Posted on 03/13/2013 10:38:30 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The “Arab spring” has benefited Islamists rather than democracy advocates, while political transitions and unrest in the region have provided opportunities for terrorists to mount attacks against U.S. interests, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told lawmakers Tuesday. …
“Islamist actors have been the chief electoral beneficiaries of the political openings, and Islamist parties in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco will likely solidify their influence in the coming year,” he told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in a written statement. …
“Sequestration forces the intelligence community to reduce all intelligence activities and functions, without regard to impact on our mission,” he told the panel. “In my considered judgment as the nation’s senior intelligence officer, sequestration jeopardizes our nation’s safety and security and this jeopardy will increase over time.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Clapper is on the cutting edge of hindsight.
Is there even one sensible observer who expected any other outcome?
No sh*t?
This clown should've quit after he invented that handclap light-on/light-off thing for seniors...
...sheesh
Here is a conservative article that may hold some interest for people interested in nuance in Islamic affairs.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/20/iran-exposes-its-achilles-heel/
Interesting information, gleealkin. Thanks much
Clapper always did have a grasp of the blindingly obvious.
When Americans talk about democracy, we are generally conflating two distinct things.
1. A civil society with individual rights.
2. Rule by the majority of the people, usually by means of free elections.
This is because we assume, without anything even vaguely resembling evidence, and despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary, that if #2 is in effect the people will always choose to implement #1.
But a society with #1 but without #2 is theoretically possible, and indeed has existed to varying degrees at different times in history.
And various regimes have been wildly popular with their people, and even had more or less free elections, but did not implement #1.
IMO #1 is the goal, and #2 merely the historically most effective way of implementing it. But as we have seen in Iran and Egypt, free elections do not necessarily translate to freedom for individuals.
All of this is based on the American faith that "the people" can't be wrong. Which is of course utter nonsense.
That’s a good article, short, sweet and to the point. Thanks for the link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.