Some Questions For Congress To Ask On Benghazi

May 7, 2013 7 Comments

Jay Carney told us the other day that the Benghazi attacks happened “a long time ago.” Carney said this as though it was outrageous that anyone was still talking about the terrorist attack that killed our Libyan ambassador which happened just eight months ago. Congress is holding hearings on the Benghazi attack this week, several whistleblowers are scheduled to testify. The administration’s response is to declare that the State Department already investigated the matter and their conclusions are “unimpeachable.” In other words, the administration already made its determination and how dare you question it. You must be one of those people concerned about government tyranny or something.

It’s  the job of Congress to investigate these matters, especially when an ambassador dies. The Obama administration spent two weeks lying about why the Benghazi attack happened. For two weeks they claimed it was because of an anti-Muslim video on You Tube. In reality it was an al Qaeda terrorist attack. The media never questioned Obama, even after it was revealed that the attack was terrorism. You’ll recall at the second Presidential debate CNN’s Candy Crowley openly sided with Obama despite Obama not telling the truth. Blaming the You Tube video was a cover up, part of an extensive cover up in fact. The Obama administration could have done something but Obama chose not to. Congress is right to investigate.

Obama presented himself last year as the hero of the War on Terror. He was the killer of Osama who hadn’t allowed any terrorist attacks during his time in office. He intervened in Libya, taking out its terrorist dictator. Then a terrorist attack happened which resulted in our ambassador dying and being dragged through the streets of Benghazi. The administration could have stopped the attack, we had drones and special ops in the area but they were held back. Obama went to sleep that night not knowing or caring about the end result of the terrorist attack. When it turned out to be a potential political disaster for Obama, the administration blamed a video no one had ever heard of to protect the President. The media ate it up and refused to do any investigations themselves.

One wonders why the media isn’t concerned about administration threats against whistleblowers. One wonders why the media doesn’t seem to care that the State Department won’t vouch for the credibility of any whistleblower. In doing this the State Department is essentially telling us all the whistleblowers can’t be believed or in the alternative the career diplomats are too afraid of losing their jobs to speak up. Whistleblowers used to be the sort of people the media championed because they spoke the truth while entrenched power lied. These days the overtly partisan press won’t challenge the President they agree with and ignore or disparage whistleblowers against him.

It isn’t just Obama of course, Hillary Clinton is right in the middle of this mess. The Democrat press badly wants her to run for President in 2016. If there is one thing that can derail Hillary it’s Benghazi. Her fingerprints are all over this mess. The ambassador died under her watch, she’s responsible for ensuring his security. She’s responsible for him being in Benghazi rather than Tripoli. It is Hillary who never requested additional security or help for the ambassador on the night of the attack. Hillary went along with the video excuse and sent Susan Rice off to deliver the lie on all the Sunday talk shows less than a week after the attack. Benghazi could take down or limit the power of both of these Democrats.

While the media wasn’t much interested in Benghazi in September and October last year, they’re showing at least minimal interest now. The follow questions need to be asked and answered in the next week or so, if not by Congress than by the media. 1. Who in the administration came up with the idea of blaming the You Tube video? 2. Who helped construct the story? 3. Who gave the final go ahead with releasing the excuse? 4. Who in the administration was asked by the Benghazi consulate for additional support? 5. Who in the administration decided not to provide it? 6. Which members of the administration aided in the making of that decision? 7. We need a minute by minute accounting of Obama’s whereabouts and who he was with on the night of Sept. 11-12. 8. Were American special forces or the US military every denied authority to attack or otherwise provide aid during the Benghazi attack. 9. Why was our ambassador in Benghazi on Sept. 11? Answers to these questions will aid Congress and the public in determining what actually happened.

Filed under corruption 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 , , , ,

White House Failed To Act In Benghazi

October 26, 2012 7 Comments

The White House sat and watched the Benghazi attack for seven hours and did nothing about it. CIA agents  who were at a CIA annex only one mile from the Benghazi consulate was told to “stand down” rather than aid the soon to be killed people at the consulate. We had two drones over head, which could have dropped a bomb or two that would have either ended the siege or allowed the four Americans to escape. Instead the White House did nothing. In fact the White House won’t even release any information about where the President was during the seven hour siege. Was Obama even paying attention?

Leon Panetta claims the administration couldn’t do anything because we didn’t know enough about what was going on. That’s curious considering they could have watched the siege in real time via security cameras at the compound or watched live video from the drones flying over head. They had direct phone and email contact with the people inside and we know they had contact with the CIA annex one mile away. Yet we’re to believe the administration simply couldn’t do anything because they didn’t have enough intelligence. What more information did they need?

The father of Navy Seal Tyrone Woods who died in the siege doesn’t appreciate the cowardice in the Obama administration. While the Obama campaign is busy creating pictures of Mitt Romney in a dunce cap, the Obama administration is spinning stories about what happened in Benghazi. It’s becoming clear that the administration is engaged in some sort of cover up in this matter. It isn’t clear why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi but it is becoming clear that the administration failed to protect him and the three others who died that day when they in fact could have been protected. Telling the CIA agents a mile away to stand down while drones fly over head and do nothing while an ambassador is murdered below is the height of incompetence.

Here’s what probably happened. The administration was afraid of having some sort of blackhawk down incident less than two months before the election. As such, they told the CIA to stand down and refused to allow the military to attack via the two drones flying over head. Perhaps the White House thought the Navy Seals in the Benghazi consulate could hold off the attack. When after seven hours it the terrorists had killed our ambassador and three other Americans while burning down our consulate the administration as stuck coming up with an explanation for the attack. They had all night to come up with it. That’s when the video was declared the excuse.

The Obama administration knew all along this was a terrorist attack, they knew that they were the ones who made up the video story. They counted on radical Muslims in other parts of the middle east piggy backing on the video story, which is why the media initially took the word of the White House. Ambassador Rice went on 5 Sunday talking head shows claiming it was the video, Obama said it as the video numerous times including at his UN Speech and Secretary of State Clinton said it was the video. Now it’s clear it wasn’t a video, it was a terrorist attack.

We know now more of the truth than we have before. We know the administration knew this was a terrorist attack within two hours after it started. We know that people in the White House can and did watch the attack in real time. We know the administration could have ordered the CIA, which was just one mile away, to counter attack. We know Obama could have ordered the military to fire via one of the two over head drones. We know the administration did nothing to protect these four souls during a seven hour siege. We know after their failure to act led to the deaths of four people, the administration made up the video story to cover for themselves. This isn’t Monday morning quarterbacking, four people died and the administration is lying about it to protect Obama’s chances for re-election. Will anyone be held accountable?

UPDATE: CIA director David Patraeus seems to be throwing the President under the bus by denying that anyone at the CIA refused to aid those under attack in Benghazi. So that means that the “stand down” order had to come directly from the White House. This wouldn’t surprise me at all. Patreaus is a long time military man and it’s highly unlikely he would refuse to save these guys if it was possible. This order came from the White House, likely the President.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

White House Knew Benghazi A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours

October 24, 2012 2 Comments

Romney’s base was driven into a state of panic on Monday night when he failed to attack President Obama’s response to the Benghazi attack. We wanted to hear Romney call Obama a politicizer, we wanted to hear him attack Obama for calling the death’s “not optimal.” Instead Romney let Benghazi slide and shifted topics. He may turn out to be right in doing so. By not going on the attack, he didn’t allow Obama to act incredulous. We can’t forget that Obama and his team are disciples of Saul Alinsky, they’ll outright lie if it gets them to their end. If Obama lied, the media likely wouldn’t report it and Romney will have looked bad for attacking the President unjustly.

Romney likely decided that debates aren’t really the place to attack specific actions. We’ve all heard the President’s explanation for Benghazi, we all remember the UN speech. Romney is banking on the truth coming out, preferably before the election. Reuters reports that the White House had emails which said the Benghazi attack was being claimed by a Jihadi group two hours after it began. Keep in mind it took the White House nearly two weeks to admit the attack was a terrorist act. UN Ambassador Rice went on 5 Sunday talk shows claiming the attack was a riot caused by a You Tube video, Obama said the same thing at his UN speech.

The truth is slowly trickling out on Benghazi, Romney clearly wants Obama to hang himself on his own words and explanations. Romney didn’t need to do it on Monday and arguably couldn’t do it without facing the snearing scorn of Obama directly. This isn’t a foreign policy election, it’s a domestic policy election. People aren’t going to vote for Romney because Obama screwed up in Libya. But Benghazi could be the minor background issue that tips the scales for voters, it may be the last straw for an electorate that is 95% focused on the economy.

If Romney wins, this is the genius of his decision not to attack Obama on Benghazi during the last debate. (of course if Romney loses then he’s a complete idiot, such is politics) He didn’t allow Obama to go on national television, not answer the question yet again and point the finger at his opponent with indignant outrage. As such, he has no opportunity to go before the country and amend his story, he has no opportunity to make excuses and perhaps more importantly he can’t blame the Republicans before a captive audience of 60 million voters. As such, the last two weeks of the election will be driven by news stories on Benghazi and we’ve already seen they aren’t positive for Obama. Obama won’t be able to respond with such a large audience of voters watching. He might even have to waste money on ads. If this works, it’s pure genius by Romney.

Make no mistake, the issue of Benghazi isn’t going to bring down President Obama. As outrageous as the situation is, as evident to Republicans that Benghazi is an example of Obama’s foreign policy failure this issue isn’t important to the American voter. Voters care about the economy, they care about the national debt. Foreign policy is a minor side issue this election. But with the economy not going Obama’s way and $5 trillion in new debt, voters who are on the fence might look at Benghazi and think to themselves ‘even his foreign policy hasn’t worked’ and vote Romney. The more news coming out of Benghazi the worse it is for Obama, they clearly spun a tall tale about what the attack was. The more we learn about Benghazi before the election the more likely it is that Obama loses.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Mainstream Media Will Do Anything To Re-Elect Obama

October 2, 2012 4 Comments

The mainstream press has spent the last four years refusing to cover any negative story about President Obama. Take the Fast and Furious scandal as an example. The mainstream press completely ignored the story while Congress was uncovering the absurdity of the entire program to say nothing of the cover up. It wasn’t until the House decided to hold Eric Holder in contempt that the mainstream press was suddenly interested and then only to attack House Republicans. By not covering Fast and Furious, the mainstream press set the GOP up to look out of control in holding Holder in contempt. To people who only get news from NBC, holding Holder in contempt looked like a rush to accuse even though the investigation was over a year old.

Univision is the first network to actually investigate the Fast and Furious program. They’ve found even more weapons headed to Mexico, to say nothing of the fact that the program extended beyond Arizona. They linked Fast and Furious weapons to the deaths of dozens of Mexican teenagers. Univision is a spanish language channel which apparently gets high ratings in the spanish speaking community. No doubt this report will hurt Obama with Hispanics. So of course the mainstream press wouldn’t want to piggyback on Univision’s story by broadcasting it to the rest of the country. The mainstream outlets remain silent on Fast and Furious.

We have a law in this country which prevents the Federal government from sending money to countries that engage in child military service. President Obama has rightly opposed child soldiers declaring it to be slavery. Unfortunately Obama has provided waivers to just about every country that we know uses child soldiers. Sudan, Libya, Congo all of the countries we know engage in this barbaric practice have received waivers and are getting American tax money or are allowed to purchase American weapons. Where is the media on this issue? Oh wait, that’s right, funding countries that have child soldiers will hurt Obama so the press has buried the story and won’t report it.

In Libya the President has lied to the American people about the cause of Ambassador Stevens death. He spent the better part of two weeks claiming it was because of some silly video no one had ever seen on You Tube. His administration later admitted it was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with the video but the President blamed the video anyway in his UN speech. Where was the mainstream press? They didn’t show his administration disagreeing with him. They didn’t wonder what the true story was. The mainstream press continued to report the video story as though it were fact. Apparently the mainstream press is uninterested in Libya informing us of an impending attack 3 days in advance. They’re even less interested in figuring out why Stevens was in Benghazi, which is known to be a very dangerous place, without security. Exposing Obama lying to the public weeks before the election might hurt his chances, so the media remains silent.

In our lifetimes we have never seen the press as openly partisan as it is today. Even Democrat Pat Caddell is appalled by the stunts the mainstream press is pulling. What the press is doing is pretty clear. They’re burying bad news for the President to further his re-election chances. They aren’t reporting on scandals within this administration, they sure aren’t doing any investigative reporting. It takes Univision, a spanish language channel, to show the public the harm caused by Fast and Furious. None of the mainstream networks will touch the story. The networks have allowed Obama to lie about the Libya attack without even the slightest hint of questioning his story. Can you imagine them doing this to a Republican? There is little doubt that the media would jump at the chance to investigate Republican scandal, the media would do it with a certain glee in their voices. But not Obama, they’re silent.

These issues only scratch the surface of the problem. We could take about the mainstream media’s absurdly biased polls that over sample Democrats by 9-12 points on a regular basis. We can acknowledge that Obama is winning right now but why must the media go over the top with such absurdly biased polls? Worse, they not only report the polls as fact but CBS declared the race over last week. NBC manipulated video and 911 calls on the Trayvon Martin case, they took sides on what should have been a straight reporting issue. You and I can come up with dozens of other examples. Until the media just admits that they’re liberal, the charge of bias will continue. It’s time to do away with the lie that is an unbiased press. The press is biased, it’s time for everyone to admit what they are.

Filed under 2012 election 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 , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Cold Embassy Response Leads Press To Attack Romney

September 13, 2012 2 Comments

The President’s response to the Embassy attacks in the middle east can best be described as odd. He delivered a cold, distant message on the matter yesterday. He appeared annoyed that he had to even make a comment. He showed no outrage over the death of a US ambassador. He didn’t look like he was very much concerned at all about what was going on. Obama went ahead with his normal schedule yesterday, appearing at a campaign event in Nevada where he didn’t even mention the ambassador by name. These are major attacks on the United States and the President seems disinterested and preoccupied.

Meanwhile the press is trying to bury Obama’s cold, distant response by focusing on supposed gaffes made by Mitt Romney. The AP published an article that reads more like opinion than news. They suggested that Romney’s statement yesterday that the Embassy apologized and that it’s never to early to defend American values is somehow not factual and therefore a gaffe. Obama commented on it himself yesterday. As usual the fact checkers are showing their left-wing bias. Worse, they’re inserting this into a news article that really is nothing more than opinion. Especially so when even the administration acknowledges that the Embassy statement was horrible.

Romney’s statement was pretty clear. The Embassy attack on American free speech was an apology for the movie put out by Sam Bacile and Pastor Terry Jones. At the time the Embassy issued its statement there were already protesters in Cairo. Romney is right, it’s never to early to defend American values. In this case the value is free speech. That the protesters in Cairo hasn’t yet breached the Embassy isn’t even relevant to Romney’s statement. The AP and Obama know that but they have to cover for Obama’s Carteresque handling of this situation. Romney needs to make another statement on these protests today. He needs to attack Obama’s weakness and his distant reaction. He needs to tell the country that under a Romney administration, murdering an ambassador will not be tolerated. He needs to call for an immediate suspension of all aid to Libya and Egypt.

According to ABC’s Jake Tapper the Pentagon called Pastor Terry Jones to try to strong arm him into no longer funding the anti-Islam film the protesters are allegedly so outraged about. Let’s be up front, Terry Jones is a bit of a nut and no doubt his silly movie is unnecessarily offensive to Muslims. But free speech actually has to matter in this country. We cannot have government officials calling American citizens, much less pastors, trying to get them to shut up. These are thug tactics because the unspoken message is that if Jones doesn’t stifle himself the government will. This is exactly what Mitt Romney’s point is, it’s never to early to defend the American value of freedom of speech.

We’re living in a very strange time in American history. We have a President who is cold and distant in his response to major Embassy attacks. Obama appears disinterested, he doesn’t seem outraged at all. Meanwhile the press doesn’t attack Obama’s handling of these attacks or his preparation or the intel surrounding them. Instead, they attack his Republican opponent by intentionally misinterpreting his statement. Meanwhile the government is calling a pastor up demanding he no longer fund a movie. No one in the press cares about that, in fact many of them blame the movie rather than the rioters and murderers in the middle east.

Obama and company operate under the belief that they should never let a good crisis go to waste. One wonders how they will use this crisis to further their cause. They’re already attacking free speech, as though a movie made by an irrelevant pastor in Florida is cause for murder and mayhem throughout the middle east. What else are they up to?  Or do they even know what they’re doing right now. It almost seems like Obama has no strategy, no plan. Other than his re-election of course.

UPDATE: What do you suppose the biggest threat to national security is? Islamic terrorists come to mind, perhaps a major financial meltdown. Neither of these according to Michelle Obama. Being fat is the biggest threat to national security. Talk about out of touch, not to mention rude because of course she’s implying that we Americans are a bunch of fat slobs. At this point the biggest threat to national security may be Mrs. O’s husband.

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

Obama’s Foreign Policy Failure On Display in Egypt, Libya

September 12, 2012 6 Comments

The US Ambassador to Libya is dead. Our embassy in Egypt yesterday was attacked by Muslims. Both of these nations were stable when Obama took office. Then he decided to support the Islamic socialists in the Muslim Brotherhood. The so-called Arab spring took place and now both of those countries are in chaos. It should come as no surprise that the Muslim hordes have turned on the Americans who supported them. This is all entirely predictable. Thanks to Obama’s absurd foreign policy we have a dead ambassador and two destroyed embassy’s. How’s that Arab spring working out?

Apparently the Islamic socialists are all worked up about an amateur film which is disparaging of Mohammed. The film was made by Egyptian expats, so of course the US is responsible. The US Embassy in Cairo had the following to say about yesterday’s attack:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

In other words, the United States apparently rejects the idea of free speech so long as that speech ‘hurts’ those of religious faith. In other words, our government opposes films or other speech produced against Mohammed. We’ll pretend that the same government didn’t have a problem funding “art” which amounts to little more than a crucifix in a jar of urine or other forms of “art” which attacks the Christian faith. No, it’s only Mohammed that cannot be spoken against, lest our Cairo Embassy be outraged. The administration is trying to walk back from the Embassy statement but the damage is already done. The Embassy represents the United States in Egypt, they made the statement, once it’s made it represents our country.

The madness doesn’t stop there. Obama refuses to meet with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. Apparently the President’s schedule is just too full to meet with the PM of our only ally in the middle east. While our Embassy in Egypt burns and our ambassador’s are dying, Obama will have a moment for an appearance on David Letterman’s silly show. Now that’s some leadership eh? Obama has allowed things to devolve to the point where he’s openly feuding with Israel while his pals in the Muslim Brotherhood are burning down our Embassy’s and killing our ambassador’s. One wonders if we have any allies in the middle east thanks to Obama.

Obama has aided and abetted the destabilization of North Africa and the middle east. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which overthrew a stable pro-US government. He supported the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, who was marginally pro-US and in the very least stable. Elsewhere he’s been inconsistent, sometimes supporting Arab revolution and other times not supporting it, even when the Muslim Brotherhood is involved. In Iran, he refused to support real democracy demonstrators. In Syria he’s been all over the place. Obama doesn’t have a core foreign policy outlook other than he hates everything the US has ever done in the middle east. Unfortunately that isn’t a very good basis for consistent foreign policy.

Obama’s lack of consistent policy and his lack of a serious core objective is now rearing its ugly face. He’s openly feuding with our only long term ally in the region. The two countries he openly supported in revolution have turned on the United States, destroyed our embassy’s and killed one ambassador. The rest of the region isn’t any better, Obama has no idea what to do in Syria, Afghanistan is an absolute mess and Iran continues to threaten to nuke Israel. But of course, Obama can’t be bothered to meet with the Israeli PM to discuss the matter. Meanwhile the voice of our government in Egypt condemns free speech and supports the Muslims attacking them. Which of course means that Obama has no control over his embassy’s.

Obama’s first term hasn’t just been an economic disaster for the country, it’s been a foreign policy disaster as well. We’re seeing that today. Obviously the economy is going to be the number one issue this November, no one will pretend that this election will be a repeat of 2004. But it is important to note what a disaster Obama has been for this country internationally. It isn’t just his 2009 apology tour, it’s his active policy that is hurting us. We now have two destroyed embassy’s and a dead ambassador all thanks to Obama’s support for Islamic socialists in the Muslim Brotherhood. Do we want four more years of this?

UPDATE: The corpse of American ambassador Christopher Stevens is being paraded around by the Muslim mobs. What an absolutely disgrace.

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

How Exactly Is Killing Gaddafi In America’s Best Interest?

October 24, 2011 1 Comment

Gaddafi is dead, apparently we’re supposed to rejoice. There’s no doubt that Gaddafi was a bad guy in the world. He’s responsible for terrorism in the 80′s and he led a generally repressive regime. But he did become a minor ally of the United States after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Gaddafi provided the US information about a Qaeda, both Bush and Obama acknowledge this. Obama went so far as to meet Gaffafi. Now we have a dead former ally that we inexplicably turned on and his former country now being run by radical Muslims. How is this a victory for Obama or the United States?

Obama met with this guy in 2009. Gaffafi didn’t suddenly change between 2009 and April 2011. He didn’t suddenly take a pro-terrorist position, he didn’t become an al Qaeda member and he did nothing to hurt US interests in the middle east. The only thing that changed in the world is that the Muslim Brotherhood was starting uprisings in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. Obama supports the Brotherhood because of their socialist leanings and because he has Brotherhood sympathizers within his administration.

This appears to be the sole reason for turning on Gaddafi. Obama’s talk about the Pan Am bombing over Scotland in the 80′s is disingenuous. If Obama is so outraged over the bombing why did he meet with Gaddafi and say pleasant things about him in 2009? It simply makes no sense. Obama’s reason for turning on Gaddafi have nothing to do with his former terrorist ties and everything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Long term Obama has seriously hurt America’s position in the world. He’s more or less told regimes throughout the world to not trust us. Don’t become our allies because we’ll come after you anyway. Every tin pot dictator in Africa, the Middle East and Asia is now less likely to become our ally and share information that helps us, whether it’s concerning the War on Terror or any other subject. Why would any nation want to become our ally when we so quickly turn, without justification, against Gaddafi? Obama has seriously hurt our position in the world.

Now that Gaddafi is gone, who is he going to be replaced with? The current leader, Mustafa Abdel Ja­lil, has declared Sharia law in Libya. So we’ve helped replace one repressive violent regime with a regime that, if it strictly follows Sharia law, will be stoning raped women, supporting honor killings and cutting the heads off of infidels. Keep in mind of course that the proponents of Sharia law are the people who took down the World Trade Center. Why exactly are we favoring these people? Worse, al Qaeda is part of the group that revolted against Gaddafi. Again, why is the US supporting these people?

There’s no doubt that Gaddafi was an awful leader. He was brutal, arbitrary and had a terrorist past. But he was a known entity. He became a minor ally, he helped us fight al Qaeda. That doesn’t forgive what he did in the 80′s but it goes a long way. We’ve now helped replace him with radical Muslims who are bringing Sharia law to Libya. We’ve helped the Libyans trade one brutal dictatorship for another. How exactly was this in our best interest?

Obama has yet to adequately explain why getting rid of Gaddafi was in our best interest. Gaddafi’s terrorist past isn’t a valid excuse when he’s been an ally of Bush and Obama’s since 2004. Obama can’t meet with Gaddafi in 2009 and praise him then expect to get taken seriously when he calls him a terrorist in 2011. There was absolutely no justification for aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in getting rid of Gaddafi. We’ve now lost an ally, we’ve lost someone who provided us with intelligence on al Qaeda. We’ve helped replace him with a regime that supports terrorism, against us and Israel. Worse, that regime will keep Libyan’s in bondage just as much, if not more, than Gaddafi. How was this a victory for Obama and the United States?

Filed under Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , ,

Libyan Rebels Support Jihad, Sharia Law

September 5, 2011 3 Comments

To listen to the media last week you would think the war in Libya was over. Never mind of course that Gadaffi is still alive and his troops continue to fight. Obama didn’t declare mission accomplished but he praised the efforts in Libya. This months after he declared American operations in Libya would be a matter of days and two months after the War Powers Act was violated by the administration.  Even if Gadaffi is removed from office and killed, we have to ask ourselves whether the new regime will be better than the old. Keep in mind, Gadaffi became an ally during the Bush administration when he provided us with information about al Qaeda. Obama even met with him in 2009.

According to the CIA, jihadists are plotting to take over in Libya now that there’s a power vacuum. This shouldn’t come as a surprise considering a draft of a new Libyan constitution declares sharia law. We’ve known from the beginning that radical Islamic socialists in the Muslim Brotherhood, not to mention al Qaeda, participated in the rebel uprising. Keep in mind, this is the side that President Obama decided was so important for us to support. Even after having met with Gadaffi in 2009 and even after having said nice things about him them. Nothing changed on Gadaffi’s side since that meeting, it’s not like he’s engaged in terrorist activity in the last two years. Libya has gone from a state that was obviously borderline but still an ally in the region to a nation that appears set for a jihadist government that enforces sharia law.

The Libyan rebels are rounding up black Libyans and black migrant workers, accusing them of being part of Gadaffi’s forces. The rebels are putting these blacks in concentration camps and it wouldn’t surprise anyone if they were killing some of them. They have no evidence against them, their only reason for arresting them is that they’re black. So not only are the rebels jihadists who want the government to enforce sharia law, they’re racists as well. This is the side Obama made out to be virtuous and freedom loving.

Let’s face facts, President Obama is more allied with the Muslim Brotherhood then he is with American interests. He’s supported the Brotherhood in Egypt even though we had an ally in Mubarak for more than 30 years. He’s supported the Brotherhood in Libya despite Gadaffi becoming an ally and despite an otherwise pleasant and positive meeting with the man in 2009. Obama appears to be shifting on Assad in Syria, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against him. Syria isn’t really an ally but it’s interesting to watch Obama’s support shift to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Keep in mind, the Muslim Brotherhood’s main goals include destroying Israel, destroying capitalism, creating a socialist caliphate and enforcing sharia law. Interestingly the radical left from which Obama comes from believes in destroying Israel and capitalism and creating socialist nations. It’s why George Soros funded groups supported the Arab Spring and why union leaders and assorted radical leftists have called from an American version. Obama is closely associated with Soros and we all know of his radical leftist ties. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood gets more support than America’s long term interests in the middle east.

Filed under Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers