Besides Sept.11 and Dec. 7, 1941, the "Halloween Massacre of 1977" may yet turn out to the most damaging day in modern U.S. foreign policy history-- but only time will tell.

When the Japanese pulled off their incredibly successful Pearl Harbor sneak attack on Dec. 7, 1941, the finger-pointing began immediately. Ultimately, after all the accusations, it was decided that the 4-star Admiral, Husband E. Kimmel --Chief  Naval Commander of the Pacific fleet-- was the man responsible.

But history has shown that Kimmel only served as a convenient scapegoat for the nation's anger. The Pearl harbor attack succeeded largely because of the judicious spying of the Japanese, who-- at that time-- had hundreds of Hawiian agents on the ground in the months leading up to the start of the war.

During and after World War II, the U.S. intelligence forces (O.S.S.- CIA) had done their jobs well. The CIA had succeeded in stalemating the KGB during the early Cold War years. The agency had been led by highly capable men such as Allen Dulles during the Eisenhower years, and John McCone during the Kennedy administration. 

In 1953, the CIA played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular pro-communist Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh-- the democratically-elected leader who had nationalized Iran’s oil industry.  

In  "Operation Ajax," the CIA had argued (correctly) that Mossadegh was soft on communism, and that the Tudeh (the pro-Soviet Communist party) might soon control Iran.

Mossadegh was ousted, and the Shah-- Mohammed Reza Pahlavi-- assumed power.

Throughout the next 25 years-- under the watchful eyes of the CIA (and its well trained agents)-- U.S. interests were well-protected in  the Middle East.

But in 1976 came the election of Jimmie Carter, and his disastrous dismantling of a once-proud, highly-motivated intelligence organization.

Carter (like all liberals) was obsessed with being "fair". So what did Carter see as the first place to single out for reforming? Of course-- it was those nasty, dastardly, secretive, immoral CIA brigands.

After all, hadn't the CIA taken part in the overthrowing of "sovereign" governments? Had they not taken part in assassinations, deception, blackmail, torture, and other knavish misdeeds?

In January 1977, Carter made one of the most ill-conceived presidential appointments of all time: For his CIA director he chose Stansfield Turner-- Carter's college roommate at the Naval Academy-- who had no agency or intelligence experience of any kind. 

Carter probably would have done just as well to appoint Mr. Magoo, because Turner-- like his liberal president-- was blind to the fact that indeed, America had many implacable enemies, ESPECIALLY in the Middle East.

On October 31, 1977 Turner (with Carter's blessing) circulated a photocopied memo informing 800 astonished CIA staffers (mostly Republicans) of their dismissal. Most of these were highly seasoned agents, going all the way back to the OSS spy agency of World War II. A lot of them spoke Arabic, Farsi, and were fluent in other foreign languages.

To the joy and disbelief of our enemies, word spread that the U.S. had decided to delegate its intelligence priorities to only "non-human means"...satellite observations and listening posts. Carter had unilaterally chosen to disarm America from the spy wars-- a decision that to this day, resulted in the single worst intelligence debacle in US history. 

Now link all this with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served between 1977-81 as Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, and the disastrous advice he gave to Carter about Iran: 

In 1978, our "crippled" CIA had no idea that the pro-American Shah of Iran was in grave danger of being overthrown. Once the situation became apparent, Brzezinski--after considering military intervention (which Carter feared)-- recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah and gave the green light to the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Russian threats...Soviet aggression ... Soviet invasion of yet another Muslim state; Brzezinski assured Carter that if the Shah were deposed, Khomeini's fundamentalist Islam would thwart any further Russian "adventurism" in the Mideast, and the US military could then turn its attention elsewhere.

But in December, 1979, the Soviet Union went ahead and invaded Afghanistan; and Khomeini's fanatics instead had turned their wrath on the Great Satan America, remembering that a generation ago, the CIA had undermined their revered Prime Minister (Mossadegh), and it had not been forgotten -a grievous miscalculation by Brzezinski.

But would this fiasco have occurred if the CIA had not been castrated by Carter only two years earlier?

Without actionable intelligence, Carter was easily pressured into withdrawing American support for the Shah. 

Without actionable intelligence, it had been  Brzezinski's foolish notion that all the "Muslim peoples" would rise up against regional Soviet power.

And without actionable intelligence, the U.S. had not realized what Ayatollah Khomeini was all about, and the colossal series of errors that let him seize power in Iran, with its tremendously negative long-term effects for American foreign policy.

In retrospect, we see that the Brzezinski mind was incapable of thinking clearly about Islam. He was a child of the Cold War, possessing a "fixation" on the USSR-- resulting in his delusion that Muslim extremism could be transformed into a geopolitical weapon in FAVOR of the United States.

Despite what any liberal may profess, it was tha CIA that had kept Communism in check; it was the CIA that kept the Cold War from boiling over; and it was the CIA that had enabled the U.S. to know what was actually taking place on the ground in Asia and the Middle East.

In 1979 when the Shah was finally overthrown,  the United States lost its chief ally and all its outposts along the Russo-Iranian border regions-- as well as our military installations-- including all of our electronic monitoring stations that were aimed at the Soviet Union.

And exactly thirty years later, we have the greatest of ironies-- we have gone full circle:

"BOOM"...North Korea explodes yet another underground test of its nuclear capability--the largest to date.

"MEOW"...President pussycat Obama fires back with his predictable warning..."The United States and the World Community must take action in response!"

Once again, our Appeaser-in-Chief has struck trepidation into the hearts of renegade dictators everywhere, threatening them with the one thing that that they truly fear the most-- a STRONGLY-WORDED  United Nations' resolution!

North Korea is undoubtedly quaking in abject horror--- panic-stricken by the thought of a doomsday, worse-case scenario-- economic sanctions!

What a co-incidence; it seems like only yesterday that the North Koreans had literally DARED anyone to stop their now-triumphant test of a 3-stage ICBM.

And having successfully done that, Kim Jong Il will be able to market his "wares" to the Syrians, Iran, and other radical governments, to finance further his dastardly program of regional black mail, and continue to keep the nuclear pot on fast-boil.

Predictably, whenever liberal presidents are faced with foreign policy challenges, they always open up the democratic playbook, and stop abruptly on the first page: "A"-- appeasement.

In 1978 Carter appeased Ayatollah Khomeini, and we got radical Islam.

In 1993, Clinton did not respond forcefully to the World Trade Center bombing (nor the Cole incident), and we got 9-11.

And now, not having responded to North Korea's recent missile test, we get Jong's most grave threat to date.

In 1962, it was a democrat, John F. Kennedy, who avoided a possible nuclear war with the Soviets by rejecting the easy way out (appeasement), and delivered a decisive threat -- a blockade of Cuba. Then, it was Nikita Khruschev who blinked, and little was ever heard from him again.

Of course, in today's politics, Kennedy would be considered a "radical right-winger," and his policy of force would have been met with a flood of liberal criticism for..."putting the ENTIRE world at risk."

But what has Obama done by his refusal to confront Kim? He's inviting the very thing he seeks to avoid...a possible war, resulting from the brinkmanship of a tin-horn dictator, whom-- by his inaction-- Obama continues to elevate ever-higher on the world stage.

History is replete with examples of those who stood up to threats, versus laying low with inaction.

In 1988, Moammar Khadafy decided to enter the terror game, and was directly responsible for downing an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.

But what would have happened then if President Reagan had decided to "act with the World Community" (done nothing)? Would that have stopped this madman from engaging in further perfidy?

But Reagan acted unilaterally; and in a Kennedy-esque show of strength-- after bombing Mr. Khadafy's home-sweet-home neighborhood -- our Libyan friend was quick to decide that early retirement from the terror game would be optimal for his continued health.

What if Obama  had actually displayed a spine, and blown up Kim Jong's last missile test on the launchpad? What could North Korea have done in retaliation? Nada-- absolutely nothing.

Having done that, Kim Jong would have lost credibility with his military, and gone the way of Khadafy (and Khruschev)-- never to be heard from again.

Backbone is not a part of the democratic foreign-policy playbook. It has been replaced with negotiation--indicating weakness-- a sure invitation for future "disagreements."

And moving along to the next player of the brinkmanship game-- Mamoud Ahkmadinejad; as Obama continues to play Mr. Rogers with the Iranians, what then?

Examine the mind of this so-called "madman." Analyze the real Ahkmadinejad stategy:

As he continues to menace Israel ( making one outrageous threat after another), it's all part of the cover: the real Iranian agenda moves forward-- the looming, inevitable subversion of the entire region-- winning the Mideast war "without firing a shot."

While Obama continues to be waylayed by Ahkmadinejad's nuclear bluster (and focuses on when/if  Iran has nuclear weapons in the future), officials in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain all complain about what Iran is currently up to within their own countries --political subversion.

The Iranians have taken the "CIA concept" to new heights-- scattering hundreds of their agents around the region-- covertly spreading Shiite Islamic beliefs in Sunni-majority countries.

But the Sunni countries have competent security forces of their own, and are fighting back effectively in this spy-vs-spy, undeclared Arab war:

Morocco recently severed all diplomacy with Iran in March.

Egyptian officials-- using their  top-notch counterintelligence-- recently accused Hezbollah (Iran’s proxy force in Lebanon) of sending agents to Egypt to set up networks of terrorist cells; charging that Iran is going all-out to subvert not only their country, but the entire region. 

The Iranians continue to act with impunity:

They have sabotaged reconciliation between Palestinian factions; are instigating uprisings against the Egyptian government; and are roiling domestic politics in Sudan, Chad and other neighboring countries;

In the biggest surprise of all, Iran denies ANY meddling in other Arab nations' affairs, as Obama looks on passively, offering "carrots", with never a mention of any sticks.

And as Obama fiddles, the Mideast will continue in a slow burn, as America renders itself oblivious to actual Iranian threats...and everywhere else.  

Iran-- knowing pussycat Obama's tendency to negotiate --now has carte blanche to import more centrifuges from Russia, keep manufacturing more weapons-grade uranium, and all the while, surreptitiously moving forward with the export of its revolution into the rest of the Sunni countries.

As the liberal media continue to rant away about "this crazy, madman Ahkamadinejad" and his "insane threat to destroy Israel,"  we are falling right into his clever trap.

 Is Mr. Ahkmadinejad really crazy? Sure-- crazy like a fox.

Why would he consider the folly of nuking Israel, when it would destroy the neighboring Palestinians, as well as render the entire region into a Chernobyl-like nuclear wasteland for years to come? 

And as Obama (and his attorney general) treasonously act to de-claw our CIA (and continue to render it toothless) we'll continue to have more of these "unexpected" surprises.

We have no idea of what's actually going on Iran, nor any clue of what North Korea’s doing; and no concept of the actual threat of the Taliban in Pakistan, or how far along they might be toward seizing the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

Even if Obama DID decide to act, we have no idea where the Pakistani nukes are located, and wouldn't be able to destroy them before the Taliban arrived first. And then WHAT?

Jimmy Carter all but destroyed our CIA in 1977; and pussycat Obama is out to finish the task, feeling that by de-fanging the CIA, we are showing the world that… "it's American ideals that make us safe."

Safe? From what? History has shown that appeasement is provocative-- it always invites attack.

After Chamberlain appeased Hitler at Munich, was there peace?

And after Franklin Roosevelt appeased Stalin at Yalta, all we got was a brief, 40-year period of Cold War.

As Obama continues to toss diplomatic spitballs at these despots, the rest of the western world-- as they look to Washington for leadership- will continue to get nothing but nuclear brinkmanship, and yet another unnecessary future war.

With a nuclear North Korea in the Far East threatening South Korea and Japan, and Iran in the Mideast likewise threatening that ENTIRE region--what then? Peace in our time?

In today's entertainment section, let's recall one of the classic TV series, "Hogan's Heroes", which starred Bob Crane.

Like M.A.S.H, it was one of those timeless, all time favorites, complete with a cult following, and a cast that worked "just right" performing together on the small screen.

Undoubtedly the favorite bit player of Hogan's Heroes was sergeant Hans Schultz, played by Austrian actor John Banner. Throughout the series' entire 168 episodes (1965-1971), the hapless Sergeant Schultz would repeat a favorite audience laugh line, the immortal, "I know NOTHING."  

And in the cinema section, let's review one of the all time great movie scenes, the second to last in "Godfather I", where Michael Corleone tricks his hated brother-in-law, Carlo, into revealing, "who gave the order" to assassinate his beloved brother, Santino.

In the classic scene, we quote Michael as he confronts Carlo face-to-face..."Only don't tell me that you're innocent...because it insults my intelligence and it makes me very angry!"

Within minutes, after spilling the beans, Carlo meets his fate, and is executed by Clemenza.

And in today's political section, the headlines read... "Pelosi Says "CIA Lied to me...they are guilty of misleading the Congress of the United States"..."I was never told about the fact that waterboarding had been used on a terrorist suspect."

Interesting...Madam Speaker has embarked upon the Sergeant Schlulz defense-- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary--she steadfastedly claims..."I know nothing."

So now, in a "Carlo-like" gross personal miscalculation, she has made BOTH the CIA and mainstream media... "very angry, and has insulted their intelligence."

Atta-girl, Nance! You've just put yourself onto the fast track to the political gallows.

Throughout her press conference, Pelosi gave a performance worthy of Mr. Porky Pig (a-yeeb-a-deeba), stammering through vague answers which all but revealed that --despite her non-pareil political acumen-- one cannot fool their own subconscious mind, and the truth within her could be veiled no longer.

Bye bye speakership-- hello retirement into private citizenship.

But fancy Nancy probably need not worry about inflation; she has a net worth estimated to be 35 million dollars (much of it in Microsoft stock), plus the vineyards she and he husband own in Napa Valley.

It's been a storied two year stint for our besieged House Speaker, dominating the pulpit as no modern Speaker has ever done before. If Machiavelli himself had been a Republican opposing her, the smart money would have been on Pelosi.

In her acceptance speech to Congress in January of 2007, she HUMBLY stated..."I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership; not partisanship."

But dare she refuse to step down..."Pelosi-gate" here we come.

Indeed, fate has a funny way of getting even; its called "hubris," a word of Greek origin which as defined by Miriam Webster: Exaggerated pride or self-confidence.

Pelosi is the original charter member of the Capitol Hill "4-H club." There has been no one serving in Congress with such hubris; such hypocrisy; such haughtiness...or hostility. 

Hostility? As far as Republicans have been concerned, she's wielded the speaker's gavel like a billy club at a bouncer's banquet, and has never yet missed an occasion to sabotage GOP policies ever since taking that gavel in early 2007. Partisan debate has been non-existent.

Haughtiness? In August of 2008, Pelosi adjourned the House, turned off the lights, and killed the microphones, thwarting  Republican attempts  to schedule an offshore drilling vote, thereby saving the day for her cherished constituency-- California environmentalists.

Hypocrisy? Pelosi holds a large stock position in T.Boone Pickens' alternative energy company; yet another reason why she has blocked every offshore drilling measure with political impunity-- plus owning several California restaurants where she employs a staff of mostly illegal aliens.

From the outset of her speaker's career, Pelosi has been a virtual political fox on steroids; examples abound: 

Yes indeed, fancy Nancy suffers not for lack of political savvy.

Sep 30th, 2008-- the first scheduled vote on the 700 billion TARP bailout: Pelosi and the democrats had been licking their chops at the prospect of getting their hands on this unplanned mega-bonanza, and after long, backroom negotiations, the measure had just enough bi-partisan votes to pass. 

But after getting late word that the TARP bailout was exceedingly unpopular in many blue-dog democratic home districts, Pelosi quickly stepped to the podium and made an extemporaneous, divisive, bitterly partisan speech that --as she had calculated correctly -- would turn the 10 Republican existing "yes" votes into NO-- purposely sabotaging the vote.

Yet despite all her cleverness, the haughtiness, the arrogance, and most of all, her support by the mainstream media, Ms. Pelosi ultimately could not escape her overriding hubris, committing the only “no-no” that could have derailed her-- insulting the intelligence of the press, and making them angry-- very angry! 

During the entire 111th Congress, the Pelosi House dictatorship has led directly to the railroading of the 800 billion stimulus bill, the 3.4 trillion budget, plus a plethora of other democratic sponsored measures.

But in the parlance of the most Reverend  Jeremiah Wright...Pelosi's chickens "have come home to roost."