thedrifter
02-26-09, 07:24 AM
Yes, It's Hamas Aid, and It's $900M of Cognitive Dissonance
[Steve Schippert]
While we are preached to via the humorless yet hysterical "Fiscal Responsibility Summit," leadership by example — a pillar of military service — has no home in this White House. For with the last breath of the "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" came news that the administration plans to spend nearly $1 billion of American tax money (or, more likely, freshly minted additional paper) to rebuild Hamas terrorists' home turf. All the while, a critically important Department of Defense initiative to undermine al-Qaeda's opium cash cow and popular support within the tribal areas of Pakistan is short of funding by $167.5 million.
Let's be clear here. Our forces in harm's way and in the heat of battle in Afghanistan and, by extension, Pakistan can go pound sand regarding their efforts to diminish the enemy's cash lifelines and capabilities. But Hamas terrorists? Help is on the way. Pronto. This — espcially within the given context — is simply unconscionable, no matter your politics.
This is not "fiscal responsibility." This is cognitive dissonance. And I object with every fiber of my being.
This is not a cry from this writer to end all foreign aid. Far from it. But it is a vociferous cry to reconsider the foolishness of assisting Hamas to any degree - let alone to the tune of nearly a billion dollars — in reconstructing Gaza after Hamas' incessant rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns finally drew the wrath of the Israeli Defense Forces. Would we rebuild Japan with Tojo still in place, or Germany under a surviving Hitler? And would we send them nearly $1 billion while our own economy is incessantly being described as "the worst crisis since the Great Depression"?
And most importantly, would we do this while our own operations are short funding, where our own troops are at ever-increasing risk?
The answer is clearly, no we would not. At least not then. But today, under an Obama administration, the answer is apparently "Yes we can."
Our own generals requested 30,000 troops in order to roll out a new strategy and fight terrorists in Afghanistan and they got but 17,000 committed. Our efforts to combat al-Qaeda's narcotics money tree and undermine their popular support in Pakistan are expected to be short-funded $167.5 million with no redress in sight, yet the commitment is already made to spend $900 million of your tax dollars rebuilding Hamas' home turf.
Make sense of that.
Maybe you can, but I sure can't. Jules Crittenden calls it the Hamas Stimulus Plan. Go ahead and argue otherwise. The administration tried to dodge this by assuring us that "the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations." But that feeble defense rings as hollow as a fortune cookie because there is ultimately just one distributor (and confiscator) of aid in Gaza: Hamas. And this frees them to spend other funds directly on rearming. Truly, "the fact of the matter remains that the Hamas terrorist organization that dominates Gaza stands to gain from every penny. It most certainly will not be hindered. That equation is nowhere in the calculus."
In the mean time, the DoD plan to undermine al-Qaeda in Pakistan is left to pound sand. Maybe the administration will get to it later, when it's a high enough priority. We've got to be "fiscally responsible." And $167.5 million is an awful lot of money in these tough times to go pouring into a terrorist haven, dontcha know.
I hope NRO's Tank readers will take the time to read Cognitive Dissonance, forgiving for the moment the self-link. There's simply no other way to describe this administration's actions.
Ellie
[Steve Schippert]
While we are preached to via the humorless yet hysterical "Fiscal Responsibility Summit," leadership by example — a pillar of military service — has no home in this White House. For with the last breath of the "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" came news that the administration plans to spend nearly $1 billion of American tax money (or, more likely, freshly minted additional paper) to rebuild Hamas terrorists' home turf. All the while, a critically important Department of Defense initiative to undermine al-Qaeda's opium cash cow and popular support within the tribal areas of Pakistan is short of funding by $167.5 million.
Let's be clear here. Our forces in harm's way and in the heat of battle in Afghanistan and, by extension, Pakistan can go pound sand regarding their efforts to diminish the enemy's cash lifelines and capabilities. But Hamas terrorists? Help is on the way. Pronto. This — espcially within the given context — is simply unconscionable, no matter your politics.
This is not "fiscal responsibility." This is cognitive dissonance. And I object with every fiber of my being.
This is not a cry from this writer to end all foreign aid. Far from it. But it is a vociferous cry to reconsider the foolishness of assisting Hamas to any degree - let alone to the tune of nearly a billion dollars — in reconstructing Gaza after Hamas' incessant rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns finally drew the wrath of the Israeli Defense Forces. Would we rebuild Japan with Tojo still in place, or Germany under a surviving Hitler? And would we send them nearly $1 billion while our own economy is incessantly being described as "the worst crisis since the Great Depression"?
And most importantly, would we do this while our own operations are short funding, where our own troops are at ever-increasing risk?
The answer is clearly, no we would not. At least not then. But today, under an Obama administration, the answer is apparently "Yes we can."
Our own generals requested 30,000 troops in order to roll out a new strategy and fight terrorists in Afghanistan and they got but 17,000 committed. Our efforts to combat al-Qaeda's narcotics money tree and undermine their popular support in Pakistan are expected to be short-funded $167.5 million with no redress in sight, yet the commitment is already made to spend $900 million of your tax dollars rebuilding Hamas' home turf.
Make sense of that.
Maybe you can, but I sure can't. Jules Crittenden calls it the Hamas Stimulus Plan. Go ahead and argue otherwise. The administration tried to dodge this by assuring us that "the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations." But that feeble defense rings as hollow as a fortune cookie because there is ultimately just one distributor (and confiscator) of aid in Gaza: Hamas. And this frees them to spend other funds directly on rearming. Truly, "the fact of the matter remains that the Hamas terrorist organization that dominates Gaza stands to gain from every penny. It most certainly will not be hindered. That equation is nowhere in the calculus."
In the mean time, the DoD plan to undermine al-Qaeda in Pakistan is left to pound sand. Maybe the administration will get to it later, when it's a high enough priority. We've got to be "fiscally responsible." And $167.5 million is an awful lot of money in these tough times to go pouring into a terrorist haven, dontcha know.
I hope NRO's Tank readers will take the time to read Cognitive Dissonance, forgiving for the moment the self-link. There's simply no other way to describe this administration's actions.
Ellie