Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category
People who didn’t see the Obama-O’Reilly confrontation on Super Bowl Sunday should follow this link to read the transcript of the interview. Saying that President Obama didn’t look at the top of his game is understatement. Here’s something where President Obama looked foolish:
O’REILLY: All right.
Was it the biggest mistake of your presidency to tell the nation over and over, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?
OBAMA: Oh, Bill, you’ve got a long list of my mistakes of my presidency…
O’REILLY: But, no, really, for you…
OBAMA: — as I’ve (INAUDIBLE)…
O’REILLY: — wasn’t that the biggest one?
OBAMA: But this is — this is one that I regret and I’ve said I regretted, in part because we put in a grandfather clause in the original law saying that, in fact, you were supposed to be able to keep it. It obviously didn’t cover everybody that we needed to and that’s why we changed it, so that we further grandfathered in folks and many people who thought originally, when they got that cancellation notice, they couldn’t keep it or not (INAUDIBLE)…
That’s an outright lie. It wasn’t a mistake that the grandfather clause offered little protection. It was intentionally written to force people off of their health insurance policies and into the exchanges. To quote Charles Krauthammer, it wasn’t a glitch. It was a feature.
President Obama’s deceitfulness hurt him in this exchange, too:
O’REILLY: All right. Libya, House Armed Services testimony, General Carter Ham, you know, the general?
OBAMA: Yes. Right.
O’REILLY: Security in Africa.
O’REILLY: He testified that on the day that the ambassador was murdered and the three other Americans, all right, he told Secretary Panetta it was a terrorist attack. Shortly after Ham, General Ham, said that, Secretary Panetta came in to you.
O’REILLY: Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack?
OBAMA: You know what he told me was that there was an attack on our compound…
O’REILLY: He didn’t tell you…he didn’t use the word “terror?”
OBAMA: You know, in the heat of the moment, Bill, what folks are focused on is what’s happening on the ground, do we have eyes on it, how can we make sure our folks are secure…
O’REILLY: Because I just want to get this on the record…did he tell you it was a terror attack?
OBAMA: Bill — and what I’m — I’m answering your question. What he said to me was, we’ve got an attack on our compound. We don’t know yet…
O’REILLY: No terror attack?
OBAMA: We don’t know yet who’s doing it. Understand, by definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound. That’s an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened. So the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?
O’REILLY: But it’s more than that…because of Susan Rice.
OBAMA: No, it…
O’REILLY: It’s more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration…off a videotape but your…
O’REILLY: — your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it’s a terror attack…
OBAMA: Now, Bill…
O’REILLY: — I’m just confused.
OBAMA: And I’m trying to explain it to, if you want to listen. The fact of the matter is is that people understood, at the time, something very dangerous was happening, that we were focused on making sure that we did everything we can, to protect them. In the aftermath, what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions and that needed to be taken were taken and both myself and Secretary Clinton and others indicated as much.
First, it shouldn’t have taken time to know that security was lax. Ambassabor Stevens had been screaming at the top of his lungs that al-Qa’ida was gaining strength in eastern Libya. There was a gigantic hole in the wall at the consulate. Secretary Clinton and President Obama both should’ve known about that because that isn’t routine information that’s handled by people low in the food chain. That’s information they need to know about. That’s why I’m certain that both of them knew about the deteriorating conditions in Benghazi.
It’s more than that, though. O’Reilly is right in identifying Susan Rice’s appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows as a game-changing event. There’s no reason for the administration to send out someone who wasn’t properly informed. That’s if you believe that she was ill-informed, which I don’t believe. If she spred misinformation on those shows, then we’re looking at an administration lying to protect themselves during a political campaign.
This part is especially damning:
OBAMA: Bill, listen, I’ve gone through this and we have had multiple hearings on it. What happens is you have an attack like this taking place and you have a mix of folks who are just troublemakers. You have folks who have an ideological agenda.
O’REILLY: All right.
OBAMA: You have some who are affiliated with terrorist organizations. You have some that are not. But the main thing that all of us have to take away from this is our diplomats are serving in some very dangerous places.
The attacks weren’t random acts of violence. The military knew within moments that this was a well-coordinated attack executed with military precision. Right before Rice appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer interviewed the Libyan president. Libya’s president said without hesitation that this was a terrorist attack carried out with military precision.
Rice then insists that it was the result of a riot that started because people objected to an internet video by an obscure videographer. That’s utterly laughable, especially considering the fact that most people in northern Africa don’t have access to the internet.
By this point, President Obama is clearly frustrated. He’s frustrated because the lapdog media doesn’t insist on getting to the bottom of things. This exchange shows how frustrated President Obama is:
O’REILLY: I’ve got to get to the IRS…
O’REILLY: but I just want to say that they’re, your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out.
OBAMA: Bill, think about…
O’REILLY: That’s what they believe.
OBAMA: — and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.
O’REILLY: No, I’m not telling them that.
O’REILLY: I’m asking you whether you were told…
OBAMA: But — and what I’m saying is…
O’REILLY: — it was a terror attack and you…
OBAMA: — and what I’m saying is that is inaccurate.
First, President Obama accuses O’Reilly of telling lies to the people. Then he says that he simply asked a question. Finally, he said that O’Reilly said some things that weren’t accurate.
Essentially, what happened is that President Obama accused a journalist of lying to the people; when that didn’t work, he insisted that he was simply asking a question. When that didn’t work, President Obama resorted to form by accusing Mr. O’Reilly of people inaccurate information.
What’s inescapable is the fact that President Obama isn’t skilled at truthfully and fully answering tough questions. It’s easy to see it frustrates him.
This article shows that congressional Democrats aren’t interested in getting to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. They’re more interested in protecting their political flanks than finding out why this administration was caught flat-footed with Benghazi:
Retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering has agreed to be deposed by Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) Oversight panel on June 3 after being threatened with a subpoena. Democrats say they’re wary of a trap, and want to be able to counter what they say is Issa’s habit of leaking “cherry-picked” portions of witnesses’ testimonies to the press.
“If it’s true to form, if it’s a closed deposition, his staff [will] cherry pick content and leak it once again to the press that’s only too willing to print it,” panel member Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told The Hill. “It might be grossly inaccurate. In fact, it may be the opposite of what’s being asserted. But by the time somebody gets around to reporting that, if they ever do, the damage is done.”
That’s rich. The Democrats are complaining that the press isn’t giving them a fair shake. That isn’t the full extent of the Democrats’ PR tactics:
Democrats say Pickering and his co-author, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, should be able to defend their report in a public hearing. Pickering could not be reached for comment.
“House Republicans have politicized this investigation from the beginning, and they have recklessly accused Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen of being complicit in a cover-up,” said the panel’s ranking member, Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). “It is time for the Chairman to honor his commitment to hold a hearing to allow these officials to respond to these reckless accusations, instead of imposing new conditions to keep them from testifying. Members of Congress and the American people should hear directly from these officials, in public, and the Chairman’s efforts to keep them behind closed doors undermines the Committee’s credibility and does a disservice to the truth.”
Trey Gowdy explains why the committee is deposing witnesses:
The goal of a deposition, oversight panel member Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) told The Hill, is to get “the full facts.”
“It’s hard to unlock the mysteries in five-minute increments in a committee hearing,” Gowdy said. “So if you want to find out what happened and who he interviewed, what questions he asked, why he didn’t interview certain people, you need to do it in a deposition.”
These investigations aren’t a witch hunt. They’re part of a real investigation, complete with initial questions that establish a base of facts, followed by the rarest of things in Washington, DC: thoughtful followup questions. That’s what happened during a bygone era when investigations went where the facts took them. That’s what happened when investigations found the truth and let the political chips fall where they may.
Speaking of political chips falling where they may, this speaks directly to that:
Democrats say Issa’s real target is Clinton, the presumptive Democratic front-runner for the 2016 presidential election.
It’s possible Hillary will suffer political consequences as a result of her mismanagement. Had she made the right decisions, she wouldn’t be getting criticized for making a string of stunningly foolish decisions about the security forces in Benghazi.
It’s time to detonate the ‘Republicans are politicizing Benghazi’ storyline. Foolish decisions were made. American patriots died as a direct result of Hillary Clinton’s shoddy decisionmaking. Hillary lied when she told the diplomats’ families that a video caused the terrorist attack was done to protect a president during a political campaign.
If Hillary gets tarnished because Republicans ask intelligent questions about what happened in Benghazi, then it’ll be because Hillary made foolish decisions. It isn’t because Republicans politicized the Benghazi terrorist attack.
Finally, there’s this:
Democrats say they should have been given a chance to interview Mark Thompson, the State Department’s acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, ahead of the May 8 hearing. They say his Republican attorney, Joseph diGenova, shielded him from Democrats.
Issa strongly denied interfering during the hearing.
“Mr. Thompson, is it your decision who you talk to?” he asked. “And did any of my people ever tell you not to talk to the Democratic minority?”
“No,” Thompson answered.
The Democrats’ accusations are essentially empty. They’ve had the right to access witnesses and ask questions. It isn’t Chairman Issa’s fault that these whistleblowers’ testimony is making the administration look bad.
When I watched Fox News Sunday yesterday, I couldn’t believe what I’d just heard. This video of Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham was stunning for reasons that will become clear to everyone who watches it:
Here’s a partial transcript of the jawdropping parts:
SEN. DURBIN: What I find hard to accept — I have to disagree with my friend Sen. Graham — is this notion about the president’s foreign policy. The president has been a strong and steady leader. We have responsibly ended the war in Iraq. We are going to end the war in Afghanistan. Al-Qa’ida is a shadow of its former self. Osama bin Laden is moldering in some watery grave somewhere. And we’ve now put enough pressure on Iran with the sanctions regime that they won’t develop a nuclear weapon that they now want to sit down and talk. These are all positive things.
This is incredible. For the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate to say that “al-Qa’ida is shadow of its former self” is heaping dirt on Christopher Stevens’ grave. Do the pictures from Benghazi look like al-Qa’ida is “a shadow of its former self”? Does Sen. Durbin think that the al-Qa’ida flag flying at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is proof of his insulting statement?
This is what’s known as Sen. Durbin taking one for the team.
It’s jawdropping that Sen. Durbin could say that this administration had “responsibly ended the war in Iraq” when al-Qa’ida is rebuilding in western Iraq:
Iraqi and U.S. officials say al Qaeda is rebuilding in Iraq.
The officials say the extremist group has set up training camps for insurgents in the nation’s western deserts, seizing on regional instability and government security failures.
Iraq has seen a jump in al Qaeda attacks over the last 10 weeks, and officials believe most of the fighters are former prisoners who have either escaped from jail or were released by Iraqi authorities for lack of evidence after the U.S. military withdrawal last December. Many are said to be Saudi or from Sunni-dominated Gulf states.
During the war and its aftermath, U.S. forces, joined by allied Sunni groups and later by Iraqi counterterror forces, managed to beat back al Qaeda’s Iraqi branch.
But now, Iraqi and U.S. officials say, the insurgent group has more than doubled in numbers from a year ago to about 2,500 fighters. And Pentagon data shows it is carrying out an average of 140 attacks a week.
As a direct result of the Obama administration’s failure to put in place an agreement with the Iraqi government to keep troops strategically positioned in Iraq, al-Qa’ida is now rebuilding, training and carrying out attacks inside Iraq.
That isn’t the only place where al-Qa’ida and their affiliates are regrouping, as Sen. Graham points out in this last word:
Iraq is falling apart. Bin Laden may be dead. Al-Qa’ida is on the rise. If you don’t believe me, visit the training camps that have sprung up after we left. Syria is a contagion affecting the region. Thirty-two thousand people have been killed while we’ve been doing nothing. Islamic extremists are beginning to infiltrate Syria.
Sen. Graham effectively dismantled Sen. Durbin’s statements that al-Qa’ida “is a shadow of its former self” with a blistering recitation of indisputable facts. What part of building new training camps in western Iraq and carrying out 140 terrorist attacks a week sounds like “al-Qa’ida is a shadow of its former self”?
It isn’t a secret that Sen. Graham isn’t my picture of a conservative. That said, he’s done a great job of laying out the facts about al-Qa’ida’s resurgence since President Obama discontinued the Bush Doctrine. Thanks to that foolish decision, al-Qa’ida is building new bases throughout north Africa, Pakistan, Syria and Iraq.
If that’s Sen. Durbin’s picture of “responsibly ending the war in Iraq”, then he’s a too irresponsible to trust foreign policy and national security to.
Prior to this presidential campaign, I’d always thought of Juan Williams as an honorable man despite being a hopeless liberal. I’ve never thought of him as a towering liberal intellect.
Williams’ op-ed reinforces that image:
So if Romney chooses to go back to the topic of Libya he is taking a big risk. It again could prove to be a blind alley where he gets mugged a second time. Meanwhile both sides fear any factual slip or glaring lack of knowledge in this last debate before the election. That fear is large in the Romney camp as they prepare a candidate with no foreign policy experience.
If anyone’s at risk on the subject of Libya, it’s President Obama. He’s the one who’s lied about the timeline of events. It’s his administration that’s went from one explanation to another to another.
If Mitt wants to paint President Obama into a corner, he’d highlight how the Obama State Department monitored the 5-hour-long gunfight in Benghazi as it happened. He’d highlight the cables from Ambassador Christopher Stevens requesting more security forces for Benghazi. He’d highlight the fact that, if Vice President Biden can be believed, the State Department didn’t communicate with the White House on the rise of al-Qa’ida terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
What Juan Williams apparently doesn’t get is that this administration’s policies got a diplomatic team killed.
Romney scored a major win in that first, Denver debate. His poll numbers continue to climb. But after Obama’s win in the second debate will that surge come to a halt?
The answer will likely be based on President Obama’s success in the third debate.
Two specific sets of voters, women and young people, will be at the heart of judging the winner.
In the first debate Romney was able to reach out to women voters and his rise in the polls is tied to his success in racing into a basic tie for the women’s vote, at least according to some polls.
In the foreign policy debate the president will want to appeal to women as a level-headed leader while portraying Romney as a man who wants more wars.
Talk about disgusting. Williams wants President Obama to “appeal to women as a level-headed leader” after this administration ignored the growing threat posed by al-Qa’ida affiliates in Libya, Mali, North Africa and western Iraq?
That might’ve worked if he’d put a higher priority on dismantling terrorist networks than he paid to picking off high-ranking al-Qa’ida terrorists one-at-a-time.
Americans are starved for true leadership. That isn’t something they’ve seen from this administration.
Mitt Romney can clinch a victory in November by showing the leadership traits and attention to detail that haven’t been seen during this administration.
When Karl Rove released this ad, appropriately titled The World, I knew it would cause tons of heartburn for President Obama’s re-election team:
Little did I know that NBC’s David Gregory was going to question David Plouffe as vigorously as he did. Here’s a key part of their confrontation:
GREGORY: Was it inappropriate for him to go to a fund-raiser the day after this attack now in retrospect knowing that it was a– a terrorist attack, the– inappropriate for him to engage in politics as usual?
MR. PLOUFFE: No. The president obviously is 24/7 engaged in the job of the presidency. He’s spent an enormous amount of time in these– these weeks by the way in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, so absolutely not. The president is on call 24/7 and that just comes with the job.
GREGORY: 24/7, but apparently not during U.N. meetings as The New York Post highlighted here, the question about whether there was a snub not meeting with the Israeli leader, the president is on The View, this is U.N. world leaders to gab with the gals of The View that was the headline in The New York Post with their own point of view there. But is this– is he– is he not performing all the critical role of– of the presidency, particularly with the foreign policy crisis? With so many questions about management of the Middle East, when you have a key United Nations gathering, not to meet with world leaders, including Netanyahu at a time of so much concern over Iran?
MR. PLOUFFE: This president has been obviously in constant contact throughout these four years with world leaders. He’s obviously been in deep consultation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Obviously our administration has been in deep consultation with the defense and intelligence agencies in Israel. So this president has been very, very focused on strengthening our alliances. He’s built an unprecedented global effort in terms of sanctions against Iran. So this president has led and I think the question, you know, we do have an election coming up. This president committed a few things to the American people in 2008. He would restore and rebuild alliances. He would end the war in Iraq. He would find and make sure that bin Laden was brought to justice and we would (Unintelligible) al Qaeda. He’s done all those things. By the way, look at– let’s talk about Governor Romney’s response during this. You know, in the– in the hours as these attacks became known in Libya and the assaults on our embassy in Egypt, Mitt Romney throws out some half-baked statement. And I think that’s one of the reasons…
GREGORY: But the government– wait, but the United States government had to also disavow its own statement that came out of the embassy in Cairo that some might also call half-baked and had to be revised, did it not?
MR. PLOUFFE: Well, here’s the– people– you know, there– presidential campaigns are a window and I think it raises just as the forty-seven percent commented questions in the shadow of the election–can I trust this person to be our commander-in-chief and our president?
While world leaders were conducting bilateral meetings at the U.N., President Obama was jokingly telling the ladies of The View that he was just supposed to be eye candy.
This raises the question of how serious President Obama is about providing solutions to the multiple disturbing hotspots across the Middle East, north Africa and southwest Asia. Why should people take him seriously about being the leader of the free world when he’s more interested in appearing on The View?
Why shouldn’t serious people question his commitment to fortifying American embassies and consulates for the anniversary of 9/11?
President Obama risks being called President Eye Candy because he put a higher priority on appearing on the view than he put on investigating the multi-phased terrorist attack on the consulate in one of the biggest recruiting hotbeds in north Africa.
In 1979, Islamic extremists raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. They held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. In 1983, U.S. Marines were ordered out of Beirut after a massive attack killed 241 Marines. In 1993, the Clinton administration ordered U.S. troops out of Somalia after al-Qa’ida terrorists shot down a U.S. Blackhawk helicopter in Mogadishu.
UBL summarized the lesson al-Qa’ida learned from those experiences during an interview with ABC News’ John Miller:
Miller: You have said, “If the Americans are so brave they will come and arrest me.” Do you think that is something my country will try?
Bin Ladin: We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions, showing they can run in less than twenty-four hours. This was then repeated in Somalia.
It’s easy to understand why UBL reached that conclusion. His mistake isn’t that Americans haven’t fled hotspots. It isn’t just that Americans have looked impotent. It’s that American presidents have contributed to U.S. soldiers looking impotent by having them flee after terrorist attacks.
The lesson that President Bush learned from these lessons is that terrorists are terrified when U.S. soldiers don’t hide from adversity. Terrorists are most worried when U.S. soldiers run towards hotspots. Unfortunately, President Obama didn’t learn that lesson. He ‘learned’ that it’s best to be timid, to talk in civil tones to barbarians. That’s what he did here:
The president said the disputed election would not change his belief in greater diplomatic efforts with Iran.
“I have always felt that, as odious as I feel some of President Ahmadinejad ‘s statements (are), as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on core issues, the use of tough hard headed diplomacy, diplomacy without illusions, is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of national security interests,” the president said. “We will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries.”
That’s what ABC’s Kristina Wong wrote on June 15, 2009 during the Green Revolution. What the Iranian mullahs heard was that President Obama was giving them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. They essentially heard President Obama say he was ambivalent to the protests.
A short 39 months later, North Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia have erupted in anti-American violence. The people serving in the U.S. embassy in Pakistan are only safe because the embassy compound is surrounded with a wall of tear gas. The consulate and annex, aka the safehouse, in Benghazi, Libya are decimated, the ruins the product of a well-planned, coordinated terrorist attack.
This is a great political opportunity for Mitt Romney because it’s a great opportunity for him to explain his vision and strategy for the Middle East, Southwest Asia and North Africa. Simply saying that a Romney administration would a) have an open door relationship with Israel, b) use covert assets to prevent terrorist attacks and c) condition foreign aid on nations’ willingness to partner with the U.S. in preventing the security nightmares currently erupting around the Mediterranean.
That would dramatically differentiate Mitt’s foreign policy from President Obama’s failed foreign policy.
Tags: Paper Tiger, Blackhawk Down, Somalia, Bill Clinton, Beirut, President Reagan, Tehran, Hostage Crisis, Ayatollah Khomeini, Jimmy Carter, Benghazi, Pakistan, Terrorist Attacks, Embassies, President Obama, Israel, Covert Operations, Foreign Aid, National Security, Mitt Romney, GOP, Election 2012
During his speech at the Democrats’ convention, Vice President Biden asked whether Osama bin Laden was better off now than he was 4 years ago. Since he set that benchmark, it’s only fair to use that criteria across North Africa and the Middle East. Charles Krauthammer’s column provides proof that life’s pretty good for some disgusting people:
Iran repeatedly defies U.S. demands on nuclear enrichment, then, as a measure of its contempt for what America thinks, openly admits that its Revolutionary Guards are deployed in Syria. Russia, after arming Assad, warns America to stay out, while the secretary of state delivers vapid lectures about Assad “meeting” his international “obligations.” The Gulf states beg America to act on Iran; Obama strains mightily to restrain…Israel. Sovereign U.S. territory is breached and U.S. interests are burned.
Life couldn’t get much better for state sponsors of terrorism and traditional American enemies. They know that they’re on easy street. They know President Obama’s foreign policy of appeasement is good for bad guy business.
In a very real sense, Iran, Russia and Syria are much better off today than they were 4 years ago. In fact, it won’t take long before Iran’s mullahs will be insufferable and unstoppable. Just a little more enrichment and they’ll have a nuclear weapon. By any sane administration’s measure, that means Iran is the biggest winner in President Obama’s high-stakes gamble.
Meanwhile, trusted allies like Israel and Poland were thrown under the bus. President Obama sent the final unmistakable message to Israel when he accepted a meeting with Egyptian President Morsi while refusing to meet with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu or Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
President Obama’s message to the Israelis was simple: Drop dead. We don’t care.
Another unmistakable message this administration sent was during the protests of the rigged Iranian elections of 2009. This administration’s message to the protesters was equally clear: Drop dead. We’re siding with the mullahs, not with Iran’s freedom-loving people.
Things are badly wrong when the people that should fear the US are smiling and the people that trust the US are worried and fidgeting. That’s where we’re at right now.
To adapt a phrase from a legendary story, there’s no joy in Worldville tonight. The One just made the world a nastier neighborhood.
President Obama’s insistence that he’s Israel’s best friend is taking a beating, especially after reading this article:
Tensions between Israel and the current U.S. administration further deteriorated last week when President Barack Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his upcoming visit to New York, where he will address the UN General Assembly.
The White House insisted that the meeting would not take place due to the president’s pressing “campaign obligations” which would take him out of New York.
Obama has further snubbed Israeli leaders by refusing to meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will also be in New York next week, WND news station reported.
Barak is scheduled to attend the 2012 Clinton Global Initiative, an annual summit of high-powered political and business leaders scheduled to overlap with the U.N. General Assembly.
While the President has not cited any pressing “campaign obligations” that would take him out of New York during Barak’s visit, he has, nonetheless, refused a meeting, WND reported.
While Obama will not meet any Israeli leader during their visits to New York, he will, however, find time to meet with Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi.
It’s insulting to Israel and to the Jewish community in the United States that President Obama refuses to meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during what I refer to as UN week.
President Obama’s insistence that he’s Israel’s best friend is spin based on his hope that he won’t get hurt too badly in Florida by his hostility towards Israel. President Obama knows that he’s been the most hostile, anti-Israeli president in this nation’s history.
The fact that he’s meeting with Egyptian President Morsi, whose government didn’t attempt to protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on 9/11, proves that President Obama hates Israel.
The question isn’t whether the Obama administration will backtrack from Ambassador Rice’s statement. It’s just a question of whether the media will report their backtracking. Here’s the insulting thing Ambassador Rice said:
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. American Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to, or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
The administration will retract Ambassador Rice’s statement, possibly before the Vikings-Colts kickoff, especially after Drudge posted this article:
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.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.
He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn’t good for international business.
“The situation is frightening, it scares us,” Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.
Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.
This administration has difficulty admitting that their decisions and policies have been disasters. There’s no excuse for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi to be operating in business-as-usual mode.
Ed Morrissey is all over this story with this post:
That comes as news to the Libyan government, which has now arrested 50 people in connection to the murders and the attack on the consulate. Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf told CBS’ Face the Nation that the attack was planned for months by people who had infiltrated Libya from other nations specifically for the attack:
About 50 arrests have been made in connection with the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in which the American Ambassador and three other consulate employees were killed, and some of the suspects involved are from outside the country, Libya’s president told CBS News.
In an interview for “Face the Nation” Sunday, President Mohamed Magariaf also said that evidence “leaves us with no doubt” that the attack was pre-planned.
“It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” he told Bob Schieffer.
The networks aren’t providing cover for the Obama administration, leaving them with no option except admitting that Ambassador Rice was lying through her teeth on national TV. In fact, it’s a matter of when, not if.
Liberal journalist after liberal journalist has written about Mitt Romney’s alleged gaffe about the U.S. diplomat’s pre-attack apology. While they piled on, insisting that Mitt had committed political suicide, they ignored the fact that President Obama’s Middle East policies had failed dismally.
I’ve disagreed with her policy beliefs nearly 100% of the time. That doesn’t mean I’m not willing to applaud Kirsten Powers’ calling out other liberal journalists for their willfully ignoring what was actually happening in the Middle East:
Here’s the transcript of Powers’ exchange with Megyn Kelly:
MEGYN KELLY: Kirsten, you wound up having the Obama administration and Mitt Romney agreeing that the embassy statement was not appropriate, and yet the whole media narrative yesterday was how awful Gov. Romney was for pointing it out.
KIRSTEN POWERS: Oh yeah. It’s still the media narrative. And the thing is, the outrage that has been expressed over the fact that Mitt Romney put out this statement has even overshadowed any kind of outrage that you would see over the fact that you have Islamic flags being hoisted over American embassies, the fact that an American ambassador is dead. You just are not seeing the same level of outrage over just the process of what time he put the statement out. It is just absolutely, utterly insane the way that they have elevated this.
And even if we stipulated, Megyn, let’s just stipulate that, for the sake of argument, Romney shouldn’t have done it. I don’t agree with that. It still would not explain the obsession with Romney’s statement over these horrific events that are unfolding.
KELLY: When you’re detecting media, potential media bias, you look back at what would the media have done if this had happened on George Bush’s watch, if we had had these attacks on the embassies and the consulates.
POWERS: Yeah. It would have been completely radically different. Like I said, even if you agree that Mitt Romney did something wrong, OK, look at that, but then let’s also look at the Obama administration. It was just radio silence. They allowed that statement to stay up on an embassy website, which is taken as the official position of the U.S. government. Someone was tweeting from the official account, and they didn’t come out and say a word. So, what’s that about? Why didn’t they know that these attacks were coming? Was Obama getting his intelligence briefings? These are the issues that should be being asked and would be being asked if this had happened on George Bush’s watch.
With images of fires burning throughout the region, from Benghazi to Cairo to Khartoum to Sana’a, the media obsessed over Mitt Romney’s statement criticizing the administration for pre-apologizing for an obscure video. With al Qa’idaesque flags flying at the walls of multiple embassies throughout the region, the media obsessed over Mitt’s justified statement.
The fact is that the media stuck socks in their mouths rather than ask this administration why President Obama’s Cairo speech in April, 2009 seemed for naught. They didn’t ask why he’d praised the Arab Spring 18 months ago but now sat with egg on his face as the Arab Spring has exploded with terrorist flags flying boldly at the U.S.’s Egyptian Embassy.
While it isn’t fair to blame all of the violence on this administration’s policies (terrorists will, from time to time, commit acts of terrorism), it’s more than fair to ask why President Obama is willing to not exert U.S. influence in the region. It’s more than fair to ask why President Obama is essentially abandoning the most troubled region in the world.
Unfortunately for the American people, the Obama media has obsessed with trivialities and bought Jay Carney’s ridiculous statement:
“This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video–a film–that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and–to Muslims.”
Terrorists don’t fear this administration. They aren’t worried that the U.S. will seek retribution for their attacks. They see the U.S. as disinterested and confused.
The good news for the Obama administration is that their lapdog media has stuck a sock in their mouth rather than report that President Obama’s policies have have failed.