Archive for the ‘Dictators’ Category


Sunday, March 12th, 2017


Although this article was written 3 months ago after Fidel Castro’s death, it is still very relevant today.   Nancy

The liberal romance with Fidel Castro

The left shows sympathy for brutal Cuban dictator and a would-be mass murderer at Ohio State

 – – Wednesday, November 30, 2016

There appears to be an awful lot of sympathy for the devil out there these days.

The death of Fidel Castro, a mass murderer masquerading as a “president,” exposed the bizarre romance liberals have with tyrants. Many world leaders expressed condolences to the Cuban people upon the death of their so-called leader, a man who oversaw the murder of tens of thousands, imprisoned political opponents, gays, anyone who challenged Castro’s status quo.

There is no religious freedom in Cuba — there was room for only one god and that was Fidel. There was no free press, of course, no personal freedom, only fear. The actual number of those killed by the Castro brothers and their murderous associate Che Guevara can never be known only because of the number of disappeared opponents, gays, academics and the educated.

As with Joseph Stalin, Castro needed to purge the country of anyone who might be able to educate the people about what was really happening and how they could resist and take their country back. Communication and information, to this day, remain out of reach for the Cuban people — as does their freedom.

But even Pope Francis, yes, a liberal but also a man of faith and an Argentinian who understands what Castro did to the Cuban people, sent his “condolences” to the people of Cuba over the “sad news” of Castro’s death.

That’s like sending a sympathy card to the families of Ted Bundy’s victims after Bundy was executed.

“Pope Francis sent a telegram to Cuban President Raul Castro Saturday, expressing his ‘sentiments of sorrow’ over the death of Raul’s brother, former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro,” Breitbart News reported. ” ‘On receiving the sad news of the death of your dear brother, His Excellency Mister Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, former president of the State Council and of the Government of the Republic of Cuba, I express my sentiments of sorrow to Your Excellency and other family members of the deceased dignitary, as well as to the people of this beloved nation,’ the pope’s Spanish-language telegram reads.”

On the other hand, Donald Trump, the president-elect of the United States, took the genuinely moral position: “Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights. While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve,” stated the incoming president.




Monday, July 11th, 2016


The military fired me for calling our enemies radical jihadis
By Michael Flynn
July 9, 2016 | 11:26pm
Modal TriggerGen. Michael Flynn told Defense bosses the intel system was too politicized to defeat terror.
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is reportedly being vetted by Donald Trump as a potential running mate, was fired as head of the ­Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the winter of 2014 after three decades in the military. Here he tells the real story of his departure from his post and why America is not getting any closer to winning the war on terror.

Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).

I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.

I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department. After being fired, I left the meeting thinking, “Here we are in the middle of a war, I had a significant amount of combat experience (nearly five years) against this determined enemy on the battlefield and served at senior levels, and here it was, the bureaucracy was letting me go.” Amazing.




Wednesday, April 20th, 2016


Stephen Moore will be the guest speaker at ICON on September 13, 2016 in Chapel Hill, NC. 

The lunacy of the left, Embracing Dictators

It ranges from embracing dictators to the candidates they choose
– – Sunday, April 3, 2016
The idea of American exceptionalism has been embedded in our DNA for generations. It is the faith-based belief that, as Ronald Reagan put it, America is a “shining city on a hill.” Do modern liberals believe that?
I almost never try to get into the other side’s head or ascribe ill motives to those on the left. They are, I’ve always believed, misguided, not malign.
But I’m having second thoughts after listening to President Obama’s defense of communism/socialism a little over a week ago when he was in Argentina. He advised young people to get behind “what works” economically — as if there is some deep mystery here. Mr. Obama didn’t misspeak. The modern left in America really has come to believe that communism, socialism, Marxism, totalitarianism, or whatever “ism” you want to call the monopolization of power into the hands of a ruling elite, is superior to free market capitalism.
The president of the United States is supposed to be the global spokesman for free enterprise. But instead of traveling to Cuba to point out to the world the decades of stagnation, deprivation, and dehumanization at the hands of Castro, and instead of using this moment in history to showcase the triumph of capitalism 90 miles away, as Mr. Reagan did so memorably at Moscow State University, Mr. Obama praises Castro’s health care and education systems.


Tuesday, July 21st, 2015


Published on The Weekly Standard (

Are We Better Off Now?

Looking back at the Iraq war

Noemie Emery

July 6 – July 13, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 41

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  Robert Kaplan called his regime “anarchy masquerading as tyranny. .  .  . Saddam was beyond ‘brutal.’ The word brutal has a generic and insipid ring to it .  .  . that simply does not capture what Iraq was like under his rule.” In 1980, he invaded Iran, starting a war that killed more than a million people and lasted eight years. In the aftermath, he gassed thousands of Kurds who tried to shake off his domination. In 1990, he invaded Kuwait, in an attempt to seize control of its oil fields, from which he was ejected months later by an American-led coalition assembled by the first President Bush. He spent the next decade in attempts to avoid the conditions of weapons inspections on which the cease-fire was based.  (see more below)

Is the world better off than it was eight years ago?

Is the Middle East? Is Iraq? These questions, echoing the one asked by Ronald Reagan in his debate with Jimmy Carter just before the 1980 election, should be posed by all Republicans until the polls close in November 2016. Added to these are a few other things .  .  .

Is Ukraine better off? Do we have more allies? Are we more trusted by them? Of course some countries are better off now than they were before Barack Obama unleashed his transformative powers, but these include Iran, Russia, and Cuba, which may not be a good thing. (On the other hand, our relations with Israel, the Gulf Arabs, and the former possessions of the Soviet empire have hit a new low.) Is the Western world safer from terrorist violence? Since ISIS exploded, violent incidents triggered by it have taken place in countries as widespread as Denmark, Australia, and France. By contrast, since the shock of September 11, 2001, nothing of the sort has taken place again in America, which most at the time would have thought an unlikely development. In the weeks and months after, President Bush, in a very short time and under a great deal of pressure, constructed protocols for the containment of terror that prevented further attacks on this country, and that Obama, despite much complaining, once he was in office did nothing to change. It is a fact that after a brilliantly executed invasion in 2003, Bush let the occupation of Iraq begin badly, and become a catastrophe, but it is a fact too that at the very last moment he changed course dramatically, and—against the intense opposition of the Democrats—turned the situation around by the time he left office, so dramatically that in a few years the Democrats would be saying it had been their accomplishment.

Despite the complaints from the left (and from some on the right) that the Bush foreign policy had been a disaster, the facts are that his security policy was a success, and he left Iraq on a fairly sound footing and in the process of evolving into an imperfect democracy. (If you don’t believe that, see what the Democrats were saying circa 2010-2012, or just prior to our leaving that country.) The last two are facts, based on what did and what failed to happen, and the assessments made at the time, and not later in retrospect. On the contrary, the complaints made by critics—that the invasion of Iraq was unwise and unwarranted, and that the world would have been better off had Saddam stayed in power—are based on conjecture, and the creation of alternative outcomes in projected scenarios that have no basis in fact. (more…)



Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015


I interviewed Bashar al-Assad about Syria’s civil war. He’s still too delusional to end it.


By Jonathan Tepperman  Washington Post January 30 2015

Jonathan Tepperman, the managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, is writing a book on how to solve the world’s toughest political and economic challenges.

In recent weeks, Western governments have begun subtly shifting their positions on Syria. The Obama administration seems to have quietly dropped its demand that President Bashar al-Assad resign as a precondition of peace talks. Instead, reports suggest it has embraced proposals that would allow Assad to be part of an interim deal. The new approach implies that the White House and its allies believe that the Syrian president might be open to a compromise that could end his country’s four-year civil war.

I met with Assad on Jan. 20 in Damascus — his first interview by an American journalist since 2013. And if there was one clear takeaway from our talk, which you can read in full in Foreign Affairs, it was this: Such hopes are a fantasy. Superficially, Assad said many of the right things, appearing conciliatory and eager to involve Western governments in his struggle against Islamist terrorism. But underneath the pretty words, he remains as unrepentant and inflexible today as he was at the start of the Syrian civil war four years ago. Assad seems to have no idea how badly the war is going, how impractical his proposals sound and how meaningless his purported overtures are. Which means that, whatever Western leaders might wish, the fighting in Syria will end in one of two ways. Either Assad will defeat the rebels. Or the rebels will defeat him — and string him up by his toes.

Visiting Syria today is a strange and unsettling experience. The signs of war are everywhere. Damascus is surrounded by snow-capped mountains and concentric rings of army checkpoints, manned by twitchy soldiers unsure how to respond when a solitary American — I traveled without security but hired a local driver — shows up. (Some were indifferent, others were hostile, and one grabbed my hand and declared, “The Syrian Arab Republic Army loves the American press!”) High concrete blast walls shield most buildings, red-and-white-striped gun turrets loom over intersections, posters of Assad in shades and black military dress hang from lampposts, United Nations aid workers fill the hotels, and the booms and pops of artillery and mortar fire echo from the front, just a few miles away.

Yet despite the siege, cafes and markets are bustling. The streets are thronged with families out shopping, with students heading to school — and with hundreds of thousands of refugees who have more than doubled the city’s population since the war began. (more…)



Thursday, May 29th, 2014



Monday, January 13th, 2014


Haunted by Syria?

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.



Monday, September 30th, 2013



Friday, August 30th, 2013


The Israeli Spring

Victor Davis Hanson

8/29/2013 12:01:00 AM – Victor Davis Hanson

Israel could be forgiven for having a siege mentality — given that at any moment, old frontline enemies Syria and Egypt might spill their violence over common borders.

The Arab Spring has turned Israel’s once-predictable adversaries into the chaotic state of a Sudan or Somalia. The old understandings between Jerusalem and the Assad and Mubarak kleptocracies seem in limbo.

Yet these tragic Arab revolutions swirling around Israel are paradoxically aiding it, both strategically and politically — well beyond the erosion of conventional Arab military strength.

In terms of realpolitik, anti-Israeli authoritarians are fighting to the death against anti-Israeli insurgents and terrorists. Each is doing more damage to the other than Israel ever could — and in an unprecedented, grotesque fashion. Who now is gassing Arab innocents? Shooting Arab civilians in the streets? Rounding up and executing Arab civilians? Blowing up Arab houses? Answer: either Arab dictators or radical Islamists.

The old nexus of radical Islamic terror of the last three decades is unraveling. With a wink and a nod, Arab dictatorships routinely subsidized Islamic terrorists to divert popular anger away from their own failures to the West or Israel. In the deal, terrorists got money and sanctuary. The Arab Street blamed others for their own government-inflicted miseries. And thieving authoritarians posed as Islam’s popular champions.

But now, terrorists have turned on their dictator sponsors. And even the most ardent Middle East conspiracy theorists are having troubling blaming the United States and Israel. (more…)



Sunday, August 25th, 2013


The Wall Street Journal

The Failed Grand Strategy in the Middle East

  • Mr. Mead is the James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College and editor-at-large of the American Interest.
Associated Press  An opponent of Egypt’s President Morsi holds up a picture of Barack Obama and the American flag during a rally outside the presidential palace in Cairo on July 7.

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  Second, the struggle against terror is going to be harder than we hoped. Our enemies have scattered and multiplied, and the violent jihadi current has renewed its appeal. In the Arab world, in parts of Africa, in Europe and in the U.S., a constellation of revitalized and inventive movements now seeks to wreak havoc. It is delusional to believe that we can eliminate this problem by eliminating poverty, underdevelopment, dictatorship or any other “root causes” of the problem; we cannot eliminate them in a policy-relevant time frame. An ugly fight lies ahead. Instead of minimizing the terror threat in hopes of calming the public, the president must prepare public opinion for a long-term struggle.

In the beginning, the Hebrew Bible tells us, the universe was all “tohu wabohu,” chaos and tumult. This month the Middle East seems to be reverting to that primeval state: Iraq continues to unravel, the Syrian War grinds on with violence spreading to Lebanon and allegations of chemical attacks this week, and Egypt stands on the brink of civil war with the generals crushing the Muslim Brotherhood and street mobs torching churches. Turkey’s prime minister, once widely hailed as President Obama’s best friend in the region, blames Egypt’s violence on the Jews; pretty much everyone else blames it on the U.S.

The Obama administration had a grand strategy in the Middle East. It was well intentioned, carefully crafted and consistently pursued.

Unfortunately, it failed.

The plan was simple but elegant: The U.S. would work with moderate Islamist groups like Turkey’s AK Party and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to make the Middle East more democratic. This would kill three birds with one stone. First, by aligning itself with these parties, the Obama administration would narrow the gap between the ‘moderate middle’ of the Muslim world and the U.S. Second, by showing Muslims that peaceful, moderate parties could achieve beneficial results, it would isolate the terrorists and radicals, further marginalizing them in the Islamic world. Finally, these groups with American support could bring democracy to more Middle Eastern countries, leading to improved economic and social conditions, gradually eradicating the ills and grievances that drove some people to fanatical and terroristic groups. (more…)

Search All Posts