’s one big joke? You would have thought that they learned a thing or two after United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441…but I guess not. And why would they? The current president thinks George Bush would have succeeded with the world’s dictators and thugs if only he used a little more Youtube diplomacy.