Reportar MensajeObama’s Foreign Policy Fraud Has Come Undone
By Daniel Greenfield On Sept18, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
The Islamist mobs shouted: “Obama, Obama, now you have 1,000 Osamas”. Was it Obama’s constant bragging that he killed Osama Bin Laden what provoked the riots on over 30 cities around the world and not the movie that nobody saw?
The mass riots and attacks on embassies do not mark the moment when Obama’s foreign policy imploded. That happened a long time ago. What these attacks actually represent is the moment when the compliant media were no longer able to continue hiding that failure in bottom drawers and back pages.
The media successfully covered for Obama’s retreat from Iraq, and the weekly Al Qaeda car bombings and rush to civil war no longer make the news. The media have also done their best to cover for Obama’s disaster in Afghanistan which has cost thousands of American lives while completely failing to defeat the Taliban.
Obama had hoped to cover up his defeat in Afghanistan by cutting a deal with the “moderate” Taliban, but the Taliban, moderate or extreme, refused to help him cover his pposition. Attacks in Afghanistan have escalated, but the media have avoided challenging the bizarre assertions from the Obama campaign that the mission has been accomplished and Karzai will be ready to take over security in a few years.
And then the Islamists did something that the media just couldn’t ignore. They staged a series of attacks on American embassies and foreign targets beginning on September 11. These attacks, the most devastating and public of which took place on September 11, were accompanied by Islamist black flags and chants of, “We Are All Osama” in countries across North Africa and the Middle East.
The media have done their best to avoid dealing with the implications of Islamists carrying out a coordinated series of attacks on everything from foreign embassies to peacekeeping forces in the Sinai, by focusing on a Mohammed movie which the Egyptian Salafists exploited for propaganda purposes, rather than on the tactical support and level of coordination required to launchh such a broad series of attacks and what the attacks and their scope say about the transformation of the conflict from stray attacks by terrorist groups to armed militias taking control of entire regions.
Rather than doing their job, the media seemed to be dividing their attention between reporting on the carnage without any context and putting out talking points to prevent Mitt Romney from taking political advantage of the disaster. The media’s accusations that Mitt Romney was politicizing the conflict were absurd, especially coming after the New York Times ran an editorial on September 11 attacking George W. Bush for not preventing the attacks of that day and after five years of Obama and his media allies politicizing every suicide bombing in Iraq.
US AMBASSADOR TORTURED, RAPE AND KILLED
While American embassies burned, the media were determined to go on doing what they had been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had covered for Obama in three disastrous wars, one of which he had begun and which had exploded in the faces of staffers at the Benghazi consulate. And they are still covering for him, but the conflict has moved beyond the point where it can be relegated to the back pages of the daily papers.
Obama had hoped that the Islamists would see the advantage of allowing him to save face and give them another term of the same inept appeasement disguised as diplomatic soft power. Instead the Islamists seized on his weakness and trumpeted it to the world to humiliate him and the country that he had been temporarily placed in charge of.
If Obama had really understood Muslims, the way that he claimed he did during the election, then he would have known that this was coming all along. The way of the desert raid is to catch the enemy at his weakest and most vulnerable, and to humiliate him for that weakness in the eyes of his peers. In the honor-shame culture of Islam, there is only room for honor or shame. Obama tried to cover his shame and retain his honor and his enemies tore that façade of honor away from him and left only shame.
As Churchill said to Chamberlain, “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.” Obama tried to have it both ways; he wanted the appearance of being a strong honorable leader who wins wars, while pursuing a cowardly and dishonorable policy. Obama chose dishonor in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now finds that he has a war to deal with anyway.
Perhaps it was the empty bragging of a weak man about killing Bin Laden that infuriated them, but most likely it was the weakness that he showed by relying on drone attacks while cutting the military that led the Islamists to launchh a series of global raids on American targets. What looked like smart strategy to the DC technocrats told the Islamists that the United States was no longer willing or able to send troops into combat. Drone strikes might take out Al Qaeda leaders with minimal collateral damage, but were useless when crowds of Islamist raiders in major cities were overrunning American embassies and consulates.
It would have been in the interests of the Islamists to let Obama save face, retreat from Afghanistan and give them another four years of a free ride. But the Salafis carrying out the raids are not the cunning variety that Obama bows to when meeting with the Gulf royals, nor are they even the businessmen of the Muslim Brotherhood. What they want are military victories in the old Mohammedan sstyle rather than winning elections or tricking the West into overthrowing regimes for them.
The Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis would not have chosen to humiliate Obama because they need him. The Salafis carrying out the raids, as opposed to the ones shaking hands with US officials in Cairo, don’t care about American elections; they care about blood in the streets and swords in the air. These are the sorts of people who fly planes into buildings without considering what this will do to the plans to use immigration to change the demographic balance of Europe and set off bombs near NATO bases without caring that this will slow down the withdrawal of the infidel troops. They are true believers and they believe that it is their unthinking commitment to Islam that will give them victory, rather than the calculations and manipulations of their more upscale Salafi brethren in Riyadh and Cairo.
The attacks have exposed the naked failure of Obama’s foreign policy. The sight of American embassies burning across the Muslim world has done what the deaths of thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and a near civil war in Iraq could not do.
Obama has lost the wars, he has lost the peace and now he has also lost the lies.
Suicide in slow motion: submission to Islamic threats will doom the American people
By Coach Collins, Sept18 2012
by Doug Book, staff writer
If the United States is to survive, Barack Obama MUST be removed from power.
Pamela Geller told Fox and Friends’ Tucker Carlson that Barack Obama was literally “…sanctioning the motives behind the murderous Muslim riots by trying to silence the Muhammad filmmakers.” (1) Geller is right. The clear and perpetual purpose of Muslim jihadists is the intimidation into silence and submission of all who dare express any view which operatives of the cult of Islam consider contrary to the will of Muhammed or the “divine” call-to-global-murder he manufactured 1400 years ago.
After the attacks on the American Embassy in Cairo, Barack Hussein Obama acted precisely according to the dictates of his Marxist-Islamist upbringing as his Administration issued a string of heartfelt apologies to Muslim terrorists for the inexcusable exercise of 1st Amendment rights by a Coptic Christian who made an obscure film in the United States. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” wrote Obama’s Cairo Embassy. (2)
PART 2
US EMBASSY IN PAKISTAN UNDER SIEGE
The attack was a “deliberate, calculated action by a group working in collaboration with non-Libyan elements,” he said in an interview. He warned that Libya remains locked in a battle with extremists who wish to turn that country into a hard-line Islamist state.Magarief conceded that Ansar al-Sharia’s leadership was divided, but insisted members of that militia had still taken part in the assassination. The group itself has disavowed any involvement, but an eyewitness claims he saw the group’s black flag being carried by some of the attackers. He also claims he saw one man fire a rocket-propelled grenade into the consulate’s grounds, and another shooting an AK-47 at the gate of the compound.
Magarief’s assertion was buttressed by the fact that al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula celebrated the attacks over the weekend and called for more of them. ”What has happened is a great event and these efforts should come together in one goal, to expel the embassies of America from the lands of the Muslims,” AQAP said. And like Zawahiri, AQAP also linked the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi to the attack.
According to The Australian, the investigation of Stevens’ murder “appears woefully slow.” They note that American drones are circling over Benghazi, but the crime scene itself has yet to be secured. Magarief revealed that, as of yesterday, FBI investigators had yet to arrive and the only arrests made so far were of four “low-level” participants.
Late yesterday afternoon Fox News, citing an “intelligence source on the ground in Libya,” also poked a hole in the administration’s “spontaneous” demonstration narrative. “There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.” This story apparently corroborates an account published September 13th by McClatchy Newspapers. They interviewed a man who claimed to be a Libyan security guard posted at the American consulate when it came under attack. Hospitalized with shrapnel and a bullet wound arising from the conflict, the guard said the area was quiet–“there wasn’t a single ant outside” is how he put it–until about 9:30, at which point armed men stormed the compound. He further contended that there was no warning an attack was imminent.
PART 3
Unfortunately, this seems to be the most accurate information garnered by American news organizations to date. The foreign media referenced above have seemingly done a far better job ferreting out the real story. Perhaps that is because last Friday, State Department spokeswoman Victorian Nuland made it clear no further information would be released by the Obama administration until the investigation is complete. “I’m going to frustrate all of you, infinitely, by telling you that now that we have an open FBI investigation on the death of these four Americans, we are not going to be in a **noallow** to talk at all about what the U.S. government may or may not be learning about how any of this this happened–not who they were, not how it happened, not what happened to Ambassador Stevens, not any of it–until the Justice Department is ready to talk about the investigation,” she told reporters. “So I’m going to send to the FBI for those kinds of questions and they’re probably not going to talk to you about it,” she added.
On the other hand, the usual media suspects can still be counted on to support the Obama administration’s effort to scapegoat a film and, by extension, filmmaker Nikoula Nikoula, for the failure of its Middle East policies. In that regard, CNN reached a new low yesterday. They not only published a picture of Nikoula, who has taken great pains to hide his identity due to death threats from Islamic terrorists, but personal information about him as well. In addition, CNN editorialized that the video itself would be “Oscar worthy, if HATEFUL were a category.”
It is within the context of this odious narrative, fostered by an administration with an almost pathological aversion to taking any responsibility whatsoever for its mistakes, that any “investigation” into the deaths of four Americans in Libya will proceed. And since there is nothing about this incident that remotely accrues to the interests of this president or his administration, Americans should expect that nothing in the way of relevant information will be disseminated before the election–if it is ever disseminated at all. On the other hand, the possibility of great irony arises: if any information reaches the public, it will likely be the result of leaks from inside the White House. An administration that has demonstrated a great appetite for “spiking the football” when it suits them deserves nothing less.
