Friday, September 14, 2012

Obama Really IS
Jimmy Carter 2.0

An old proverb says "If you live long enough, you will see history repeat itself."  

And right now, history is repeating itself before our eyes.  

In 1977 Jimmy Carter decided to withdraw support from the Shah of Iran, convinced if he let the radical Islamic militants in that country depose the Shah, whoever replaced him would be 'better'.  

We had the comical farce for several months of Carter trying to sell the Ayatollah Ruohallah Khomeini as a nice religious leader, a really great guy who would do much better than the Shah.  

What we ended up with was a hostage crisis that lasted over a year and 30+ years of Iran fomenting radicalism and terror wherever it can.  

So.........yeah. GOOD CALL THERE, JIMMY


Y'all are welcome! 

Starting in 2010 with the unrest in Egypt, Libya and now Syria, people strongly questioned the Obama strategy of withdrawing support - or even directly helping to topple - Middle East strong men under the confidently optimistic idea that whoever replaced them would be 'better'.  



First thing new Egyptian President Morsi did on winning his election was call for the United States to immediately free The Blind Sheikh convicted of masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  Hey, good start there.  Couple more months when he's really feeling optimistic maybe Morsi will add Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to the list of terrorists the US should hand over.  

So now the Muslim Brotherhood is running Egypt, and Al Qaeda and other violent Islamic groups have designs on Libya.  Fantastic.  

Obama was supposed to have put all these fires out with that awesome Cairo speech in 2009 where he hit the 'reset' button with the Islamic world.  As has become evident the past few days, he might have overestimated his effectiveness at changing the Islamic world's unrelenting hatred of the United States.  

After missing a chance to back a real democratic Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, Obama stupidly decided to topple two Middle Eastern leaders with no real intention of ensuring who replaced them.  The Muslim Brotherhood isn't exactly a democratic organization.  A study of it's history would tell you this.  We have a patched-together weak democratic government of a sorts in Libya, but that's why Al Queda and other violent groups are moving in now - they sense a chance to establish a new base for jihad.  

If the idea was to promote democracy in the region, two key points that are necessary would be:

1. Making sure new dictators worse than the guy you just helped get rid of don't win the 1st - and only real - election held and 

2. guaranteeing the security of the new government until it can stand on it's own. 

In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood easily won the 1st election held.  Having established themselves, these radicals will never hand over power to those not as fervent in the faith as they are.  Which, in their minds, is nobody. 
We didn't even provide enough security in Libya for our diplomatic personnel.
What chance does the new Libyan government have? 

 In Libya, we didn't even provide security for our diplomatic personnel on the ground there, so one has to wonder how much the new weak Libyan government can depend on the US providing it's security as radical groups seek to topple and replace it.  

While Carter could make the excuse he had no idea what a growing threat radical Islam would turn out to be for the next 35 years when he helped set up the worlds first Islamic jihad Republic, Obama has no such excuse.  

After the rise of violent radical Islamism there is no possible justification for passively allowing other countries to fall under the sway of such radicals.  2-3 more Irans fomenting terror and jihad across the globe for the next couple of decades could end up being Obama's big legacy.  Carter has spent 35+ years vigorously running from his legacy of a radicalized Iran.  Obama very well could end up doing the same from Egypt and - if we fail in Libya - there also.  

And all the while this current crisis is going on, Obama's playing will-I-or-won't-I-make-time-to-see-Netanyahu?  Pathetic.  We're likely to be in a shooting war soon on Israel's side in the next year if they have to strike Iran over it's nuclear weapon's program and this clueless dick is playing to his anti-Israel base in a crisis build-up because getting re-elected is his #1 priority.  

Which is why with reports of other embassies coming under attack, Obama decided to jet off to Vegas for his regularly scheduled fundraiser.  The optics of that were beyond horrible.  Who is advising this President?  



Hillary Clinton trying to comically sell the idea that Libyan's parading the body of our dead ambassador for the cameras were actually 'bravely' trying to rush him to the hospital will be lampooned for years.  Desperate to avoid a rehash of Mogadishu, in which bodies of American servicemen were paraded through the streets, Hillary descended into comedy trying to spin it.  

Serious questions need to be asked as to why the diplomatic personnel at that consulate had no protection, why security was not increased on 9-11, and if there was indeed intelligence of a coming attack that was ignored.  

The media has had 3 days to ask such questions and thus far has refused to do so, instead focusing on Mitt Romney like he's the real problem or something.  

This election can't come soon enough.  

UPDATE: 

The White House has now gone beyond farce.  Jay Carney insisted today that a single video posted on YouTube has caused all the rioting and protesting we've seen this past week in over 20 different countries.  Like Obama had all the fires put out, worked his magic with that Cairo speech in 2009, and everything in the Middle East was just hunky-dory................and then some prick posted a YouTube video and ruined everything. 

Watch Jay Carney trying to sell this to the White House press corp: 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/carney-global-protests-directed-at-offensive-video-not-u-s-policy-or-the-obama-administration/
Byron York has a column at The Washington Examiner on this desperate attempt by the White House to avoid admitting it's Middle East polices are now in shambles; 


They are not victims of circumstances beyond their control here.  They failed to anticipate anything happening on 9-11, didn't ensure the security of our embassy in Cairo or of the consulate in Benghazi, got caught flat-footed, and now it's blown up into a huge crisis.  Obama & Co. spent 3 1/2 years creating a power vacuum in the Middle East.  This was supposed to be the 'smart' thing to do, hitting that 'reset' button by drastically limiting American power in the region.  

Obama's simplistic view that Islamic hatred of the West starts and ends with Gitmo, EIT's and Israel led him to think by ending EIT's, promising to close Gitmo and keeping Israel at arms length he was 'fixing' the things at the root of Islamic animosity to the United States.  

From the way he's reacted to events this week, it's clear he hasn't learned a goddamn thing.  

UPDATE II: The day after the State Department informs the media it's done talking about the attack just 4 days before on it's undefended consulate in Benghazi in which 4 Americans were killed, CNN breaks the news that Libyan officials had issued warnings to the US that the security situation was deteriorating 3 days before Ambassador Stevens and his coworkers were literally dragged to their deaths.  

 A Libyan man explains that the bloodstains on the column are from one the American staff members who grabbed the edge of the column while he was being dragged to his death, after an attack that killed four Americans on September 11th.

First, the State Departments demand to the media that they might as well stop asking why the security at the consulate was so, you  know, non-existent, because they weren't going to answer any more questions about the attack at all:

The State Department told reporters Friday afternoon that it won’t answer any more questions about the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans until the investigation into the incident 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 position 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 that’s its got,” State Department spokeswoman Victorian Nuland told reporters late Friday afternoon. 
“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 said.
As Ed Morrisey at Hot Air puts it: 
They won’t answer any questions at all while the investigation continues?  That seems awfully convenient, especially since State had the responsibility for securing that mission in Benghazi in the first place — and on the anniversary of 9/11, a time when one might expect some kind of attack attempt.
At the time Ed put that post up, CNN had yet to report this: 


Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

The State Dept. can come out and say they are done talking about this incident, but doesn't take any of the heat off of them.  4 Americans are dead, and if even basic security measures taken at most American embassies & consulates had been followed here, they wouldn't be.  Someone has got to be held accountable.  

Also, nobody sums up the bizarre stupidity & tragedy of this week quite like David Burge, aka @iowahawkblog.  If you're not following him on twitter, you really should be.  







16 comments:

  1. I too miss the days of propping up dictators. And I hate it when foreign elections don't turn out the way I like or best serve U.S. interests.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When the alternative to the dictator is a radical Islamist who wants to export terror to the rest of the world, your GODDAMN RIGHT propping up the dictator is the best policy.

    Carter has spent 35+ years running away from his legacy of a radicalized Iran. Obama could very well end up doing the same with Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unless maybe you live under a dictatorship. Or I guess you're saying the U.S. should get to choose which dictator.

    Unbelievable logic. Contrary to your outdated thinking, the U.S. is not the acknowledged capitol of the world in other countries.

    The good old echo chamber still puttering along. A quick Google search and what do you know? -the Right Wing Blogosphere all making a carter comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are plenty of dictators in the world. What's your short list on the ones we should allowed to be toppled - or even actively use our military to help topple, such as in Ghadaffi's case?

    What would your strategy be for making sure the region doesn't end up destabilized when/if someone even worse than the guy you just helped get rid of ends up in charge there?

    Yes, if you INITIATE action to ensure somebody gets taken out over there, you are responsible for ensuring their replacement isn't worse. If you have trouble grasping that concept, stop wasting my time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So the U.S. initiated action to take Mubarak out? Do you understand sovereignty?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Weird. I wonder why many in the Muslim world hate America. It's a real poser. - JF

    ReplyDelete
  7. Obama very publicly withdrew US support from Mubarak. Maybe you missed that. I seem to recall seeing it on the news. Both financial and military support. That - and that alone - is what allowed the rebels to drive him out.

    And in Libya without our airstrikes the rebels don't take Ghadaffi out.

    Sovereignty isn't the issue. It's taking action to topple a guy and then totally mismanaging the transition to a new government, where you end up with a worse situation than there was before.

    See, Mubarak, for all his faults - and there were many - wasn't into the whole exporting jihad and Islamic revolution thingy. The Muslim Brotherhood? Not so much.

    Ghadaffi used to be into the exporting terror thing and then Ronald Reagan dropped a few missiles on him and he got quiet on that front for about 30 years. No more Lockerbies. Unless the security situation in Libya improves dramatically, there's no way the new gov't there is going to survive coordinated assaults by outside groups looking for a new base for jihad. We needed a bigger footprint there, but that's exactly what the current administration didn't want. They are trying half-measures, and it just got 4 Americans killed.

    And we're going to see more die before this thing plays out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Initiated, withdrew support - same thing? That's not even a viable backtrack on your own words. and I recall Hillary on the box still backing Mubarak after public opinion was already clearly on the side of the people. The Obama administration caved into global opinion and pressure - nothing like what you describe.

      You don't live in Egypt. The people - the goddamn citizens - had it with the corrupt and useless U.S. puppet. They turfed him out. Even if their choice of government turns out to suck just as bad or worse than Mubarak - it is still their choice.

      Delete
    2. Again, you are not getting around this, no matter your attempts at obfuscation. Mubarak is not toppled unless Obama clearly withdrew all financial and military support from him. Which he did. Forthrightly.

      The Muslim Brotherhood now runs Egypt,and as you watch the human rights record of that nation take a huge FRICKEN' nose dive the next couple of years, I want you to remember your arguing with me about it here.

      Mubarak had a bad human rights record? You don't say? Wait'll you see what the Muslim Brotherhood has cooked up for those insufficiently fervent in the correct faith. The Coptic Christians are already finding that out.

      The Shah wasn't all that great on human rights either, BUT we could work with him and keep him moving in the right direction. He was modernizing his country and moving it in the right direction, albeit far too slowly for a perfectionist like Carter. The Ayatollah's? Who turned out to be, oh, only about 100x worse on human rights than the Shah was? They took Iran back to the Middle Ages. They've killed 1,000s of people all across the globe in acts of terror they sponsored.

      The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamic organization. They have many of the same views and beliefs as the Ayatollah's that have been running Iran for over 3 decades. You may view it as a real positive development that real democratic reformers were shut out of that hasty, mismanaged election thereby ensuring only the really radical could win it, but I don't.

      Delete
    3. "Yes, if you INITIATE action to ensure somebody gets taken out over there, you are responsible for ensuring their replacement isn't worse. If you have trouble grasping that concept, stop wasting my time."

      Your argument hinges on INITIATED. You even capitalized it. INITIATED.

      Obama caved in to public opinion and WITHDREW SUPPORT. You can't possibly think that this is the same thing. I know it blows your argument, but it is NOT THE SAME THING. The U.S. has initiated plenty of overseas shenanigans, but this wasn't one of them.

      And read my post again - hint:the last part - in regards to perceiving Mubarak's replacement as a "positive development."

      Delete
  8. Obama's middle east policy is not in shambles because of this week's happenings in the ME, Obama's policies are the cause of this week's happenings in the ME.
    When asked once about his opinion if life begins at conception, Obama replied that that is above his pay grade. Wiping his nose on his sleeve is above this clown's pay grade, much less the actual job of being Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  9. She receіνed the notіοn from сooking piоnееr Βarbara
    Kerr. Аt minimum fifty onе % have got to be com, while primarily up to 75%
    is implemented. Mονe fοrwarԁ 11 miles, and check out properly fοг
    the ѕignаl to Lаupahoehое Point Seаside
    Park on the approprіate.

    My web pаge http://purplerolf19.yolasite.com/

    ReplyDelete
  10. This article gives clear idea in favor of the new
    viewers of blogging, that actually how to do blogging and site-building.


    My homepage :: http://www.kkiz.net/index.php?mid=student&page=2&document_srl=12780

    ReplyDelete
  11. I didn't say that other ways than formal training are not successful, I used to be merely stating that it is unfair to convey that traditional? colleges don't educate us something in any way.
    ;)

    my web-site :: Exercises To stop premature Ejaculation

    ReplyDelete