Publicidad

<< Ver más temas en el foro + Crear nuevo tema
Responder
Miembro - Diamante 1K
Mensajes: 135,879
Miembro desde 12-15-2005
sirjohn
0

The Unholy Trinity: Obama, Wright-Farrakhan, Gadhafi

The Unholy Trinity: Obama, Wright-Farrakhan, Gadhafi
Flopping Aces ^ | 02-24-11 | Skookum

 

Have you wondered why Obama hasn't asked Gadhafi to step down after he has killed hundreds if not thousands of his own people; especially, after he told Mubarak he had to step down because of demonstrations. Surprise, Obama has had very close ties with the man who ordered and financed the Lockerbie bombing. Gadahfi is a madman, a homicidal psychopathic maniac; yet our president wants to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Gadahfi speaks well of Obama, last September at the United Nations, he referred to Obama as "My son" or "Our son" on several occasions.

"Can you guarantee after Obama how America will be governed? We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as president of America." Gadhafi also reportedly referred to the U.S. president as a "black African Kenyan."

Gadahfi refers to Obama as a Muslim of

Kenyan origins who has studied in Islamic schools and whose campaign may have been financed by people in the Islamic and African worlds.

Obama's love for Gadahfi is not wasted, Gadahfi expresses his love for Obama:

Speaking in the Libyan city of Sirt at an event marking the 24th anniversary of an American attack on Libya, he said, "Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama."

Gaddafi stressed that Obama's presidency is "a major historical gain" and said, "He is someone I consider a friend. He knows he is a son of Africa. Regardless of his African belonging, he is of Arab Sudanese descent, or of Muslim descent. He is a man whose policy should be supported, and he should be assisted in implementing it in any way possible, since he is now leaning towards peace."

    He continued, "I urge all peoples to give him this chance and to support this policy, because America is a country that, when its policy is bad – harms the world, and when it is good – it helps the world."

 

On Nukes Gadahfi again shows reasoning similar to that of Obama:

Libyan leader says Arab nations and 'even the Palestinians' should be allowed nuclear weapons as long as Israel's nuclear ambitions are tolerated.

 

Even though Gadahfi is a psychopath, he has a fondness for Obama and Obama, despite his claims, seems to have love for the maniac. Perhaps this love explains, at least partially why the president lied once again when claimed he was "shocked shocked" and knew nothing beforehand of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a Libyan national hero, by Scotland.

   Abdel al-Megrahi was convicted of setting the bomb in Pan Am Flight 103, scheduled from London to New York, on December 21, 1988. The blast killed 243 people on the plane, including 190 Americans, when the debris rained down on the town the total was 270 people killed. The killer was sentenced to life in prison, but inexplicably, he was released on humanitarian grounds because he was suffering from prostate cancer and was only expected to live for three months. Now after 11 months, he is not only still kicking, but he is expected to live ten more years.

    Americans were shocked and outraged, except for Obama; he helped broker a deal for BP and Libya that included al-Megrahi as an enticement.

     It is amazing how our president can betray the American people to be a hero in the Muslim world and to be involved in the exchange of billions of dollars and solidifying his financial future for the rest of his life, over the mangled bodies of 190 Americans. After al -Megrahi landed in Libya, Obama gave $400,000 US tax dollars to a Libyan charity directed by two children of Gadhafi, who each received $200,000. The son Saif was the chief broker for the deal between BP and Libya.

    At home, the reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's spiritual advisor for over 20 years has had a very close and personal relationship with Gadhafi, who has supported Wright financially as well as another friend and confidant of the president the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan. This sheds light on why Obama hasn't called for a halt to the slaughter of protesters by Gadhafi and has neglected to ask him to step down. America figured it was just part of the president's personality to dither over important decisions while people die, but the facts far more insidious and sinister.

 

 

Obama earmarked $400k for 2 Charities run by Col. Gadaffi's children.
American Thinker ^ | July 17, 2010 | Camie Davis

________________________ ______________________

Remember as a kid drawing connect-the-dots pictures? Simply follow the dots and a clear picture emerges. As an adult, connecting the dots of Obama's actions leads to an oxymoronic picture. A clear picture of a murky web. Obama's actions continually link him to people and causes that the majority of Americans do not support. The recent event of another aid ship sailing to Gaza is an example of to whom and what the strands of Obama's web link him, and unfortunately America.

Last year, right around the time Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi called Obama "our son," Obama earmarked $400,000 for two Libyan charities. The money was divided between two foundations run by Gaddafi's children; Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, run by his son Saif, and Wa Attassimou, run by his daughter Aicha. What noble causes did our tax dollars potentially help support thanks to Obama's generosity?

    Funding of the ship Amalthea: The Amalthea sailed to Israel with the intent of breaking the Israeli blockade on Hamas. It carried aid for a pseudo humanitarian crisis and supporters who were said to be "keen on expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people in the plight amidst the siege imposed on Gaza." The ship was funded by Saif Gaddafi's charity, Gaddafi International Charity and Development Association. Obama's friend, Bill Ayers, joined attempt #1 against Israel's blockade on Hamas. Saif joined attempt #2. One has to wonder which of Obama's friends will step up to the plate at attempt #3.

    The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi: Saif Gaddafi was involved in negotiating the convicted bomber's release, and accompanied him back to Libya, where al-Megrahi was praised and welcomed. For those who have forgotten the extent of the carnage of the Lockerbie bombing, 270 people, including 189 Americans, were killed.

    Honoring Iraqi journalist, Muntazer al-Zaidi: Al-Zaidi is the journalist who threw his shoe at President George W. Bush. He was given a bravery award by Aicha Gaddafi's charity, Wa Attassimou. The charity stated that al-Zaidi's actions "represented a victory for human rights across the world."

   As long as we are connecting the dots between Obama and Libya, now seems a good time to remember that the state department issued an official apology to Libya after spokesman P.J. Crowley made disparaging comments about Gaddafi's call for jihad against Switzerland. Apparently Crowley spoke on instinct instead of running his reaction by Libya's "son" first. As an Obamian spinmeister, Crowley learned that one doesn't speak ill of "family."

   What a web Obama continues to spin. One can only hope he falls into it soon, before all of American is smothered by it.

Camie Davis can be followed on Facebook at Wake Up and Smell the Falfel.


Miembro - Diamante 1K
Mensajes: 135,879
Miembro desde 12-15-2005
sirjohn

Re: The Unholy Trinity: Obama, Wright-Farrakhan, Gadhafi

Obama's mystery links to Gadhafi uncovered
Prez fails to call for dictator's removal despite reports of attacks on citizens

February 23, 2011


By Aaron Klein

 

 


WorldNetDaily


Sen. Barack Obama with Rev. Jeremiah Wright

JERUSALEM – As pressure mounts on the White House to intervene to stop Moammar Gadhafi's bloody crackdown in Libya, many commentators have been wondering why Barack Obama has been cautious in his criticism of the dictator after the U.S. president so fervently supported the removal from office of U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.

 

But Gadhafi has been tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's spiritual adviser for more than 23 years.

 

The Libyan dictator also has financed and strongly supported the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has ties to Farrakhan and his controversial group.

 

Autographed! Get the book that finally exposes Obama and his team of anti-American radicals: Aaron K...

 

So far, White House officials have called for an end to the violence but have seemingly ruled out any unilateral action in Libya. Despite Gadhafi's reported ordering of massacres that reportedly have killed hundreds of civilians in recent days, Obama hasn't called on Gadhafi to leave office.

 

Pressure has been mounting on Obama to take a tougher stand, with the chairmen of the House and Senate foreign relations committees calling on the White House to re-impose economic sanctions on Libya that were lifted in 2004.

 

But Obama has multiple close ties to activists who have had relationships with Gadhafi.

 

Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Obama's longtime Chicago church, went with Farrakhan to visit Gadhafi in 1984.

 

 

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Wright himself noted the trip could cause problems for Obama.

 

"When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gadhafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

 

Farrakhan, a close friend and associate of Wright, has been financed by Gadhafi, including with a $5 million interest-free loan in 1985.

 

Later that year, Gadhafi spoke by satellite to Farrakhan's Saviour's Day Convention in Chicago, and reportedly told Farrakhan supporters he was prepared to provide weapons to a black army in the U.S. to destroy "white America."

 

In October 1995, Gadhafi reportedly called Farrakhan with congratulations on the success of the Million Man March. Gadhafi was said to have assured Farrakhan that together "we will unite our capabilities and efforts to achieve this."

 


Moammar Gadhafi

According to reports in 1996 from Libya's news agency, JANA, Farrakhan and Gadhafi agreed to work together to mobilize "oppressed blacks, Arabs, Muslims and Red Indians" to help reshape U.S. foreign policy.

 

Gadhafi said that until his alliance with the Nation of Islam, "our confrontation with America was like a fight against a fortress from outside."

 

He asserted his alliance with Farrakhan provides him with "a breach to enter into this fortress and confront it."

  

Farrakhan went to Libya for multiple other events. He was the recipient in 1996 of the Gadhafi Human Rights Award, which came with a $250,000 prize. Farrakhan accepted the prize despite U.S. sanctions on Libya.

 

Obama tied to Nation of Islam

 

Wright and Obama reportedly attended the Million Man March on Washington, which was led by Farrakhan and other prominent black leaders such as Al Sharpton.

 

Rev. Willie Barrow, a member of the Obama campaign's official Faith Outreach Team and an Obama superdelegate, is a close friend of Farrakhan's and a staunch Nation of Islam supporter.

 

Farrakhan stated in a 2002 interview he met with Barrow to devise his Nation of Islam platforms.

 

Marxist activist Cornel West, an adviser to Farrakhan, also had been an adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign and is a close Obama associate and personal friend.

 

During the period of Obama's attendance at Wright's Trinity United Church, which practices controversial Black Liberation Theology ideology, the Chicago church was openly allied with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

 

Wright gave Farrakhan his 2007 Empowerment Award. Farrakhan delivered multiple guest lectures at the church.

 

Wright has been involved in Farrakhan initiatives and labeled him "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century" during a national address to the media in April at which Nation of Islam officials were invited guests.

 

Obama has appeared at least three times on the cover of Trumpet magazine, founded by Wright. The magazine, to which Obama last year granted a lengthy, exclusive interview, regularly hails Farrakhan.

 

Obama's face was featured on the cover of a 2006 issue of Trumpet alongside Farrakhan's image.

 

During the 2008 presidential campaign, a 2004 photo emerged of Obama's wife, Michelle, posing with Farrakhan and Obama adviser Barrow at a woman's luncheon for the Rainbow/Push Coalition for which Barrow serves as chairman emeritus.

 

In the picture with Michelle Obama is Khadijah Farrakhan, Louis Farrakhan's wife.

 

Another Obama connection to supporters of Farrakhan comes from David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist.

 

Although he is Jewish, Axelrod sits on the finance committee of St. Sabina, the Chicago Catholic parish that was led by controversial pastor Michael Pfleger, an outspoken Farrakhan supporter who hosted the Nation of Islam chief at his parish several times.

 

The Archdiocese of Chicago temporarily removed Pfleger from his duties at St. Sabina in 2008 following a well-publicized guest sermon at Trinity church in which Pfleger claimed Hillary Clinton cried in public because she thought being white entitled her to the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

Pfleger hosted Farrakhan at his church several times, including one May 2007 sermon that was Farrakhan's first public appearance since he announced in 2006 he had been suffering from prostate cancer and was seriously ill.

 

According to reports, Pfleger spent hours with the Nation of Islam chief during his illness. Pfleger previously enlisted Farrakhan's support for several of his initiatives, including an anti-gun protest in 2007.

 

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Miembro - Zafiro
Mensajes: 90,183
Miembro desde 06-03-2009
siboneyes

Re: The Unholy Trinity: Obama, Wright-Farrakhan, Gadhafi

From Obama to Khaddafi, a Tale ofTwo Tyrants


While Americans are going hungry and cutting back, not because Michelle Obama told them to, but because they can't afford it-- the White House is throwing yet another party. This time to celebrate the cultural accomplishments of Motown complete with performances by trendy musicians.

It's funny how the media breathlessly reports that Khaddafi spent 1 million dollars to fly in one singer or another for a performance, and yet the White House has flown in far more singers, at doubtlessly far greater expense to throw themselves a party.

If Khaddafi was a wastrel madmen for throwing himself parties like this, what of the Obamas who are doing far worse, under the pretext that this is a celebration of the form.

Motown is not some obscure form of music that needs to be revived with government sponsorship. It is more than popular and there are plenty who will pay for it. The public should not be footing the bill, so that the Obamas can once again hobnob with musicians.

But the very behavior that the media condemns in Libya, it celebrates in Washington. Tell me again the difference
between this
   The New York Times, citing cables obtained by WikiLeaks, says songstress Mariah Carey was paid $1 million to belt out four songs on the Caribbean island of St. Barts for Gadhafi’s son, Seif al-Islam, whom you may remember from the rambling speech that kicked off the recent carnage.
   Another son, Muatassim, Libya’s national security adviser, allegedly hired Beyoncé and Usher to entertain at another New Year’s bash.
and this
   The White House reverberated like a long-ago basement sound studio in Detroit on Thursday as the likes of John Legend, Seal, Jamie Foxx, Nick Jonas and Sheryl Crowe channeled their inner Motown before Michelle and Barack Obama. Musical pioneers Smokey Robinson and Stevie Wonder joined in for the celebration of all things Motown.

Tell me, what's the difference here? One is written in a condemnatory tone and the other in a celebratory tone.

We are supposed to pity the poor Libyan people whose evil overlords shamelessly squandered millions on concerts by famous musicians

-- and simultaneously thrill at the news that our own overlords are spending millions on throwing concerts in the White House.

The Libyan papers might well have it in reverse, condemning Obama for his spendthrift wastefulness, while celebrating the Khaddafi spawn for circulating with famous musicians to show the cultural amplitude of Libya. But it's propaganda either way. Wrap it in the wax paper of civil rights and some blather about Americanism-- and it still comes down to our leaders acting like the very Middle Eastern buffoons they claim to despise. Even as the American media fulfills the same role for the Obamas, that its Libyan counterparts do for the Khaddafis.

All this might have been forgivable, if the big zero hadn't been making constant noises about his commitment to cutting spending. If his first spouse hadn't appointed herself Czar of America's Kitchens,
in between gorging during her constant vacationing. If they just admitted that they were rotten liars who are going to take us for all they can get-- then we could almost tolerate their thievery. So many Americans forgave Clinton when he smiled and winked, but wouldn't forgive him when he self-righteously shook his finger at us, when everyone knew he was lying. Obama has never stopped shaking his finger at us, while going from the party to the golf course.

Americans like to believe that we are better off than the Libyans. And we are... for now. But we won't be for long if the sstyle of government continues. Leaders who play messiahs, wrap themselves in cults of personality, enforce only those laws they like and send out their thugs to assail and assault anyone who threatens their power.

We are not better off than then Libyans because of the government we have now, but because of the legal traditions and open elections that have not been completely eradicated by the left.

(In an added layer of irony,
Khaddafi is boosting government worker pay by 150 percent. Comparisons to the Democratic party go begging to be heard.)

When the Democrats win they wreck the system through mismanagement. When the Democrats lose they wreck the system through sabotage. The Democrats lost in Wisconsin which means they have nothing to lose by tearing the system down. They still hold the White House and are mismanaging the country. There's no win scenario here.

Mass protests won't hurt the Democrats, but may hurt Governor Walker. And even if they don't, the Democrats will have radicalized union members, some of whom may have agreed on a few points with Republicans, and made other governors wary of a confrontation. It's a win-win scenario for them. Sure the unions could have scored some points with the public by cooperating, but they don't expect voters to hold Democrats accountable for their actions. And even if they do, it's a forced marriage with no way out.

Meanwhile the protest riots are continuing to spread throughout the Middle East. Libya's deranged colonel is showing how a regime which doesn't mind gunning down protesters reacts to such challenges. And putting into focus the absurdity of defining tyranny by Mubarak or Ben Ali. Khadafi is giving liberals a timely reminder of what a real tyrant looks like. And it isn't an oligarch like Mubarak.

The violence has spread to Iraq, which is already unstable enough, and shows that this really isn't curable by democracy, as so many neo-cons have insisted. Democracy is not an antidote to sectarian conflict or public anger over government policies. When a minority of protesters can overthrow the government through sheer violence, than the occasional elections are no curative measure. That is also the situation in Wisconsin, where a violently angry minority infuriated at the prospect of being robbed of its privileges is sabotaging the state.

Compare if you will,
Sam Slom, the one Republican state senator in Hawaii, with the fleebager senators of Wisconsin. There is a pattern here. Republicans in the minority ask questions and challenge legislation, Democrats in the minority try to sabotage the system. Republican congressmen were being compared to terrorists for obstructing Obama's program. But Wisconsin Senators are heroes for absconding to Illinois. A Republican shutdown of the government is considered a worst case scenario, but Democratic shutdowns of the governments are much admire.

The law of the land is the law of the land-- until the Democrats decide otherwise. And then they just refuse to enforce them. As
Obama is doing with DOMA. But imagine the outcry had a Republican president's attorney general had refused to defend civil rights legislation for gay rights. The law is the law, so long as it's liberal law. But that's no way to run a country.

Revolution isn't just coming to the Middle East, it may also be coming to Ireland, with Fianna Fail finally set to take a well-deserved beating.

Lemon Lime Moon
points out that the protests have centered on nations with ports in the Mediterranean, access to the Suez Canal, and the Gulf.

Why is it there is so little news on the importance of the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean Sea and the importance of Libyan oil to Europe? Is it a myopic view of things that is keeping news from looking at the overview of the middle eastern situation?

Controlling the flow of oil would give Moslem nations tremendous bargaining power in the world. Money talks. Money makes people do the worst things. The goal of the Moslem religion is control. If a Moslem brotherhood can control oil flow, they have a very powerful weapon indeed. If Europe can control the middle east, they will have a very great ace in the hole for themselves.

Read it all

Timothy Carney at the Examiner points out that Soros' investment fund is profiting from Obama's green energy programs. But there are levels beyond that.

Consider Soros' investment fund buys into a number of domestic energy producers and coal companies, such as Massey energy. An offshore drilling ban would lower the stock price off domestic energy producers. Obstructing coal would similarly lower the asking price. Also interestingly, Soros earlier dumped much of his holdings in Hess, which has an energy presence in Egypt. There's probably a story here for anyone with the financial knowhow to go properly digging. But just like Soros' Countrywide investment, no one seems to be following the money.

From the heart of Texas, a good ole Saudi boy plotted to blow up some reservoir dams. (
See the whole story at Doug Ross' Director Blue blog.) But he probably never meant no harm.

But it gets better.
Guess who funded his scholarship.
Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, the Saudi student arrested Thursday on charges that he planned to build bombs for terror attacks inside the United States, was granted a U.S. student visa after qualifying for a generous scholarship sponsored by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah,

Have we learned anything from 9/11 when Saudis could just waltz into the United States and murder thousands of Americans? No not really.

Aldawsari was one of more than 10,000 Saudi students granted student visas in 2008, an NBC News analysis of the visa program shows.

Indeed, the number of Saudi students approved for entry into the United States has jumped more than fourfold since 15 young Saudis helped carry out the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. At the same time, visas granted to other Middle East nations dropped often precipitously or remained at the same level.

The analysis shows that 26,744 Saudi students received US F-1 and F-2 visas in 2010, up from 6,836 in 2001. The numbers have steadily increased as the Kingdom has provided financing for students, believing the students' exposure to the U.S. and its education system would help US-Saudi relations.

US-Saudi relations being a euphemism for Saudi manipulation of American universities, and of course a generous helping of murder. We're importing Saudis like 9/11 never happened, because the Saudi government is underwriting it. And so what if Americans get killed, as long as Ivy League deans get to built another facility or two for their campus.

In May of 2009 Aldawsari talks about learning English in Nashville, Tennessee and his dreams about working for Google. June of that year he writes in Arabic about the Book of Allah and his conquest that will depend on his Jihad.

As it turns out, there isn't that much of a contradiction.
   Many people suspect that “tyrants” were all that stood between the fragile stability and the dreaded clash of civilisations. However, for the BBC and, it seems, Cameron’s government, democracy is a thing with magical properties. If it comes, lo and behold, it will turn the Islamic street into a secular wonderland.
     Meanwhile, (as if we had any choice) we’re plumping for toppling tyrants and keeping our fingers crossed this will bring about liberty, freedom and peace - and abracadabra, turn the Arab World into the West.

No longer must we turn a blind eye to tyranny. Now our blind eyes are turned to the baying mobs chanting “Death to Jews” in Tunis, the stars of David scrawled on Mubarak posters, and the sinister signs of religious bigotry rather than secular liberalism that are emerging from the angry rioting crowd. The BBC’s eyes are the blindest of all.

See Solomonia which quotes a rather relevant observation on the ethnic cleansing of Egypt's Jews
You will find no Jews in Tahrir Square. Or in Mansoura, where Grandfather Wahba had a drug store. I scan the architecture on CNN looking past the screaming demonstrators. I want to see Egypt, Dad’s Egypt, and imagine what he would be saying about the situation today; almost four years since he died.

Egypt is in the news and how I miss my father. I see “Rioting in Mansoura, Cairo, Alexandria,” flash on the news. Cities that were home to my dad, at different points in his life. Born to an old Egyptian family in Mansoura, “the Wahbas were real (not transplants from another country), Egyptians” he bragged. They were indigenous to the land, originally farmers, peasants, in Midghram.

When President Obama spoke in Cairo he didn’t ask, “Where are your Jews”? Once not so long ago Egyptian Jews were an integral part of Egypt’s infrastructure. Obama did mention the Copts (Egypt’s Christians,) another indigenous group who suffer discrimination and he asked for “tolerance”.

ASK WHERE ARE THE JEWS WHO LIVED HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS I wanted to break through his eloquence. But yelling at the TV is not my pposition.

     A little note now for all the commentators who approvingly quoted and celebrated Sandmonkey, treated him as a martyr during the riots, and discover that now he's joined the conventional liberal Egyptian line in essentially calling for tearing up the Camp David accords, remilitarizing the Sinai and opening up the border to Hamas. Oh he's phrasing it better than that, but that's what it amounts to.

Some like Barry Rubin are giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not. There's a certain commonality to these things. We got played. And it isn't the first time. The difference between Curveball and Sandmonkey isn't as big as you might think. There are no shortage of "dissidents" from the Arab world with a focused narrative, who are very good at telling us what we want to hear, when we want to hear it, and even capable of believing it themselves, before shifting on a dime. They are often members of prominent families, often with ties to previous regimes (according to his blog, Sandmonkey's grandfather was a general in the royal guard, that would be the royal family overthrown by Mubarak's predecessors) and often sympathetic and believable. Word to the wise, be wary. Be smart. And don't be taken in.

A final personal note, I have created a new Facebook account and
one for the site here. Anyone I have lost touch with, please send me a request, if I haven't sent you one yet already. `
Miembro - Diamante 1K
Mensajes: 135,879
Miembro desde 12-15-2005
sirjohn

Re: The Unholy Trinity: Obama, Wright-Farrakhan, Gadhafi

OBAMA AND QADDAFI - LIVE AND LET DIE

By Nichole Hungerford On February 26, 2011 In Daily Mailer, FrontPage

   In his speech on the turmoil in Libya, President Obama used the phrase “international community” three times. He did not say the name “Muammar Qaddafi” once.

    By the time it was obvious that the dictator was slaughtering his own people, vowing to “cleanse Libya house by house” and “die as a martyr,” President Obama could not muster the fortitude to denounce the Qaddafi regime by name or articulate any action that would prevent the loss of human life.

    With all that is at his disposal to influence the ending of this bloodshed, the president has opted to allow America to stand by silently on the sidelines and watch the massacre unfold.

   The president’s response to Libya was so milquetoast, in fact, that even left-wing MSNBC host Chris Matthews was left longing for a Reagan-esque “evil empire” moment. Even liberal commentator Eugene Robinson was moved to call for U.S. action in his recent column.

   The tone of the president’s remarks exhibited a bizarre disconnect as well. Notwithstanding the president’s great faith in the opinion of the “international community,” a despot like Qaddafi, who speaks earnestly in terms of political cleansing and martyrdom, surely cannot be rhetorically coerced to end his rampage, and he clearly is not sensitive — to say the least — about the feelings of the “international community.”

   But the Obama administration is in the grips of a teachable moment. Since taking office, Obama’s goal has been to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. is a team player. To the Arab world in particular, he has sought to prove that the U.S. is not interested in exerting influence in the region, which is considered the source of Islamist discontent by the Left. This, the administration believes, will assuage anti-American sentiment and Arab belligerence, as the president has intimated over and over again in his overtures to the Muslim world. Now, we are witnessing the catastrophic repercussions of such a destructive posture: America is willing to forsake its unrivaled ability to stop monstrous violations of human rights in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of Islamo-fascists.

   To be sure, the U.S. has faced similar decisions before. When a freedom-seeking revolt broke out in Hungary in October of 1956 against the U.S.S.R., the anti-communist rebel forces were led to believed the U.S. would come to their aid. In fact, this is one of the reasons the rebel Hungarians fought so successfully for so long against the Soviets. At various points, victory seemed achievable for the uprising, which would have changed the face of the entire Cold War. But President Eisenhower ultimately abandoned and betrayed the Hungarian freedom fighters — and the rebellion was savagely squashed by the Soviets. It is a regrettable and tragic chapter in Cold War history in general and in American foreign policy in particular.

 

    One exoneration of Eisenhower’s policy that could be pointed to is his fear that an international war could have broken out over Hungary, since a nuclear Soviet Russia was a dangerous reality.

   For Obama, however, there is no such excuse. Numerous Muslim leaders have themselves denounced Qaddafi for the express reason that he is killing Muslims. Certainly, it is in the interest of protesters across the region that Qaddafi be held accountable, lest other autocrats get the impression that dissent can be crushed with impunity. Furthermore, Qaddafi has virtually no credibility in the international community — the Arab League, the African Union, the European Union, and the Islamic Conference have condemned his actions.

    Rather, the inaction toward Libya we are seeing today is more reminiscent of the Left’s shameless reaction (or non-reaction) to the mass slaughter of the Iranian people by the Ayatollah Khomeini during the Islamic Revolution. After the pro-Western Shah of Iran (the Left’s bete-noire) was deposed, the Islamic revolutionary forces oversaw a bloody transfer of power. The silence from the Left on this massacre, which was precipitated by the Carter administration’s unconscionable undermining of the Shah’s regime, was deafening.

     But what more could one really expect from the political faith? According to the leftist worldview, the U.S. is largely a pernicious force on the world stage and is the cause for the disdain that it attracts worldwide. This is Obama’s view. At this very moment in Libya, the U.S. could be intervening to support internal pro-Western (and pro-democratic) secular forces, while marginalizing the Islamist faction. Instead, the U.S. will stand by while the Libyan government kills its people, and, therefore, help fertilize the soil in which a more brutal Islamist regime will grow and replace it. This is the historical record of what leftist American administrations do in foreign policy — and we are now witness to the tragic and morbid example in Libya.