Obama’s Speech To Israeli Leftists Mirrors Cairo Speech

March 22, 2013 Leave a comment

President Obama has been gallivanting around Israel the past few days. His visit is interesting in that it parallels a visit to Egypt in 2009. In his Cairo visit, Obama held a speech at a university filled with hand picked radicals including the Muslim Brotherhood. Rather than speak to the Knesset, Obama chose to speak to another group of hand picked university radicals. In Cairo he included the Muslim Brotherhood, in Israel he spoke to a room where only half stood and cheered when Obama said Israel had a right to statehood. One wonders what Obama’s end game is here in Israel. In Egypt he empowered the Arab Spring radicals. Who is he empowering now?

Obama’s flowery rhetoric for the press can easily be ignored. He suggested the difference between the Palestinians and Israelis is no different than the Canadians and Americans. Last I checked, Canada wasn’t launching rockets on the daily into the United States. It’s easy to dismiss this sort of nonsense argument, as it is easy to dismiss Obama’s positive rhetoric about Israel. Are we to believe he’s done a 180 on Israel in the last few months?

What is interesting about this trip is who he’s speaking to. Like in Egypt he wants to speak to the “leaders of tomorrow” at a hand picked university speech. He even referenced his Cairo speech, telling the crowd of radicals he spoke to people “just like you.” No doubt, they are as they were all hand selected radical leftists. He also said the following:

And let me say this as a politician — I can promise you this, political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks.  You must create the change that you want to see.  Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things.

In this line he’s essentially telling a group of radical leftists to push their government to “take some risks.” He said largely the same thing to the Cairo university, which included leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. They took his words to heart and started a revolution. Don’t think Obama doesn’t know exactly what he’s doing here. He’s signaling to the radical left in Israel and the Palestinians that the United States will do nothing to help Israel if there is a leftist revolution.

Like in Egypt, the Israeli leftists and Palestinians were watching and listening closely to what Obama said in this speech. He’s made it clear that he wants them to push Israel, he’s made it clear the US won’t help the current state of Israel. What these radicals do with this news is anyone’s guess. One would think this was a call for a Palestinian uprising supported by radical Israeli leftists. Israel is perhaps in a better position to defend itself than Egypt was, so who knows which side will come out victorious. World opinion of Israel has turned sharply against the state in the last decade, so perhaps the Palestinians can count on world support. (remember just a decade ago it was “anti-Semitic” to oppose Israel or anything Jewish? Now the media openly attacks the state. Why?)

Hopefully Obama’s speech won’t amount to anything. But in a year when Israel is in turmoil, we can look back to this speech as the start of whatever is taking place. Obama may be over playing his hand in Israel, but look for the Palestinians to start something big at some point. They’ll look to the US for support and odds are they’ll get it indirectly from this administration. They’ll get it directly from our media who will pretend like it’s some sort of spontaneous uprising when in reality it will be a planned event. An event, that has ties directly to the President. We need to be paying attention here, Israel will be the next major world crisis.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Rejoice! Hugo Chavez Is Dead

March 5, 2013 5 Comments

Venezuela’s socialist dictator Hugo Chavez is no more having died of cancer earlier today. Chavez has been a hero of the left for years, despite being a murderer who has ransacked Venezuela. The anti-capitalist dictator allegedly racked up a personal fortune of over $2 billion. Money for me but not for thee seems to be the norm for these maniacal socialist dictators. Chavez spent much of his career attacking those with money and those who dared disagree with them. They no doubt rejoice tonight, though they must be concerned about the socialists who are mobilizing the military.

The media is of course pretending like Chavez was some sort of hero of the people while ignoring his murderous tendencies. The left-wing mainstream press has a tendency to do this. Rep. Jose Serrano and George Galloway tweeted of his glories while mourning the death of the socialist dictator. Over in the UK, they’re reporting that the socialists in Venezuela believe the United States poisoned Chavez with cancer. The climate change crazies ought to go nuts over those claims. Bush perhaps might have taken the opportunity to take out Chavez. But Obama? We don’t even know what his policy was with Chavez.

Chavez was a despicable anti-American socialist. There wasn’t a single dictator he wouldn’t embrace so long as he opposed the United States. That seems to be the common thread among socialists the world over, they oppose out of hand the United States. Whether it’s the Islamic socialists or the socialist dictators of South America, opposition to the United States is a must. It really has little to do with our interference in their neck of the woods. It stems from the Cold War. We cannot forget that most of these dictators were trained by Moscow before the fall of communism. They continue to fall back on their original teachings, whether they hold any water in 2013 or not.

It will be interesting to see what the Obama administration response is. They can’t issue a fawning statement because Chavez spent most of his career attacking the US. On the other hand, Obama’s intellectual background is in the same anti-American rhetoric and theory as Chavez. Read what Obama had to say in the 90′s about the United States and compare it to Chavez. You probably can’t tell the difference between the two. Obama probably dreams of having the dictatorial powers that Chavez had. Complete with the ability to shut down hostile media and to murder difficult political opponents.

The people of Venezuela have a chance to get their country back. The socialism of Chavez didn’t work. Living conditions are no better than when he took over, they’re arguably worse. Chavez got personally rich off the oil industry but he didn’t share that wealth with the people. In that, he lied to them about what he was doing. He nationalized industry not for the benefit of the people but for the benefit of himself and his cronies. In doing so, he made Venezuela poorer, in the very least he didn’t make his constituency any better off. We must all pray that God would bless Venezuela with freedom and that he would call and save many in that country. Those who love freedom will rejoice that this evil dictator is now dead.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Foreign Policy Legacy Is Inconsistency

March 5, 2013 4 Comments

Since World War Two second term President’s have cemented their legacy via foreign policy. Reagan won the Cold War during his second term, Clinton had some success in Northern Ireland and Israel. Others like LBJ and Bush 43 got bogged down in unpopular wars. Obama rarely talks about foreign policy anymore, it seems clear he wants to focus exclusively on domestic affairs. This should hardly be surprising if an account by Vali Nasr is to be believed. Nasr describes Obama’s foreign policy as “dithering, controlling and risk adverse.” You might as well add unclear and inconsistent because that’s what it’s been during his first term.

The Pentagon is welcoming a Chinese General who has threatened to nuke the US on a number of occasions. We only owe the Chinese $1 trillion, we aren’t their slaves yet. So why Obama is putting up with Gen. Zhu Chenghu coming to town is anyone’s guess. Interestingly according to Joe Biden, Obama isn’t bluffing when he threatens Iran over their nuclear program. Let’s try to figure this out. We’ll invite a Chinese General who has threatened to nuke the US to the Pentagon but we’ll engage in military action against Iran over their budding nuclear program that hasn’t yet produced a bomb.

Obviously there are some differences between China and Iran. But this example demonstrates the inconsistency the Obama administration has when it comes to foreign policy. That said, does anyone believe Biden when he says Obama isn’t bluffing? So maybe Obama is consistent in appeasing enemies of the United States. In 2008 Obama wanted to personally sit down with Iran. That of course never happened, even though Obama could have easily scheduled such a summit. Iran would have loved the propaganda value of such a meeting, they aren’t responsible for it not taking place. Obama is. We’ve gone from sitting down with them in 2008 to threatening war even though nothing of substance has changed.

Speaking of enemies of the United States, Dennis Rodman’s pal Kim Jong Un claims he’s lifting the cease fire with South Korea on March 11th. North Korea has become increasingly belligerent over the past couple years. Yet Obama doesn’t seem engaged in the area at all. The North Koreans have made threats before of this nature. They’re likely bluffing. So far we don’t even have a statement from Obama on North Korea. He’s probably too busying dithering in the White House fretting about risk while being advised by Valerie Jarrett and other domestic advisers who know little to nothing about foreign policy.

Obama doesn’t seem to have any foreign policy agenda for his second term. His first term left the middle east a complete mess. He seemed to choose sides almost at random in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He’s largely ignored North Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs. Yet he’s going to threaten war over Iran’s while continuing to ignore North Korea’s. Obviously these are different nations with different circumstances. Having said that, North Korea is a direct threat to our ally South Korea. The North Korean’s can start a war today against the South, they can kill tens of thousands easily. Iran is only a threat to Israel, in a substantial way, if they get a nuke. Yet the hardline is taken with Iran (if you believe Obama isn’t bluffing) and North Korea is ignored. It makes no sense and unfortunately this is likely going to be Obama’s second term legacy: He makes no sense.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama, Hillary MIA During Benghazi Attack

February 8, 2013 1 Comment

We’ve learned quite a bit about the Benghazi attack in the past few days. You’ll recall that al Qaeda associated Islamic terrorists attacked our consulate in Libya killing four Americans including our Libyan ambassador. The Obama administration initially blamed the attack on riots over an obscure You Tube video. As it turns out the video played no role in the attack. What we’ve learned is that those four Americans were doomed not because the terrorists out powered them but because Obama and Hillary Clinton were missing in action. It has now become abundantly clear why the administration blamed the video. They were covering for the President.

According to defense secretary Leon Panetta, he was never given any direction by the President. In fact on 9-11-12 Panetta only spoke with the President one time, a prescheduled meeting. The President never called to check in with what was going on in Libya that day, he told Panetta to take care of it. The problem is that the sort of action that would have been required to save our ambassador couldn’t simply be ordered by the defense secretary. After all, it would have required action inside a sovereign nation that we were not at war with. Any action would have required Obama’s explicit approval and he was nowhere to be found.

Not only was Obama missing in action during the eight hour standoff, so was Hillary Clinton. This ambassador was one of Hillary’s underlings and she was nowhere to be found on 9-11-12 according to Panetta and General Martin Dempsey. Perhaps Hillary was looking for Obama or maybe they were chit chatting about what to do. Either way she didn’t have any contact with the people who were charged with protecting her state department employees. She offered them no information, she offered them no direction.

General Dempsey says he received no direction from the administration. Dempsey knew Ambassador Stevens had complained about a lack of security but absent absent a request for support from Hillary’s State Department or an order to send troops to support the ambassador from the President, Dempsey’s hands were tied. He had no authority to simply order troops around without specific direction from either Hillary or the President. On the day of the Benghazi attack, Dempsey received no orders from either Hillary or the President. His hands were tied, there was nothing he could do.

The big question here is where was President Obama on the night of the Benghazi attack. Why wasn’t he involved in any way in protecting our ambassador? Surely he wasn’t in the situation room because if he was he would have been coordinating a response with Panetta and Dempsey. Instead, Panetta didn’t talk to Obama for eight hours and appears Dempsey never received any orders from the President. As for Hillary, she appears to me missing in action as well. Perhaps she believed an order for action had to come directly from the President. This would mean it isn’t clear what protocol is within the administration. Even so, why wasn’t she in contact with Panetta or Dempsey the entire night?

The buck stops with Obama in this case. Clearly Hillary was missing in action, she should have been very much involved in a military response to this attack. She isn’t the President, Obama is. The President was missing for eight hours while our Libyan consulate was attacked by Islamic terrorists. Four Americans died and the President didn’t speak to the defense secretary during the attack. He never spoke to General Dempsey, he never ordered any action. He then coordinated a lie about how the attack happened after the ambassador died. We’re left with two major questions after Panetta and Dempsey’s testimony. First, where was the President on the night of September 11th? Second, why doesn’t the media care about this at all?

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Hillary Clinton Leaves State Department A Mess

December 20, 2012 3 Comments

An administrative review board within the State Department has attacked fundamental flaws within the Department concerning the Benghazi attack. The report discusses poor leadership and attacks senior bureaucrats as “grossly inadequate.” Grossly inadequate doesn’t even begin to describe the State Department’s response to the Benghazi attack, to say nothing of how the CIA or Obama administration reacted. The State Department didn’t protect their ambassador and allowed him to go to a dangerous city without adequate security. The administration watched the attack on closed circuit television and drone cameras and did nothing to stop it.

The report has no mention of the anti-Islam video that supposedly started the “riot” that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Can we finally be honest about the video and say that it was an outright lie from the administration? Our Ambassador wasn’t murdered because Muslims were outraged over a You Tube video, that excuse was a lie from the beginning. He was attacked by al Qaeda operatives with a very clear political objective. Our State Department didn’t adequately protect the Ambassador and allowed him to travel to a dangerous city without a secure consulate on a day when we have every reason to believe extra security would be needed. The video was a lie.

What this does to Hillary Clinton ought to be interesting. While the report attacks the bureaucrats at the State Department, it is Hillary who is in control over there. Yesterday the Security Chief resigned, this should have happened three months ago. Why didn’t it happen? Why did Hillary go along with the video lie when she had to have known it was false? Why did Hillary do nothing while the Cairo Embassy was tweeting concessions and other nonsense? Hillary had a fairly good record at the State Department even if one happens to disagree with her foreign policy objectives. The Benghazi debacle is a major black eye for her.

It is entirely possible that Benghazi is what blocks Hillary’s road to the White House. While the State Department review doesn’t point the finger at her, you can bet that the House investigation will. She’s going to face a lot of tough questions about Benghazi and her handling of the situation. Don’t think for a moment it will only be from Republicans, there are Democrats who want their party’s nomination in 2016 and they won’t hesitate to attack Hillary on the Benghazi front. After all, Obama attacked Bill Clinton in 2008 calling him a racist. All is fair in love and pursuit of a Presidential nomination. If Benghazi derails Hillary’s White House bid she’ll rue the day she didn’t take Bubba’s advice and run against Obama in the 2012 primary.

Hillary is leaving the State Department an absolute mess. No doubt John Kerry won’t make things any better. Kerry is such a long term Senator, he has no idea how to manage bureaucrats. His 2004 campaign is evidence enough that he has no idea how to manage anything. The inability to manage bureaucrats is what caused the Benghazi mess in the first place. There are people in the State Department who aren’t qualified for their jobs and have no real direction provided them from the person at the top. That much is clear from this Benghazi mess. It isn’t going to get any better, we can only hope that more Ambassor’s don’t die as a result.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Susan Rice Unqualified To Run State Department

November 26, 2012 3 Comments

Odds are Susan Rice will be named as Hillary’s replacement for Secretary of State sometime in the near future. Rice is probably best known for her Sunday morning talk show performance right after the terrorist attack on our ambassador in Benghazi. Rice claimed that the attack wasn’t terrorist related at all, in fact it was a riot caused by an obscure anti-Islam video on You Tube. We have since learned that the administration knew it was an al Qaeda terrorist attack almost immediately. As such, claims about riots over videos were nothing more than a lie. Rice either went on those talk shows and deliberately lied on behalf of the Obama administration to the American people or she was easily led astray with false information. She’s unqualified for the position of Secretary of State as a result.

Of course Rice is black and so according to the Congressional Black Caucus any attack on her is “racist.” It seems these days that holding blacks accountable for anything they do is deemed “racist” by the CBC. Interestingly it wasn’t “racist” to attack Condi Rice when she was Secretary of State. We believe it is necessary to hold everyone accountable for their actions no matter what their race or ethnicity is. It’s the only fair way to discuss these matters.

Rice doesn’t think Benghazi warrants any discussion at all. Any criticism is “unfounded” according to Rice and she no doubt believes it’s all the result of some horrible Republican plot. If you pay attention to far left news/opinion outlets like Mother Jones and The Nation you’ll see that Rice is just repeating the far left line on the issue. Benghazi is nothing to look at according to these folks, it’s just a big GOP plot against Obama no doubt fueled by racism. But this issue does merit discussion, an American ambassador was assassinated for the first time in a generation. If this issue doesn’t deserve discussion, what issue does?

We have an administration that knew from the very beginning that the attack in Benghazi was terror related and it was specifically carried out by al Qaeda. They could watch the attack in real time via security cameras in the consulate and via drones flying overhead. It should have been obvious that the events taking place was not a riot. It was clearly a coordinated attack. The administration knew this and yet they ran with the You Tube video causing a riot story. They even went as far as to doctor written testimony to Congress from the CIA. According to Rice questioning any of this is “unfounded.”

One thing that has become clear over the last few weeks is that the Obama administration lied about our ambassador’s death because they feared a public backlash. They likely feared that if the public knew al Qaeda was responsible it would minimize Obama ordering bin Laden’s death. They also likely feared public backlash over the fact that Obama did nothing to stop a coordinated attack on our consulate. After all, the CIA was a mile away and prepared to counter-attack. We had predator drones in the area that could have fired, we have an air force base an hour’s flight away. Obama could have done something but didn’t.

So the administration came up with the You Tube video story. They could blame the attacks on a riot caused by a backwards American conservative hick. The blame would shift from Obama to a formerly anonymous hick because the administration knew the media would run with their story. Romney made matters worse by falling into the trap. During the entire week after the attack the media focus was on Romney and a video rather than the actions of the administration. Rice went along with the plan, which means she deliberately lied on all of those Sunday shows. In the alternative she believed what she was told by the administration and didn’t bother to investigate the matter herself. To this day she defends her talk show comments, she continues to argue Benghazi criticism is unfounded. Could Obama possibly nominate a less qualified person for Secretary of State?

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , ,

Israel On The Brink Of War

November 15, 2012 2 Comments

While everyone in the US is paying attention to the salacious details of the David Petraeus fornication scandal, there are other things going on in the world. (in fairness, there are other things going on with Petraeus as well) Israel has launched a handful of bombs on Syria and perhaps more importantly has launched several bombs on Gaza killing a top Hamas commander. The Gaza attack is being described by Israel as a major offensive. Israel has already hit 20 underground rocket sites in Gaza. The Israeli army has declared they are prepared for a major ground offensive in Gaza should it be necessary.

Rather unsurprisingly Hamas has fired several rockets into Israeli border towns. Hamas is of course associated with Iran, which in response to the attacks on Gaza are conducting massive drills in preparation for war with Israel. Egypt, formerly an ally of Israel under Mubarak, is supporting Hamas and threatening to get involved. Obama’s response has largely been silent, though he allegedly called Israel and Egypt trying to talk them off the ledge. None of these events are particularly surprising. They’re a direct result of Obama’s foreign policy which has done little more than placate radical Islam at the expense of our ally Israel.

Obama refuses to get tough with Iran then we’re supposed to be shocked when Hamas fires rockets into Israel at will. Obama has consistently looked the other way as Iran has armed Hamas. In Egypt, Obama actively supported the overthrow of Mubarak knowing full well the anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood would take control of the country. The Muslim Brotherhood is on record wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Did Obama think he’s amazing oratory would be able to convince the Brotherhood not to do that? Obama continues to fund the Egyptian Army to the tune of over $1 billion annually. We’re essentially funding the army that will attack our ally in Israel. (message to the GOP House: Cut foreign aid funding for Egypt)

Obama’s apology tour in 2009 did exactly what it intended to do. It demonstrated American weakness in the middle east. It told radical Islamic groups that the United States would be largely unwilling to get involved in disputes involving Israel. It set the stage for Arab Spring in which radical Islamic groups overthrew relatively pro-American regimes and replaced them with vehemently anti-Israel regimes who do little more than pay lip service to the United States. Now we’re on the brink of war in the middle east, a war which can hardly be called unforeseeable. Iran has been threatening war for years with Hamas as its puppet. Egypt has longed for war ever since the Muslim Brotherhood took over. Obama’s foreign policy has been a success, if we define success as weakening America and achieving Obama’s personal goals.

Obama is going to go through the motions of trying to avoid a war. Odds are he will not get US troops involved in any meaningful way. He doesn’t want to support Israel and he doesn’t have support at home to join the Brotherhood and Iran. He’ll pay lip service to Israel while doing very little in their defense. The result of that is that the war, if one should occur, will be particularly nasty and bloody. Without the backing of its major ally, don’t be surprised if Israel uses its nuclear weapons if it feels like its backed up against a wall. While everyone here in the US is focused on Petraeus’ adultery, we’re not focused on a potential war in the middle east to say nothing of the Benghazi cover up. It’s time for us to start paying attention.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Petraeus Set Up To Take Benghazi Responsibility

November 13, 2012 2 Comments

The David Petraeus affair raises a lot of questions that perhaps aren’t being asked or answered. As you’re likely aware, Petraeus was the CIA head until last Friday when he suddenly resigned citing an extramarital affair. The sudden resignation less than a week before he was to testify on the Benghazi matter has left more than a few people scratching their heads. The affair has been going on for quite some time, though the FBI alleges they suddenly found out about it recently after Petraeus’ whore Paula Broadwell harassed a third party who contacted the FBI. It doesn’t quite all add up.

If you or I contacted the FBI alleging that someone was sending us harassing emails the FBI would politely ignore us or send us off to a local police agency. So when the FBI started investigating this matter of harassing emails they clearly had an idea who the harasser was. They knew she was having an affair with Petraeus, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered investigating the matter. The official line is that the FBI just happened to stumble upon the affair, this just isn’t believable. The FBI almost certainly knew who Broadwell was, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered investigating a few harassing emails.

So the question becomes when did the FBI know about the affair? For the time being we don’t know the answer to the question. Supposedly Obama was shocked to discover the affair along with the Petraeus resignation last week. That is as unbelievable as the FBI stumbling upon the affair via a harassment complaint. Obama has likely known about the affair for awhile, for political reasons the Obama administrations kept the affair under wraps. It simply makes no sense that the CIA director could have an affair undetected by anyone for over a year. We’re not talking about the Secretary of Education, the CIA director is perhaps one of the most important posts in the government. There’s no doubt Petraeus went through an extensive background check and the affair was likely discovered at that time. If it wasn’t everyone at the FBI and CIA should be fired.

So why would the Obama administration want a CIA director who is having an affair to keep his post? Keep in mind the left hates David Petraeus because of his association with the Bush administration. However, Petraeus made the Obama administration look bipartisan. Obama likely viewed Petraeus as a necessary evil to help him get re-elected. Now that the election is over, Petraeus was expendable. Even better, there is a major scandal brewing which involves the CIA. Petraeus has become the scapegoat for Benghazi and now that he’s been shown to have an affair he’s lost credibility. Interestingly Bill Clinton never lost credibility for his affairs.

Just two weeks ago Petraeus was in Libya personally investigating the Benghazi matter. He’s being set up by the administration which knew he was going to be exposed as having an affair after the election. They’re setting him up to take the fall on Benghazi. My guess is that the CIA was involved in all sorts of underhanded, illegal things in Libya and the administration knows it. They had the goods on Petraeus, they knew he was committing adultery. The administration is going to pin the blame for the Benghazi disaster on Petraeus even though the administration knew for months that Petraeus was committing adultery. Not only that, it was Obama who failed to protect Ambassador Stevens with drone strikes. But we aren’t to pay attention to that because Petraeus is an adulterer.

There’s more here than meets the eye and the media won’t ask the question or put any of the facts together. Something else is going on here, my guess is that there is a major administration and CIA scandal brewing in the background which necessitated Obama using Petraeus’ adultery against him. Now we’re all focused on childish email harassing and Petraeus’ poor wife who is rightfully hurt and outraged. Meanwhile something else is really going on and no one is paying any attention to it.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , ,

Obama Thinks Israel’s Concerns About Iran Just “Noise”

September 24, 2012 2 Comments

On 60 Minutes Obama said he believes that Israel is “one of our closest allies in the middle east.” One wonders what nation is closer to the US than Israel. In fact, one wonders what middle eastern country even comes close to Israel. Is it Egypt, with its staged Embassy attack two weeks ago? Perhaps Saudi Arabia with its network of terrorists. Iraq maybe? No, Obama wouldn’t want to give Bush credit for something like that. So what nation in Obama’s mind is closer to the United States in the middle east than Israel. We of course got no follow up question from CBS on the matter.

It gets better though. According to Obama, Israel’s concerns about Iranian nuclear capabilities is just “noise.” In Obama’s world Benjamin Netanyahu is the annoying ankle biter across the street who won’t stop yapping. Like an ankle biter or similarly annoying barking dog, Obama has tuned Netanyahu out. We sort of knew that already since Obama is refusing to meet with the Israeli PM this week. For a nation that’s supposedly a close ally, Obama sure seems willing to ignore their concerns. Israel’s concerns aren’t exactly unfounded. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is on record wanting to wipe Israel off the map. When Israel objects, that’s just noise to Obama.

Interestingly Obama isn’t the only one to use the term noise when it comes to Israel. Ahmadinejad used the same term ‘noise’ in an article published yesterday by the Washington Post. It doesn’t appear as though Obama and Ahmadinejad are copying one another. Obama gave his 60 Minutes interview a few days ago but it wasn’t released until last night. The Ahmadinejad article appeared Sunday morning. Still, it’s interesting that both Obama and Ahmadinejad use the same terminology when it comes to Israel. Obama really believes that Israel is just making noise. Ahmadinejad knows Obama doesn’t like Netanyahu and is probably taunting both the US and Israel.

Obama must think he has this election in the bag. He’s clearly not interested in whether he offends Jewish voters. Maybe he already has their money and doesn’t care anymore. Or perhaps he realizes that most Jewish voters live in New York and California which will be blue states whether Jews vote Obama or not. Evangelical voters, who foolishly believe modern Israel is some sort of reincarnation of Biblical Israel and thus support Israel without question, aren’t of much interest to Obama either. Odds are most evangelicals weren’t going to vote for Obama. So perhaps Obama doesn’t think there is any political risk in downplaying Israel’s importance and dismissing their concerns.

The problem though is that Obama seems to be looking at this from a purely political standpoint. There is more to foreign policy than Obama’s re-election. By dismissing our longtime ally, we’re sending two messages to the middle east. First, being our ally doesn’t have any perks because the President will dismiss you without cause at his whim. Second, we’re signaling to nations in the middle east who want to see Israel destroyed that we won’t do much to help them if they are attacked.

The consequences of both these messages are troubling. Why would any nation in the middle east want to be an American ally when we dismiss our longtime friends so quickly and without cause? For those nations who want to destroy Israel, they must be licking their chops. Even if Obama helps defend Israel, it’s likely to be a half hearted effort. He clearly cannot stand the Israelis. He’s basically giving countries like Iran permission to attack. After all, our President isn’t much concerned about those Jews yapping in the back ground.

Israel should not be supported without question and at all cost. But when they are threatened with nuclear annihilation by a country that we know is trying to obtain nuclear weapons, it might be wise of us to listen to Israel’s concerns. If we allow our only long time, largely unquestioned ally in the middle east to be destroyed then we will have no influence in that region whatsoever. Nations in the middle east would view the destruction of Israel as the destruction of the United States. They wouldn’t listen to us anymore, much less care to be allies with us. Obama doesn’t seem concerned about any of this but voters should be.

Filed under 2012 election, foreign policy Tagged with , , , , ,

Why Was Ambassador Stevens In Benghazi?

September 21, 2012 23 Comments

Something doesn’t add up in the Libyan attack on the American consulate  in Benghazi. We know that this was a planned, staged attack as opposed to a spontaneous riot. Even CBS acknowledges this. Libya says they warned the US three days before it occurred. We all know the results, Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed along with three others. On the anniversary of 9-11, why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi rather than Tripoli? We have an Embassy in Tripoli which is secure, it has a security team. From all accounts Benghazi is a very dangerous city. Why was our Ambassador there without a security team?

If we step into coverup land, we could note that ABC had just three weeks before the attack reported that one of the guys killed with the Ambassador was in Libya to recover Gaddafi’s arsenal of weapons. If we want to go into Glenn Beck land the attack on our Ambassador was an undercover arms deal gone bad. This is a plausible explanation, in the very least it explains why the Ambassador may have been at an unsecure consulate without security in Benghazi as opposed to the bunker Embassy in Tripoli.

There could be other reasons why he might be in Benghazi ranging from undercover actions to shear stupidity. We have yet to be told why Stevens was in Benghazi, the government has said nothing. In fact, until the other day the Obama administration wouldn’t even call this a terrorist attack. Whether these guys, presumably al Qaeda, had it in for Stevens or whether Stevens was up to something that didn’t work out remains to be seen. What we’re not getting is information from the administration. They appear to be slow to respond or they appear to be covering something up. How does it take eight days to declare this a terror attack? Remind me again why our Ambassador was in Benghazi.

Meanwhile there are reports out there that Obama is negotiating with Egypt for the return of the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman. The Blind Sheik is responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He’s in the slam for life for the terrorist attack. Several media outlets have reported this and Rep. Peter King has confirmed it. The Justice Department issued a statement calling the reports “utter garbage.” Such a term is a little odd coming from the Justice Department. But let’s be honest, this isn’t a Justice Department issue, it’s a State Department issue. So the ‘utter garbage’ comment is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Something is up in the middle east. This entire situation is fishy. These people were not rioting over a meaningless, poorly produced video on You Tube. After all, there are much worse attacks on Mohamed on You Tube and elsewhere. We’re not being told the whole story. It makes no sense for our Ambassador to be in Benghazi, especially if he’s supposedly on an al Qaeda hit list. Unless of course he’s up to something and the hit list isn’t real. Why are the Egyptians rioting in the street with seemingly no opposition from their government? Could it be a demonstration meant to provoke (read: intimidate) Obama into releasing the blind sheik?

We need journalists who are willing to do some real investigative reporting. Something isn’t right here, none of the official explanations for what’s happened make any sense. In fact, they continue to shift as their official explanations get shot down with facts. The big key though is why was Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous city like Benghazi without adequate security? Why was a member of his security team quoted by ABC as being some sort of arms investigator? Something isn’t right her. When we discover why Stevens was really in Benghazi this whole episode in the middle east will start to make sense.

 

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers