Investigate Benghazigate

1451690329By Frank Gaffney:

After Iraq was liberated from Saddam Hussein’s despotic misrule, critics denounced the then-incumbent president with the charge that “Bush lied, people died.”  It never ceases to amaze that among the most prominent of those making this slanderous accusation were past and present Democratic legislators who had publicly pronounced exactly what George W. Bush did:  Saddam possessed – and used – weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  And they, like Mr. Bush, had every reason to believe and did believe that such weapons, or worse, might be used again unless his regime were overthrown.

Put simply, there never had been any conscious or deliberate effort to deceive the American people.  Neither did the President seek to deflect responsibility for his actions.  To the contrary, his top political advisor, Karl Rove, subsequently acknowledged that his greatest mistake – at least until he made a centi-million-dollar hash-up of Campaign 2012 – was preventing any official effort from being mounted to counter the calumny about Mr. Bush lying about Iraqi WMD, with the predictable effect of allowing the credibility of the Bush 43 presidency to be destroyed.

By contrast, people did die in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 due to Barack Obama’s policies and he lied about it, repeatedly and knowingly.  This scandalous reality has come to be popularly known as “Benghazigate.”

If we don’t find out what led up to, occurred during and happened afterwards –and the role played by the President and his senior subordinates throughout – there will certainly be more lies and may be more American deaths.

Read more at Center For Security Policy

 

Egypt: Military warns of “disastrous consequences”

egypt tankCBS News:

CAIRO- Egypt’s military warned Saturday of “disastrous consequences” if the crisis that sent tens of thousands of protesters back into the streets is not resolved, signaling the army’s return to an increasingly polarized and violent political scene.

The military said serious dialogue is the “best and only” way to overcome the nation’s deepening conflict over a disputed draft constitution hurriedly adopted by Islamist allies of President Mohammed Morsi, and recent decrees granting himself near-absolute powers.

“Anything other than that (dialogue) will force us into a dark tunnel with disastrous consequences; something which we won’t allow,” the statement said.

Failing to reach a consensus, “is in the interest of neither side. The nation as a whole will pay the price,” it added. The statement was read by an unnamed military official on state television.

Egypt’s once all-powerful military, which temporarily took over governing the country after the revolution that ousted autocratic leader Hosni Mubarak, has largely been sidelined since handing over power to Morsi weeks after his election.

But it has begun asserting itself again, with soldiers sealing off the presidential palace with tanks and barbed wire, as rival protests and street battles between Morsi’s supporters and his opponents turned increasingly violent.

The statement said the military “realizes its national responsibility in protecting the nation’s higher interests” and state institutions.

At least six civilians have been killed and several offices of the president’s Muslim Brotherhood set on fire since the crisis began on Nov. 22. The two sides also have staged a number of sit-ins around state institutions, including the presidential palace where some of the most violent clashes occurred.

Images of the military’s elite Republican Guards unit surrounding the area around the palace showed one of the most high-profile troop deployment since the army handed over power to Morsi on June 30.

The innocents abroad: Obama’s foreign policy is characterized

Obama briefed in Oval Office on Libya (Pete Souza/White House)

By John Bolton:

Barack Obama’s badly flawed worldview and the incoherent foreign policy flowing from it have now disintegrated. Within the past few months, his media acolytes notwithstanding, the evidence has become conclusive: Obama’s presidency is gravely wounding America and its friends. His response to virtually every significant threat or crisis has either complicated or worsened the problem, or, at best, left it essentially no closer to resolution.

Obama has repeatedly highlighted his propensity to apologize for America’s past transgressions (as he defines them), and his disinclination to be assertive on our behalf. Indeed, so radically different is Obama from any prior American president that many observers have concluded that he has a comprehensive plan, and that somewhere in all that mess there must be a doctrine. Others look not for a plan, but for a plot; pop psychology and conspiracy theories abound as to why Obama is so comfortable, even enthusiastic, about American decline.

But it is folly to look for rhyme and reason when there is neither. For better or worse, there is no single dispositive flaw in Obama’s doctrine, since there is little that resembles a doctrine. His saunter through world affairs is unstructured. Instead, the explanation for his policy’s failure, and its well-deserved collapse now unfolding before us, lies in a jumbled mix of philosophy, political priorities, and personal inadequacy. Like Obama’s presidency generally, his national-security flaws combine ideology, naïveté, weakness, lack of leadership, intellectual laziness, and a near-religious faith in negotiation for its own sake.

Perhaps most significantly, Obama is simply not interested in foreign and defense policy. To state such a proposition about a U.S. president seems counterintuitive or even shocking, but Obama is different from all of his predecessors, Republican or Democrat, since Franklin Roosevelt. His first thought on awakening each morning is not about threats to America, its global interests, and its friends and allies, but about his efforts to radically restructure our economy and society. That is where his intellect and his heart are focused, and his lack of attention to the rest of the world is palpable. When Obama has no other choice but to concentrate on international affairs–such as during the Afghanistan surge or the killing of Osama bin Laden–he will do so, but only for as long as is necessary to address the immediate problem before him.

So what emerges from a president who is basically uninterested in  foreign affairs, who doesn’t see our manifold threats and challenges as  worthy of presidential time and energy, who repeatedly stresses devotion  to negotiations that are divorced from their substantive outcome, and  who believes that multilateral fora rather than American resolve and  power can address foreign problems?

In those few national-security areas where Obama does his homework, a second characteristic predominates: He simply does not see much occurring internationally that threatens American interests. Such a benign view of a chaotic world may be even more shocking than his general lack of interest, but it is yet another reflection of his underlying intellectual laziness. He is most politely described as credulous and inexperienced, especially for someone who lived overseas as a child. During both the 2008 campaign and his presidency, for example, Obama has downplayed the very concept of a “global war on terror,” treated nuclear proliferation as a side issue, and ignored the enormous strategic threats posed by a rising China and a belligerent Russia. American decline, most recently reflected in S&P’s downgrade of America’s sovereign debt to France’s level, is untroubling and even natural to him.

In days gone by, Americans with such attitudes were classified as isolationists. But the president is no advocate of insularity, instead choosing multilateralism and expressing it in rhetoric that could have come straight from its source, Woodrow Wilson. It was Wilson, after all, and not our first community-organizer president, who insisted that “there must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power, not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace.” Here is the ideology of negotiation and global governance in its fullest flower.

Radical as Obama is, his worldview is not dissimilar from those of a long line of liberal presidential candidates, stretching back decades. In 1988, for example, Vice President George H. W. Bush said of his November opponent, Michael Dukakis: “He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe.” Precisely the same could be said about Obama. The only significant difference is that Obama made it to the White House, and Dukakis didn’t. This is why, two years ago in Standpoint magazine, I called Obama our first “post-American President,” one unburdened by American exceptionalism.

So what emerges from a president who is basically uninterested in foreign affairs, who doesn’t see our manifold threats and challenges as worthy of presidential time and energy, who repeatedly stresses devotion to negotiations that are divorced from their substantive outcome, and who believes that multilateral fora rather than American resolve and power can address foreign problems? The now-indisputable answer is a failing, collapsing U.S. foreign policy.

Read more at American Enterprise Institute

Related articles

Michele Bachmann: The real goal behind the recent Muslim attacks is the criminalization of criticism of Islam

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last” Winston Churchill

Michele Bachmann at Voters Value Summit, Family Research Council, gives an excellent speech explaining what’s really going on with the recent Muslim attacks on US foreign ministries: the international criminalization of all communications considered denigration of Islam. She lays the blame on Obama’s dangerous foreign policy of appeasement and offers a plan of what must be done to correct the situaton.

For the full transcript of the speech go to Politico