Senate Ripe for GOP Takeover

From Susan Davis, at USA Today, "2014 Senate landscape tilts in GOP's favor":

WASHINGTON — Contests are set in nearly half the states for November's elections, and with few contested primary elections remaining on the calendar, Republicans are enjoying clear advantages in their quest for a Senate takeover.

"The environment is really good right now, and the quality of candidates is superior," said Scott Reed, a veteran GOP strategist and senior political aide at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "These are the best candidates I've seen in 32 years. With a good environment and good candidates, it's a good combination. We like where we are."

Five months out from Election Day, Republicans have largely avoided the same mistakes of the two previous election cycles in which the party nominated lackluster candidates who cost the party winnable seats in Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Missouri and Nevada.

This year GOP nominees in Democratic-held seats in South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana have consistently led in polls and are favored in November. Victory in the trio of states would provide half of the six seats Republicans need to net gain for a takeover.

The Rothenberg Political Report, a non-partisan election outfit, forecasts Republicans will gain between four and eight seats this November.

Rothenberg analyst Nathan Gonzales shared Reed's view that the GOP has largely tapped the candidates favored by the establishment but cautioned that many are still untested as the races shift to general election mode. "It seems like we've stepped through some of the minefields for Republicans so far, but when you think there's not a new way to lose a race, Republicans seem to find one," he said.

The party is also enjoying a three-to-one advantage: Republicans are defending only two Senate seats considered highly competitive — in Kentucky and Georgia — compared to six seats Democrats will be challenged to hold in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan and North Carolina.

Republicans have also sought to expand the map by getting strong candidates on the ballot in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Oregon, where Democrats continue to hold leads but where the party could be in trouble if 2014 proves to be a seismic election year against Democrats.

Still, hope is not lost for Democrats. "They have incumbents who are running good campaigns, they have strong profiles in their state, they are good fundraisers and they have good teams," said Gonzales. "Their incumbents are structurally in good shape." Historically, incumbents have also consistently proved tough to beat.

Incumbents are in "good shape." Heh, good luck with that: "Ahead of Midterms, Anti-Incumbent Sentiment Strong in U.S."

But more at the link.

PREVIOUSLY: "Joni Ernst Wins Iowa GOP Senate Race."

Obama Makes 'Absolutely No Apologies' for Disastrous #Bergdahl Treason-Terror Exchange

Well, no surprise there. Has he ever apologized for anything?

At the Hill, "Obama 'Absolutely No Apologies'":

President Obama said Thursday he would make “absolutely no apologies” for ordering the controversial prisoner swap to rescue Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the last American prisoner of war in Afghanistan.

Obama said he was never surprised by “controversies that are whipped up in Washington,” but deflected criticism from members of Congress and the military over the trade of five Guantanamo prisoners for Bergdahl, who has been accused of abandoning his post in Afghanistan before his capture...

He's such an asshole.

More at the link.

Also at WSJ, "Press Conference Transcript: What Obama Said Thursday About Bergdahl Controversy."

Exclusive: The Story You Haven't Yet Heard About Bowe #Bergdahl's Desertion

An absolutely amazing report, from Michelle Malkin.

Read it and then tell John Cole to get f-ked.

Leftist Robert Garcia Becomes First Openly Homosexual and Latino Mayor of Long Beach

Hey, homosexual power!

At the Long Beach Press-Telegram, "Robert Garcia, Long Beach mayor-elect, looks toward transition, future."

Maybe the city will repaint all the crosswalks with splashing rainbow colors, like West Hollywood.

Oh, it's the Los Angeles Times that uses the adverb "openly." Did Long Beach have a closet homosexual mayor previously? NTTAWWT!

The Tiananmen Papers

The Tiananmen Square massacre began 25 years ago today.

For some really compelling reading, check out Andrew Nathan's "The Tiananmen Papers," at Foreign Affairs.

It's also available in a free PDF version here.

It's the authoritative report on the Chinese politburo's deliberation and decision to crack down on the "capitalist roaders."

Obama's #Taliban Release Has Afghan Villagers Fearing for Their Lives

Blowback.

At WSJ, "Release of Taliban Detainees Alarms Afghan Villagers: Some Recall Scorched-Earth Offensive Led by One of the Freed Prisoners":

SHEYKHAN, Afghanistan—Taliban forces led by Mohammed Fazl swept through this village on the Shomali plain north of Kabul in 1999 in a scorched-earth offensive that prompted some 300,000 people to flee for their lives.

Fifteen years later, local residents here are responding with fear and dismay to the U.S. release of the notorious commander, along with four other Taliban leaders in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American prisoner of war who was held by the Taliban. The group released a video on Wednesday showing the hurried handover a few days earlier of the American captive, looking gaunt and dazed.

The villages of Shomali were once the orchard of central Afghanistan, and the plain's carefully tended vineyards were famous for their grapes.

When the Taliban seized control of this area from their Northern Alliance rivals in 1999, they systematically demolished entire villages, blowing up houses, burning fields and seeding the land with mines, according to two comprehensive studies of war crimes and atrocities during wars in Afghanistan and human rights reports. Mr. Fazl played a major role in the destruction.

"There was not a single undamaged house or garden," said Masjidi Fatehzada, a shopkeeper in Mir Bacha Kot, the district center. "My entire shop was burned to the ground. There was nothing left."

Khwaja Mohammad, a farmer in the village of Sheykhan, remembered how Mr. Fazl's men took away his son, a civilian, and sent him to Kabul's Pul-e Charkhi prison.

"They jailed him for nearly three years," Mr. Mohammad said. "They took him when he was on his way from the bazaar to buy oil and flour."

The release of Mr. Fazl and the four other Guantanamo detainees has become a hot-button political issue in both Afghanistan and the U.S. Critics complain that the Obama administration has freed some of the most dangerous militants.  One day after Sgt. Bergdahl's release, the Afghan government protested the swap because it placed restrictions on the five, saying it sought "unconditional freedom of its citizens." Under the agreement, brokered by Qatar, the five Taliban leaders are supposed to live in the Persian Gulf emirate under supervision for the next 12 months to prevent them from returning to violence.

Kabul's protest underscored mistrust between Kabul and Washington at a delicate moment when the U.S. is preparing to drastically reduce its military presence in the country and a new Afghan president is about to be elected.

En route to Afghanistan on Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel acknowledged that the U.S. government had only informed the Afghan government about the swap after the fact.

The release has been a boon for the Taliban.  Shortly after the exchange, the group posted a video of them receiving a hero's welcome in Qatar.  Mullah Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, the minister of foreign affairs in the Taliban regime that was ousted by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, described the exchange as "an achievement for the Taliban" which gave the militant group a form of recognition.

"In terms of military significance, Fazl was the most important" among the freed Guantanamo prisoners, Mr. Muttawakil added.

More.

Maxim's Hot 100 for 2014

Nice.

"Maxim Hot 100 2014":

You voted, we counted, and the rest is supersexy history. From mind-bogglingly seductive supermodels to Hollywood’s most awe-inspiring actresses (with a bevy of beauties in between), the women of 2014 make up a roster so undeniably breathtaking you may get light-headed just reading it. Pick up the June issue of Maxim on newsstands to see even more pics of these gorgeous list-makers.

Brad Thor on #KellyFile: 'Every American Should Be Terrified' by #Bergdahl Swap

A great discussion from a couple of nights ago.



And check out Thor on Twitter.

Obama's Foreign Policy is Mainly About Domestic Politics

At WSJ, "The Bergdahl Fiasco":

President Obama's decision to swap five Taliban killers for the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has morphed from a debatable policy decision into the Administration's latest political fiasco. There's a lesson here about the risks of spin and narrow political calculation, especially in foreign policy when American lives are stake.

Start with the fact that little the Administration has said about this swap has turned out to be true. "He served the United States with honor and distinction," declared National Security Adviser Susan Rice on ABC on Sunday. But as everyone has since learned, the soldiers who served with Sgt. Bergdahl almost to a man believe that he deserted his post in Afghanistan in June 2009 before falling into the hands of the Taliban.

We think Sgt. Bergdahl deserves the benefit of the doubt until the facts are all known, but our guess is that Ms. Rice oversold him as a hero because the White House was hoping to turn the swap into a big foreign-policy victory. Thus Mr. Obama hosted the sergeant's parents in the Rose Garden on Saturday in front of the TV cameras, while Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel took a victory lap in Afghanistan, and Ms. Rice called it "a great day for America."  You can argue the prisoner swap was necessary to retrieve our man, or a difficult moral choice, but it is not a reason for back-slapping and high fives.

Then there's the dubious claim that the Administration had to move fast to negotiate Sgt. Bergdahl's release because he was dangerously ill. This line was used to explain why the President had ignored a statute demanding that Congress be consulted 30 days in advance of any prisoner release from Guantanamo Bay. But Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was briefed on the swap after the fact, says that she "heard no evidence that Sgt. Bergdahl was in immediate medical danger that made it necessary to act without consulting Congress."

We think the President has the power as Commander in Chief to undertake the swap without telling Congress, but instead of saying this forthrightly, Mr. Obama said from Warsaw on Tuesday that he had consulted Congress "for quite some time" on the possibility of a prisoner exchange. He also invoked the phony health excuse.

Yet both Ms. Feinstein, who runs the Senate Intelligence Committee, and ranking Republican Saxby Chambliss said they hadn't been consulted on the swap for months. "There certainly was time to pick up the phone and call and say 'I know you all had concerns about this, we consulted in the past, we want you to know we have reviewed these negotiations,'" said Ms. Feinstein. George W. Bush was honest about his claims of executive war powers.

Also disconcerting is the President's insistence that releasing the Taliban commanders to Qatar for a year won't jeopardize U.S. security. Qatar is already making a mockery of U.S. claims that the five will be under close supervision, with one source in the Persian Gulf region telling Reuters that the men "can move around freely within the country" before they leave.

"This is what happens at the end of wars," Mr. Obama said in Warsaw. "At some point you try to make sure that you get your folks back." Yes, but the Afghan war isn't over, never mind the continuing and larger war on terror in which the Taliban and al Qaeda are allies. When the Taliban killers do leave Qatar, several thousand U.S. troops will still be in Afghanistan and the Afghan-Pakistan border will still be an al Qaeda sanctuary.

The larger problem is that Mr. Obama treats all of foreign policy as if it's merely part of his domestic political calculus...

Well, yeah.

More.

'The Stones' decision to ignore Roger Waters and Nick Mason of Pink Floyd underscored Israel's growing popularity as a stop for major musical acts, and it signaled a setback for a campaign known as boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS)...'

Heh, I love this.

At the Washington Post, "Rolling Stones to perform in Israel despite pressure from Pink Floyd members to cancel":

Mick singing Angie on stage tonight #StonesTelAviv pic.twitter.com/GT94vFIz6o

— The Rolling Stones (@RollingStones) June 4, 2014

SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL #StonesTelAviv https://t.co/aSyx77tgxa

— The Rolling Stones (@RollingStones) June 4, 2014

JERUSALEM — Recently, two surviving founders of Pink Floyd sent the rock band equivalent of a diplomatic cable — an open letter published in Salon — to the Rolling Stones. They asked Mick Jagger and his crew to cancel their first-ever concert in Israel to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinian people and their struggle against occupation.

But Pink Floyd hit a wall.

The Stones not only went on with the show Wednesday night in Tel Aviv but delayed their opening by 45 minutes to allow devout Jews time to reach the concert after the end of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, during which Orthodox Jews cannot drive, handle money — or press “Play” on the Stones’ “Exile on Main Street” album.

The Stones’ decision to ignore Roger Waters and Nick Mason of Pink Floyd underscored Israel’s growing popularity as a stop for major musical acts, and it signaled a setback for a campaign known as boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). The movement seeks to apply international pressure on Israel to end its military occupation of the West Bank, guarantee the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes they fled or abandoned after 1948, and grant full rights and equality to Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The BDSers are employing tactics similar to those used against the apartheid regime in South Africa a generation ago. Since 2005, the movement has pushed individuals and institutions to sever academic partnerships, boycott items such as Golan wines and Dead Sea beauty products, and divest from Israeli companies. Israel says it is the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East, so it answers its critics by suggesting they boycott Syria or Iran.

But the threat of BDS has rattled Israel. The movement has gained visibility on American and European college campuses, and it has also managed to inflict some financial pain...

BDS or not, Israel is now a popular stop on the global pop market. Last month, Justin Timberlake played in Tel Aviv, although after he posted an Instagram photo of himself leaning against the Western Wall, he caught some flak for hashtagging it #Israel. The wall is in the Old City of Jerusalem, which is contested ground.

Timberlake tweeted, “The Holy­land . . . What an experience. I will never forget this day.”

Lots more examples of BDS fail, at the link.

Good on the Stones for saying FU to BDS.

Last night's set list here.

Guantánamo: Closing Up Shop?

From Arnold Ahlert, at FrontPage Magazine, "What the Bergdahl fiasco may be foreshadowing":

Lost in the furor surrounding President Obama’s decision to swap five high-level terrorists for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is a potential ulterior motivation for the deal lurking in the background: fulfilling the president’s 2014 State of the Union promise to completely shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

“This whole deal may have been a test to see how far the administration can actually push it, and if Congress doesn’t fight back they will feel more empowered to move forward with additional transfers,” a senior GOP Senate aide told the Daily Beast’s Josh Rogin. “They’ve lined up all the dominoes to be able to move a lot more detainees out of Guantanamo and this could be just the beginning.”

The principal domino is the notion, getting play in the precincts of the left, that once a war ends, the prisoners of that war must be released. In an exchange with Fox News’s Megyn Kelly Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) addressed the absurdity of that contention. “So they should have turned Hitler loose and that would have been the end of the war,” he said. “This isn’t right, and I just — it’s hard for me and people I talk to, a lot of people in Oklahoma, just this morning about this, they can’t figure out why in the world would we turn loose the five most dangerous people who hate America, who want to kill Americans, who have the equipment and the following to revive the Taliban and that’s what they are doing.”

Continue reading.

Obama Dissed Intel Community on #Bergdahl Swap, Blew Off Ransom and Rescue Contingencies

At Fox News, "Administration bypassed intel community to pursue Bergdahl trade, shelved ransom plan."

Yep. It's all about closing down Guantánamo.

More at London's Daily Mail, via Dan Riehl:

Pentagon sources, Obama ignored chances to rescue Bergdahl, he WANTED a terror trade to help close Gitmo, http://t.co/AppPzrDinq

— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) June 5, 2014

MSNBC's Chris Matthews Blasts #Bergdahl Treason-Terror Exchange

For a few Democrats, supporting the Bergdahl cluster is a line they won't cross (although I stress "a few").

From Mary Katharine Ham, at Hot Air, "Video: In which you will almost entirely agree with…Chris Matthews?"

Poll: 84 Percent Say #Bergdahl Deal Will Encourage Terrorist Groups to Seize More Soldiers

A Fox News poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Co. Research, contacting 1,006 respondents, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.

See, "Fox News Poll: 84 percent worry prisoner swap puts US soldiers at risk." (The raw survey questionnaire is here.)

The findings are devastating for the White House.

A majority of 57 percent are "very concerned" that the Berdahl exchange "will encourage these groups to take more American soldiers hostage." Another 27 percent are "somewhat concerned," bringing the total up to more than 8-of-10 who say this deal sucks Taliban goats' balls.

From the article:

Americans hold mixed views of the Obama administration’s deal to swap a captive U.S. soldier for five Taliban prisoners, yet almost all fear that negotiating with terrorist groups will put U.S. troops at risk.

That’s according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

A prisoner exchange Saturday that released U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five top-level Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay has sparked debate over negotiating with terrorists. Fully 84 percent of voters are concerned that making deals with terrorists will encourage those groups to take more American soldiers hostage. That includes a 57-percent majority that is “very” concerned and another 27 percent that is “somewhat” concerned.

Only 15 percent aren’t worried deals like this will put more troops at risk.

Also:

Bergdahl was held captive for five years in Afghanistan. Voters are nearly evenly divided over the Taliban-exchange deal that got him released: 45 percent approve vs. 47 percent disapprove.

Well, so much for the White House expectation of public "euphoria" over the deal. At Hot Air, "Chuck Todd: The White House expected “euphoria” over Bergdahl’s release."

At this point you have to question the wisdom (if not the sanity) of President Obama and his inner circle. This prisoner exchange --- perhaps more than anything the Obama-Dems have done in this past six years --- confirms the worst, most vehement attacks on Obama's post-American ideological program. I mean, gawd, this has all the markers of the most hackneyed comic-page attacks on this administration over the last half-decade: the opportunistic weekend news dump (and "look over there" distraction squirrel, to deflect from the VA scandal); the president's own narcissistic belief that the public would collectively bend over in hosannas and Obama zombie-cult ululations; the White House press conference with Bowe Bergdahl's parents, in which father Bob Bergdahl comes out dressed like a Taliban chieftain, exhorting Bismillah al rahman al rahim in Arabic ("In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate") before mumbling a few more foreign homilies in Pashto; all complete with the president's national security advisor arguing that the deserter Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction."

Add on top of that the administration's meme that Bergdahl's fellow soldiers are lying  --- and "swiftboating" this treasonous ballet dancer-cum-Army private first class --- and you've got a concatenation of circumstances that makes the New Yorker's 2008 portrayal of the Muslim Obama with the Black Panther First Lady look positively prescient.

The Democrats are putting the world's most murderous terrorists back on the battlefield. They're war criminals for crying out loud! And the American people are not pleased. The outrage, as shown in the poll, goes far beyond partisan lines. A Washington Post poll out last week showed that a bare majority of 51 percent of Americans favored the formation of a new congressional panel to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attacks --- with 31 percent of Democrats supporting a new probe. The Bergdahl treason-terror exchange only throws fuel on the fire of public disgust over Obama administration incompetence and dishonesty. Politically, I'm thinking back to the Iran-Contra scandal in 1987 (which nearly crippled President Reagan's administration), only now with the Bergdahl debacle the Democrats will be taking yet another political hit before the 2014 midterms.

Sadly, only the most diehard leftist partisans, apologists and terror-enablers will now be standing with administration. It's almost as if the president wanted to prove his most vociferous detractors correct. Obama's pulled off an own-goal of monumental proportions, a cluster perhaps not seen in American politics since the Carter administration, and even then our cardigan-wearing chief executive tried to turn things around before it was too late.

Alas, Barack "it's-all-about-me" Obama comes nowhere near Jimmy Carter's level of political humility, to say nothing of basic decency.

Why Team Obama Was Blindsided by the #Bergdahl Backlash

From Ralph Peters, at National Review:

Congratulations, Mr. President! And identical congrats to your sorcerer’s apprentice, National Security Adviser Susan Rice. By trying to sell him as an American hero, you’ve turned a deserter already despised by soldiers in the know into quite possibly the most-hated individual soldier in the history of our military.

I have never witnessed such outrage from our troops.

Exhibit A: Ms. Rice. In one of the most tone-deaf statements in White House history (we’re making a lot of history here), the national-security advisor, on a Sunday talk show, described Bergdahl as having served “with honor and distinction.” Those serving in uniform and those of us who served previously were already stirred up, but that jaw-dropper drove us into jihad mode.

But pity Ms. Rice. Like the president she serves, she’s a victim of her class. Nobody in the inner circle of Team Obama has served in uniform. It shows. That bit about serving with “honor and distinction” is the sort of perfunctory catch-phrase politicians briefly don as electoral armor. (“At this point in your speech, ma’am, devote one sentence to how much you honor the troops.”)

Keep reading.

And from last night, "Lt. Col. Ralph Peters Furious as Obama Regime Dismisses Fellow Soldiers' Reports of #Bergdahl Desertion."

On Taliban Release Video, #Bergdahl Is Told 'Don't Come Back to Afghanistan...'

At the New York Times, "On Taliban Video, a Message as Soldier Is Released: ‘Don’t Come Back’ Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl Was Exchanged for Detainees at Guantánamo":

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Taliban released a video on Wednesday showing its fighters handing over Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to American troops, providing a direct look at a moment in the Afghan war that has prompted relief in some quarters but has drawn sharp criticism in Afghanistan and Washington.

Sergeant Bergdahl is seen in the video wearing traditional Afghan robes, and his face and head appear to have been recently shaved. For much of the video, he is seen waiting in a silver and red pickup truck surrounded by Taliban fighters armed with assault rifles and at least one rocket-propelled grenade launcher, standard armaments for the insurgents. The faces of many of the Taliban fighters are covered by scarves.

As an American Blackhawk helicopter approaches, one of the insurgents is heard telling Sergeant Bergdahl: “Don’t come back to Afghanistan. If you do, you won’t make it out alive next time.” Other insurgents standing nearby laugh at the warning.

Then the helicopter lands and Sergeant Bergdahl is handed over to Americans wearing civilian clothes. The Americans quickly lead him away, patting him down and casually dropping a plastic shopping bag he was holding. They board the helicopter and fly off.

Continue reading.

The Left's Reaction to Bowe #Bergdahl Release Is Outrageous

From Sonny Bunch, at Washington Free Beacon.

Outrageous. And depraved.

Cited there is the Daily Beast's disgusting partisan hack Michael Tomasky, who has doubled down on his earlier smear of the troops as liars.

.@MTomasky So, I see you're not retracting. Doubling-down like an idiot. Figures.
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 4, 2014

Lolz. RT @lamblock Yo @AmPowerBlog, any truth to rumor if one googles "butthurt" @MTomasky latest #Bergdahl blabber is top result?

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 4, 2014

'Wow!' And So It Begins: White House Smears Vets, Claims 'Swift Boating' of #BergdahlTraitor

At Twitchy.

Was getting ready for work this morning when I heard @chucktodd use the term "swift boat" in regards to White House reaction. #JawDropped
— Kimberly C (@conkc2) June 4, 2014

It would be one thing if fellow soldiers who served with Bergdahl had conflicting stories. They don't. So now they must be discredited.
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) June 4, 2014

@CuffyMeh I didn't make it up

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) June 4, 2014

Freed Guantanamo Jihadists Return to the Battlefield — #BergdahlTraitor

Does anyone seriously think these guys are going tend their gardens at some retirement village in Rawalpindi?

At WSJ, "After Guantanamo, Freed Detainees Returned to Violence in Syria Battlefields:Release of Five Senior Taliban Figures from the U.S. Detention Center Renews Debate":

CASABLANCA—A decade ago, the U.S. released three hardened Moroccan militants from Guantanamo and turned them over to the Moroccan government on the assumption they wouldn't return to the battlefield.

They wound up leading one of the most violent Islamist groups fighting in Syria's civil war.

Their story serves as a cautionary tale days after President Barack Obama released five high-level Taliban figures from the same detention center in a swap for an American soldier held in Afghanistan for nearly five years.

By January 2014, about 29% of 614 detainees released from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba had returned to violence, according to the Director of National Intelligence.

Like the three Moroccans, the five Afghans went free with a friendly government's consent to monitor them. As part of the deal that released U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Qatari government agreed to keep the five ex-detainees in the Gulf emirate for at least a year to prevent them from returning to violence.

The Moroccans, who once trained at the same Afghan camp where the Sept. 11 hijackers trained, set up their radical militant group in Syria in August 2013. Like other al Qaeda sympathizers, they saw their battle as a jihad, or holy war, to replace the Syrian state with an Islamic emirate ruled by their strict interpretation of religious law.

Their group, Harakat Sham al Islam, was at the forefront of the first significant massacre of religious minorities in August 2013 in Latakia province, which Human Rights Watch deemed a "crime against humanity."

Along with other al Qaeda-linked groups, Harakat Sham helped turn what began in 2011 as a largely secular and peaceful uprising against autocratic President Bashar al-Assad into a sectarian war.

For Ibrahim bin Shakran, Ahmed Mizouz and Mohammed Alami, their years in U.S. detention were a badge of honor. Other Islamist extremists said they admired them as symbols of a time when al Qaeda was at its strongest in Afghanistan and the struggle to restore that power in Syria today.

Mr. Mizouz is still fighting with Harakat Sham. But the group said Mr. Alami died in August 2013 and on April 1, it announced that Mr. Shakran too had died, both killed fighting Syrian forces in Latakia. The province is a stronghold of Mr. Assad's minority Alawite sect, which dominates the regime. Groups such as Harakat Sham, made up of hard-line Sunni Muslim jihadists, consider Alawites heretics.

Continue reading.

The Barry Kerry 'Palestinian Unity' Clown Show

At the Washington Post, "Obama administration seeks to bridge rift with Israel over Palestinian unity government."

And from Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Obama’s Embrace of Hamas Betrays Peace":

When Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas chose to scuttle peace talks with Israel this spring by deciding to conclude a pact with Hamas rather than the Jewish state, he was taking a calculated risk. In embracing his Islamist rivals, Abbas sought to unify the two leading Palestinian factions not to make peace more possible but to make it impossible. Since Palestinian public opinion–indeed the entire political culture of his people–regards any pact that would recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state as a betrayal of their national identity, bringing Hamas back into the PA fold illustrated that he would not take the sort of risks that peacemaking required.

But given the PA’s almost complete dependency on the United States and Europe for the aid that keeps its corrupt apparatus operating, there was a genuine risk that the unity pact would generate a cutoff of assistance that could topple his kleptocracy. U.S. law mandated such a rupture of relations, as did the officially stated policy of the Obama administration that rightly regards Hamas as a terrorist group, not a legitimate political player. But there was a chance that Washington would accept a Palestinian deception in which technocrats would be appointed to rule in the name of the Fatah-Hamas coalition in order to pretend that the terrorists were not in charge.

In the weeks since the unity pact was concluded it wasn’t clear which way the U.S. would jump on the question of keeping the money flowing to Abbas, though at times Secretary of State John Kerry made appropriate noises at the PA leader about the danger of going into business with Hamas. But today’s press briefing at the State Department removed any doubt about President Obama’s intentions. When asked to react to today’s announcement of a new Fatah-Hamas government in Ramallah, spokesperson Jen Psaki said that the U.S. would accept the Palestinian trick. As the Times of Israel reports...

Keep reading.

Image via Serr8d.