More Heavy Weaponry for Syrian Rebels?

reb-450x253

President Obama would do well to focus on far more strategically important concerns to the United States, such as stopping the world’s biggest sponsor of terror, Iran, from acquiring nuclear weapons by whatever means are necessary, and dealing effectively with a resurgent Russia.

by :

President Obama is considering ramping up military support to the Syrian rebels, who are increasingly dominated by jihadists. American anti-tank missiles have already appeared in videos in the hands of rebel forces. According to an April 21st report in Time Magazine, the White House is now considering sending the rebels shoulder-fired surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles known as manpads. In the wrong hands, such missiles could be used to take out commercial aircraft.

Senator John McCain is pushing the Obama administration to take that risk. To combat the Assad regime’s use of barrel bombs dropped on civilian populations from government helicopters, McCain said in a March interview with Time Magazine that he was “willing to take the risk of a manpad, the risk of them falling into the wrong hands.”

McCain’s willingness to take the risk of anti-aircraft missiles getting into the wrong hands is wrong-headed for several reasons.  The most obvious reason is the blowback the United States and its allies will suffer when jihadists fighting in Syria take the weapons they have looted from the so-called “moderate” rebels and use them against us. Nearly half of the rebel fighters are “jihadists or hardline Islamists,” according to a summary by The Telegraph of a report the IHS Jane’s defense consultancy group issued last year. And they are the best trained and equipped forces amongst the Syrian opposition.

Al Qaeda-linked groups have set up training camps in Syria, which they are using to prepare foreign jihadists for their return from Syria to spread their attacks more widely.  This includes jihadists from Western countries such as the Rayat Al-Tawheed group, the British jihadist faction in Syria, that has posted an image of the White House with the caption “Wait a while there will come to you mounts carrying lions in shining armour battalions followed by battalions.” Put weapons capable of shooting down commercial aircraft in the hands of these jihadists and we won’t have to wait awhile before reaping the consequences.

Another reason not to pour such weapons into the Syrian conflict at this stage is that we are way too late to make any material difference in the eventual outcome. Assad is winning the war slowly but surely, with help from Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. The anti-aircraft missiles may have a marginal impact in slowing Assad’s offense down further in some locations. However, they will not be able to completely stop the barrel bombs and other lethal weapons Assad is using with such success against the opposition.

As the intelligence and security news service DEBKAfile explained:

“The newly-armed rebels have gained not much more than the capacity to hold on to their present lines for a while longer. But ultimately, they cannot prevent the combined weight of the Syria army, Hizballah and Iraqi Shiite Iraqis, who continue to stream into Syria, breaking through those lines.”

Vladimir Putin will also be only too happy to further arm the Assad regime and counter anything the U.S. might be sending, if for no other reason than to embarrass Obama.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

CPAC’s Blind Spot

3235888515By Frank Gaffney:

What would you call an issue portfolio that is vital to the future of our country, central to conservatism’s past electoral success and compelling to significant parts of the demographics likely to determine the Right’s future competitiveness? If you were the American Conservative Union, sponsor of the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference, you would evidently call it taboo.

The rest of us would call it the national security.

To be sure, despite a palpable effort by CPAC organizers to low-ball topics addressing the defense and foreign policy challenges of our time, a few speakers nonetheless touched on them.  But the degree to which such issues deserved to be a central focus of the three-day meeting – but weren’t – was made palpable by a parallel, day-long event held on CPAC’s first day under the sponsorship of EMPAct America and Breitbart News Network. I was privileged to have had a hand in organizing and moderating the proceedings.

Dubbed the “National Security Action Summit,” the program featured remarks from nearly forty participants including Senators Ted Cruz and David Vitter and five Members of Congress – Representatives Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Trent Franks, Mo Brooks and Jim Bridenstein.

Among the other highpoints were: a keynote address provided by former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, remarks by Phyllis Schlafly, comments by undercover investigative journalist James O’Keefe and a rousing closing speech by Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro.

Panels addressed topics that were largely ignored by CPAC, but should not have been.  These included: the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its “civilization jihad” and enablers; the dangers inherent in open borders and amnesty to both the country and the GOP; the need for truth-telling and accountability in the Benghazigate scandal; Obama’s endangering of the common defense, evident in and facilitated by his hollowing out of the military; the crisis in the Ukraine and what we should do about it; and the existential threat to our country posed by an electric grid dangerously vulnerable to attack and naturally occurring solar storms.  (Videos of the entire conference can be viewed at www.homelandthreats.com.)

Read more at Center for Security Policy

(Hover over menu item “Latest Events” to access videos of speakers and panels)

Obama Giving Up on Promoting Democracy in Middle East, North Africa

Barack Obama speaks at Cairo University, 2009 / AP

Barack Obama speaks at Cairo University, 2009 / AP

By :

The Obama administration has given up on promoting democracy in the Middle East and North Africa after the initial promise of the so-called Arab Spring yielded violent revolutions, experts say.

President Barack Obama was initially upbeat about the regional protests sparked by a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire. He declared in a May 2011 speech that “it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region and to support transitions to democracy.”

Obama struck a different tone in his address to the United Nations General Assembly last September. The speech was delivered amid the backdrop of a bloody two-year civil war in Syria and a second revolution in Egypt that again installed a military-backed government.

The president listed confronting external aggression against allies, ensuring the free flow of energy, dismantling terrorist networks, and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction as America’s “core interests in the region.” Democracy and human rights were fifth.

Critics say the shift in Obama’s language reflects an incoherent foreign policy in the region that has veered from promoting democracy to prioritizing security.

“The president has clearly shown that political convenience governs his approach to democracy and human rights in the Middle East,” said David Adesnik, a visiting national security fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has studied democracy promotion, in an email. “He ignored the subject as a candidate, then, at the high point of the Arab Spring, he declared that freedom was a ‘top priority’ of U.S. foreign policy.”

“Yet just two years later, he pointedly told the United Nations that democracy and human rights are not one of our ‘core interests’ in the region,” he added. “The bottom line is that Obama has no strategic vision that integrates our principles with our security.”

Critics also point to declining funding for democracy promotion in the Middle East as evidence of the Obama administration’s conflicting approaches.

The administration requested $770 million from Congress in its 2013 budget proposal for a Middle East and North Africa (MENA) “Incentive Fund” that would “provide incentives for long-term economic, political, and trade reforms to countries in transition.” It lowered that request to $580 million in its 2014 budget proposal.

The omnibus spending bill passed by Congress on Thursday night does not provide any money for the MENA fund. It does allocate $130.5 million to a “Democracy Fund” that supports projects of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Cole Bockenfeld, advocacy director for the Project on Middle East Democracy, said in an interview that the elimination of money for the MENA fund was not a surprise.

“It confirms a lot of suspicions that this administration is kind of giving up on democracy promotion and pulling back from some of the transitions,” he said. “You see that in the rhetoric and reflected in the numbers a little bit.”

Read more at Free Beacon

Ignoring Threat from Al Qaeda Endangers Homeland, Experts Warn

Mideast IraqBy :

Witnesses attacked the premise that al Qaeda is no longer a prevalent threat to U.S. national security at a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing Wednesday.

The hearing followed a series of news reports contradicting the administrations long-standing narrative that al Qaeda is “on the run” and “on the path to defeat.” Each witness pushed back on this notion and stressed the importance of a continued U.S. presence in the Middle East.

Former Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.), Gen. Jack Keane, the former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, Former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), and Seth Jones, the associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center all joined Lieberman at the hearing, “A False Narrative Endangers the Homeland.”

Lieberman warned that political promises shouldn’t be allowed to endanger the nation’s security.

“[When] President Obama ran for office in 2008 and again in 2012, one of the basic things he said he would change … was that he was going to get us out of the wars we were in and not get us in the regional wars around the world,” said Lieberman.

“Sometimes the world doesn’t cooperate with a presidential narrative, and I think that’s where we are … in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, where if you don’t do something more than we’re doing now, they’re going to tip over.”

Others criticized the decision of the Obama administration to “pivot” toward threats emanating from Asia.

“I know intellectually we like to talk about pivoting to the East because of the emergence of China. … We can’t be serious about that,” said Keane.

“The fact of the matter is we have huge problems in the Middle East that threaten the United States. … In Libya and Syria they just want us to help them. They don’t want our troops. And in Iraq, where we did help them, we walked away and look at the mess we have as a result. That should inform us how dangerous this situation is and how important an American commitment is to stay engaged, and we have to do that in order to protect the American people.”

Jones echoed Keane’s point.

“As much as we would like this war and struggle to end, there are organizations committed to fighting Americans and conducting attacks overseas that will not end. They don’t have a desire to end this,” he said.

Read more at Free Beacon

Also see 

 

 

Now Bob Gates Tells Us

3667505510Center For Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

For most of the past five years, President Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of American national security policy, practice and capabilities has largely gotten a pass from the public, the press and even his political opponents. Indeed, his reelection in 2012 was made possible in no small measure by Team Obama’s substantially uncontested claims that his leadership had put al Qaeda “on the path to defeat,” “ended the war in Iraq” and successfully set the course for doing the same in Afghanistan.

Two developments last week may mark the beginning of a far more realistic view of the Obama record – and the opportunity, at last, for the sort of corrective actions that are long overdue.  Afghanistan features prominently in both.

First, selected pre-publication leaks of a new memoir by Mr. Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, offered authoritative insights into the politicized nature of the administration’s decision-making on Afghanistan and other security issues. The Commander-in-Chief is shown to profoundly distrust the military. He and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledge playing politics with U.S. policy on Iraq. And Vice President Biden and the recently departed National Security Advisor Tom Donilon are shown to be seriously lacking in judgment, at best, and utterly incompetent at worst.  Of Biden, Gates correctly points out that he has been “wrong about every major foreign policy issue for forty years.”

Gates’ book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, rocketed to the best-seller lists as pundits and politicians parsed its criticisms of his former boss and colleagues. Particularly noteworthy are his accounts of the fury he claims to have felt at White House officials’ “aggressive, suspicious and sometimes condescending and insulting questioning of our military leaders.” Team Obama’s micromanagement led to “breaches of faith” with the armed forces that have, in turn, contributed to the unraveling of our position in Afghanistan at the hands of a President who lost confidence in the mission and undermined those responsible for carrying it out.

Such behavior at the highest levels of the U.S. government is even more appalling in light of the second major Afghan-related event of the week: the release of “Lone Survivor,” a powerful account of the courage, skill and valor of American warriors in the crucible of a 2005 special operations mission gone bad.  What makes this film so impactful is not merely its vivid portrayal of the ruthless and relentless Islamist foes we face in that theater (and elsewhere), but its recounting of the decency and morality of the forces we ask to defend us against them.  Those qualities cost all but one of the SEAL reconnaissance team and many others who tried to rescue them to be killed in action.

As it happens, the Gates book and new movie appear just as the consequences of President Obama’s preposterous claim to have unilaterally ended the war in Iraq become palpable.  Cities and regions of that country that were secured from jihadists at enormous cost in the lives of American servicemen and national treasure have, in our absence, once again fallen to the enemy.

Worse yet, the same outcome is now in prospect with respect to Afghanistan.  With strong support from Joe Biden, Mr. Obama is planning to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from that country by year’s end.  It remains to be seen whether the Afghans agree to allow some vestigial presence thereafter. But the die is cast:  A lack of presidential confidence in and support for the mission of preventing the Taliban, al Qaeda and other jihadists from once again enjoying safe haven in that country will ensure that those like the fallen in Lone Survivor’s ill-fated Operation Red Wings will have died in vain.

It didn’t have to be this way.  Had President Obama not serially communicated weakness and irresolution, hollowed out the U.S. military, undermined it further with social engineering on matters ranging from gays in the military to women in combat and embraced some of the most dangerous of our Islamist enemies – including the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and even representatives of the Taliban, America’s security interests might not be in free-fall around the world today.

There is, therefore, no small irony in the current rap on Bob Gates’ book – from some Republican savants as well as the predictable Democratic partisans – namely, that he shouldn’t have published it until after the end of the Obama presidency in 2017.

To the contrary, it would have been far better if Mr. Gates had exposed his insights into what was happening to the common defense far earlier.

Indeed, one wonders:  If Bob Gates had resigned over the practices and conduct we are now told infuriated him, instead of staying in office and accommodating them, might his warnings have prevented, or at least substantially reduced, the wrecking operation that is currently devastating our all-volunteer force and putting our country and the rest of what’s left of the Free World in ever-greater jeopardy?

Failed Duty – No Honor

Obama3By Justin O. Smith:

Incompetence and treason are the rule of the day for Barack Hussein Obama and several past and present members of his administration, who regularly spit on and violate the U.S. Constitution, dishonor the U.S. flag and desecrate the bodies of U.S. servicemen returning home. And today, as we see the results of their failed anti-military and anti-American policies throughout the entire Middle East, America has not been given any satisfactory answers to many remaining questions in regard to the August 6, 2011 attack over Wardak Province, Afghanistan that killed seventeen members of SEAL Team Six and the September 11, 2012 attack on our U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The State Department, Department of Defense, CIA and multiple agencies have all stated that no one has been prevented from testifying before Congress, regarding the Benghazi attacks. And yet, to date, thirty witnesses have yet to be interviewed by Congressional interviewers, which contradicts the Obama administration’s assertion; Karen and Billy Vaughn have received the same sort of government lies and deflection concerning the death of their son, Aaron, during operation Extortion over two years ago.

A ‘New York Times’ article by David Kirkpatrick (Jan. 9, 2014) attempts to depict Ansar al-Sharia’s involvement in the Benghazi attacks and its association with Al Qaeda as minimal. It states, “That name is relatively generic and means Supporters of Islamic Law.” But, Kirkpatrick misses the more lucid point that whether they call themselves Ansar al-Sharia, the 17th of February Brigade, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda __”Our Way”__, they are all one in the same, they are all Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and they all demand Sharia law for their countries, the harshest law known to mankind.

Reuters reported just hours after the assault on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi, that Ansar al-Sharia had laid claim to the attacks. Emails from numerous government sources supported Reuters facts.

In October of 2012, Walid Shoebat and former CIA officer Claire Lopez revealed that the Obama administration was running weapons out of Libya, with the help of Ansar al-Sharia, to Al Qaeda in Syria in order to overthrow Bashir Assad. We have fought Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other islamofascists in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past twelve years, at the cost of thousands of U.S. lives. Giving aid to such enemies of the United States, no matter the circumstances, constitutes treason.

A week after Osama bin Laden was killed by Naval Special Warfare Development Group – SEAL Team Six, the Pentagon responded to questions on May 2, 2011 that they were “not going to comment on units or numbers.” But, during a speech at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel the very next day, big-mouthed Vice-President Joe Biden raved about “the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of the Navy SEALs” under the command of Admiral James Stavridis; and in essence, Biden placed a target on SEAL Team 6 that day.

There have been many suggestions that one of the many Muslim Brotherhood members serving in a government or military capacity passed critical mission information to the Taliban in the hours preceding and during the firefight between U.S. Army Rangers and the Taliban, which drew the SEALs into the battle and placed them in a line of fire already known to the enemy. And curiously, there was also friction between the SEALs and their supposed Afghhan allies, over a sudden change in Afghan “team members”__(Taliban operatives?).

Twenty-four hours after VP Biden’s blunder, Aaron Vaughn called home warning, “Mom…wipe your social media clean… get everything off of it… there’s chatter and all of our lives are in danger, including yours.”

The night that these SEALs died, they flew into battle on a mission authorized out of theater and in a 1960s CH-47 Chinook Helicopter, last retrofitted in 1985, instead of a Special Operations MH-47 assault helicopter. They were an unescorted, slow-moving target without any pre-assault fire paving their way into a full pitch battle that had already been raging for over three hours.

Even before the seventeen SEALs and twenty-one other personnel died, people were expressing their concerns. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated, as the cameras rolled, that “the members of the Special Ops community” were “worried for their safety and the safety of their families.”

Bill Vaughn has called for an explanation from Obama and answers to why he protected Korans at Guantanamo, buried Osama bin-Laden with a full Islamic service, but refused to allow any mention of the Judeo-Christian God of the American dead at their funeral. Further pain was forced upon these families, when an imam was allowed to say an Islamic prayer over them, which cursed them as “infidels.”

SEAL Team 6 member Michael Strange was also killed during Extortion’s mission. When President Obama told Charles Strange that “Michael changed the way America lived,” Mr Strange replied, “I don’t need to know about my son. I need to know what happened.” Since then, Strange says he has not heard anything from the Obama administration or the President.

Similarly, Camp Bastion was hit by the Taliban on September 15, 2012, which resulted in the largest loss of U.S. aircraft since Vietnam and the deaths of two Marines. If the base had been protected by the better trained U.S. Marine forces rather than a Tongan “security group”, it is highly likely the Taliban’s offensive would have failed. Like Benghazi and Extortion 17, Obama has not answered the obvious questions surrounding this incident.

All of the following, Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton and David Patraeus, have served in one or more key position within the Obama administration, and, without a doubt, they hold all the answers surrounding U.S. Middle East policy and the aforementioned failures. A case in point, then-CIA Director Patraeus met with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Edogan on September 2, 2012 in order to secure a 40,000-ton shipment of arms through Turkey and into Syria, just days before the attacks in Benghazi. But most of them have placed politics above the truth and their nation.

Why was the assistance of suppressive fire denied the SEAL’s of the Extortion mission? Why were FAST and In-Extremis teams told to “stand down” during the attack on Benghazi? What did Obama do that night other than sleep, as the attack on the CIA Annex at Benghazi continued for nearly 8 hours?

Extortion 17, Benghazi and Camp Bastion are indicative of a U.S. President/ Commander-in-Chief and men and women in the Obama administration, who ignored their duty to defend fellow Americans abroad, especially their own military brethren, and who have forgotten the meaning of honor, as they stand under the yellow flag of cowardice. They have failed the country. Obama and Biden botched negotiations in Iraq, and a generation of American veterans have spilled their blood in vain, as the flags of Al Qaeda recently rose over Falluja and Ramadi in Iraq. Afghanistan is destined for the same fate, due to unbelievably ignorant policy decisions__the same type of decisions that handed Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood and now promise to do the same for Al Qaeda in Syria.

Rather than fight for clear victories in the Middle East, Obama has followed a path of appeasement that is certain to lead to new and bloodier wars for America, as he purged America’s Armed Forces of 198 high ranking officers and politicized them. Rather than preserve and protect the lives of our fighting sons and daughters and diplomats in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, Obama has been more inclined to turn his back on these gallant Americans in their hour of need. Describe Obama’s actions as “ambivalent”, if you wish, just as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did in his recent memoir. But, for most of America, Obama is a criminal and he must be brought to justice: Remember, no one died over Watergate.

Cruz Stakes Out Ground Between Rand Paul, John McCain on Foreign Policy

Texas CruzBY: :

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) on Wednesday during an address at the Heritage Foundation said his foreign policy views are somewhere in between those of Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Rand Paul (R., Ky.) and that he opposes U.S. military intervention in Syria because it is not in America’s national security interests.

Cruz compared his stance on foreign affairs to that of former President Ronald Reagan and said he believed the United States should always focus directly on protecting America’s national security and interests, speaking with moral clarity, and fighting to win.

These principles represent a “balance” between the views of the anti-interventionist Paul and the more hawkish McCain and are encapsulated in Reagan’s mantra of “peace through strength,” Cruz said.

“I agree with Rand Paul that we should not intervene militarily in Syria,” Cruz said.

“But I also agree with John McCain: If Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, we should intervene because it’s in the national security interests of the United States.”

“It has to be tied to that objective. Syria was not,” he added.

Cruz slammed a number of President Barack Obama’s policies but commended him for seeking congressional authorization before ordering limited strikes on the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Although the president has said as recently as May that al Qaeda’s core is “on a path to defeat,” Cruz said the “war continues” amid revelations that the diffuse terrorist network has expanded into new regions and plotted attacks on U.S. airliners and facilities overseas.

“Somebody didn’t tell the terrorists,” he said.

The firebrand senator, who is widely expected to be considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, has drawn comparisons to other outspoken conservatives such as longtime Sen. Jesse Helms (R., N.C.). Cruz spoke about his admiration for the late senator, who served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at the Heritage Foundation’s fourth annual Helms Lecture.

“The willingness to say all these crazy things is a rare, rare characterization in this town,” Cruz said of Helms.

“It’s every bit as true now—we need a hundred more Jesse Helms.”

Cruz defended his opposition to strikes in Syria by arguing that reports suggest as many as seven of the rebel groups fighting Assad are linked to al Qaeda. The al Qaeda-affiliated groups Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which are Sunni Islamists, have poured into Syria in sectarian opposition to Assad, a member of the minority Alawite sect of Shiite Islam.

The presence of radical Islamists in Syria should give pause to administration officials planning a response to chemical weapons attacks in the suburbs of Damascus last month that U.S. intelligence analysts say killed more than 1,400 people, including more than 400 children, Cruz said. The public and his constituents overwhelmingly oppose intervention, he added.

“Even though Assad is a brutal, murderous thug, that doesn’t mean his opponents are any better,” he said.

“The predictable effect [of strikes] could well be enabling al Qaeda, al-Nusra, the Islamic radicals, to seize control of those [chemical] weapons.”

However, Cruz said he does not think the United States should “do nothing” in response to the attacks. Lawmakers and U.S. officials should move to cut off about half a billion in aid to Iraq if it continues to allow Syrian ally Iran to fly over its airspace and resupply Assad, as well as force a vote at the United Nations Security Council on a resolution condemning Assad and the chemical weapons attacks.

If Russia and China refuse to sign, the United States should counter by resuming construction of antiballistic missile stations in Eastern Europe near the Russians and approving the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Chinese adversary Taiwan.

Read more at Free Beacon

 

 

Obama to Egypt: “Arrest Muslim Brotherhood Leaders and We’ll Cut Off Your Foreign Aid”

obama-with-muslims-450x300By Daniel Greenfield:

The original statements were more subtle. Now the White House and State Department are turning their Brotherhood cards face up. As I wrote in Barack’s Plan B for the Brotherhood, the goal is to get the Brotherhood back into power.

Obama Inc is explicitly emphasizing that the Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders and members must remain free and join a new government. The hypocrisy of Obama’s people claiming that they aren’t taking sides, when they never said one critical word to Morsi despite his abuses, but are now heating up their faxes and blackberries blasting out condemnations of the new Egyptian government in defense of the Brotherhood is astounding.

Even while Muslim Brotherhood leaders incite violence and their followers murder Christians, Obama is using foreign aid as leverage to protect a hate group and terror group.

 The Obama administration on Thursday sharpened its criticism of the Egyptian military and interim government’s arrests of supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, saying the continuing detentions are inconsistent with pledges of inclusivity made by authorities and may affect future US assistance.

While the administration has determined it is not in US national security interests to make any immediate changes to its aid program, officials said the continuing arrests of members of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and political party are troubling. The criticism is some of the most severe of Egypt’s new leadership since Morsi was toppled last week and came a day after arrest warrants were issued for the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader and nine other Islamists accused of inciting violence.

The White House and State Department both warned against targeting any particular group in the aftermath of Morsi’s overthrow, calling it self-defeating and counter to the idea of restoring a democratically election civilian government.

“The only way this is going to work successfully for the Egyptian people is if all parties are encouraged and allowed to participate and that’s why we’ve made clear that arbitrary arrests are not anything that we can support,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said. “We could not support those, because if you’re arresting individuals from one group or one party, you’re working against yourself if your effort is to be inclusive as you make this transition back to a civilian, democratically elected government.”

At the State Department, spokeswoman Jen Psaki echoed those comments and went further, saying that the arrests contradicted assurances given to US officials by the Egyptian military and members of the interim government.

“The arrests we’ve seen, of course, over the past several days targeting specific groups are not in line with the national reconciliation that the interim government and military say they are pursuing,” she said. “If politicized arrests and detentions continue, it is hard to see how Egypt will move beyond this crisis.”

Psaki added that US policy makers would be looking closely to see if the arrests continue as they review decisions on assistance to Egypt.

Obama Inc. is intimidating Egypt into not arresting members of a terrorist group and hate group that is  terrorizing and murdering Christians.

Obama Doctrine Makes U.S. a ‘Sinister Bystander’

By Ralph Sidway:

My late grandmother used a clever turn of phrase to describe shady characters who, while protesting their innocence, somehow seemed linked to the crime in question. Today, my grandmother’s expression — “sinister bystander” — seems the most apt way to describe the global perception of the Obama administration and its failed policy towards Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Islamic world in general.

Perceptions are important, in international as well as national politics. All politics ultimately become local, as people make up their minds who they can trust… and who they can’t.

As is clear from the number and sizes of anti-Obama posters and banners in Tahrir Square, Cairo, leading up to the ouster of President Mohammed Morsi by the Egyptian Military, the perception has crystallized in Egypt that our President, Barack Obama, was no friend to the Egyptian people, but rather was an enabler to the terrorist-linked Muslim Brotherhood. “Obama Supports Terrorism!” one huge banner screamed. Others were quite a bit more colorful in their choice of language.

One can readily see how this perception was formed.

During the “Arab Spring” revolutions of 2011, Obama betrayed longtime U.S. ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek, actively encouraging the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, and other Islamic supremacist forces arrayed against secular and Coptic groups seeking to fashion a true liberal democracy.  Indeed, Obama legitimized the Brotherhood from the very beginning of his first term, via his historic (and historically revisionist) Cairo Address in June 2009, when he insisted the Brotherhood be invited to his speech.

This perception is not limited to the Egyptian people. Indeed, in spite of his lofty rhetoric to the contrary, Obama’s policies have galvanized Syrian Christians to ask in Congressional testimony on June 25, “Why is America at war with us?” That is, “why does the United States support extremists who want to turn Syria into an Islamic state?

Why, indeed.

What contributes most to the negative perception of President Obama is perhaps the stark disconnect between his speeches and his actions. Take Libya, for example. Our involvement there, the president said in April 2011, was essential, due to “our responsibilities to our fellow human beings,” and how not assisting them “would have been a betrayal of who we are.” As we now know, this appeal to human dignity and an altruistic notion of “who we are” was but a sophist’s tool to arm and support Al Qaeda rebels there, who on 9/11/12 attacked our Benghazi consulate and murdered our ambassador and three others, and who have been emboldened to relentlessly persecute Libya’s tiny Christian minority ever since. The “humanitarian action” card trumps WMDs, but the resulting cynicism once the deception is revealed is exponentially worse. (Now Libyan intelligence is reporting that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were involved in the Benghazi attack.) Sleeping with the enemy does not lead to noble offspring, nor does it enhance one’s reputation.

Read more at Raymond Ibrahim’s blog

 

U.S. Will ‘Pressure’ Egypt on Behalf of Brotherhood, Says U.S. Ambassador

By Raymond Ibrahim:

Evidence that the Obama administration is unhappy with the Egyptian people’s liberation from Muslim Brotherhood rule continues to emerge.  As reported today by Youm 7, according to Muhammad Heikal — “the Arab world’s most respected political commentator” and for some 50 years a political insider — soon after the overthrow of Morsi, U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson assured Hisham Qandil, who hours ago was Egypt’s Prime Minister, that “there are many forms of pressure, and America holds the keys to the Gulf.”

Such blatantly pro-Muslim Brotherhood assurances by Patterson are consistent with many of her other actions in Egypt, which have led most Egyptians, including politicians and activists, to refer to her as a Brotherhood stooge.  Among other things, in the days leading to June 30, she called on Egyptians not to protest — including by meeting with the Coptic Pope and asking him tourge the nation’s Christian minority not to oppose the Brotherhood, even though Christians have naturally been the most to suffer under Morsi, especially in the context of “blasphemy” accusations.

Thus, and once again, the Obama administration makes indubitably clear that its primary interest in Egypt is to see the Muslim Brotherhood stay in power, the Egyptian people’s will — the will of tens of millions of secularists, liberals, moderates, and Christians — be damned.

Obama Doctrine Faces Troubles in Cairo, Syria

ods1By Chris Stirewalt:

“…America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject:  the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”

– President Obama, addressing “the Muslim World” from Cairo University, June 4, 2009.

President Obama’s vision for the Middle East is one in which Islamism serves as a transitional stage between authoritarian rule and liberal democracy.

The Islamist vision for the Middle East would say that he is half right.

Obama helped install the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt, as he and NATO allies did with Islamists in Libya. While Muslim theocrats sound like unhappy partners for an American electorate accustomed to unhappy outcomes with such folks (the mullahs of Iran and the Afghan Taliban, to wit).

Obama’s Middle East doctrine, though, holds that under the oppressive yoke of authoritarian, secular governments propped up by the Cold War superpowers, legitimate political dissent was stifled. That means that the only place Obama could find an opposition to replace those tottering Cold War-era despots in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere was among those looking to establish Muslim governments.

But, these would be tolerant Islamists, we were told. Their promise of tolerance was secured in advance of providing the military, diplomatic and economic support that put them in power.

Read more at Fox News

 

 

Qaradawi Associate Meets At White House; Abdallah Bin Bayyah Close To Saudi With Ties To Al Qaeda and Hamas Support

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah posted this photo of his June 13 White House meeting.

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah posted this photo of his June 13 White House meeting.

By :

The website of Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, a Global Muslim Brotherhood figure who belongs to an organization that once called for attacks on US troops in Iraq, has announced that he recently visited the White House where he met with senior White House officials and representatives of other government agencies including an aide to President Obama and US OIC Envoy Rashad Hussain. According to the announcement:

White House Meeting

Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah visited the White House where he met with senior advisers and aides to President Obama and called for the protection of the Syrian people and the Muslim minority in Myanmar.

The distinguished scholar Professor Abdullah bin Bayyah, President of the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance and Vice President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, visited the White House where he met with Ms. Gayle Smith, a senior aide to President Barack Obama, and Mr. Rashad Hussain, U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He also met with a number of experts including the director of public relations in the White House and representatives from seven government agencies.

Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah addressed the audience by speaking about humanity’s need for two kinds of justice, namely: a) justice in which everyone is equal and one person does not oppress another, nor does one state oppress another state, and b) a justice specific to the powerful, which is to help lift the injustices from vulnerable peoples such as the Syrian people, the Palestinians, and the Muslims in Myanmar. In this context, Shaykh bin Bayyah thanked President Obama for demanding the rights of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar (formerly Burma) during his recent visit there. Likewise, the Shaykh called on the U.S. government for urgent action to help lift the injustice on the Syrians.

The meeting also touched on issues of development in the Islamic world whereupon Bin Bayyah pointed out the importance of adopting a ‘grassroots’ form of development which stems from the bottom of the community pyramid to the top rather than the other way around in terms of facing poverty seriously. For her part, Ms. Gayle Smith was pleased with this meeting, saying, ‘We asked for this meeting to learn from you and we need to be looking for new mechanisms to communicate with you and the Association of Muslim Scholars.’ She thanked the Shaykh for his efforts to bring more understanding amongst humanity.”

The Bin Bayyah website also announced that Sheikh Bin Bayyah had been expected to visit the US from May 25 until June 10 for medical tests and was also scheduled to meet with unidentified “representatives of some Islamic bodies.” The report also identifies other signers of the letter including Riad al-Shaqfa, a leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in exile, and Hammam Saeed, a leader in the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. The report also claims that former Obama National Security Advisor Tom Donilon was also present during the White House meeting.

Another Arabic language report of unknown reliability is reporting that Sheikh Bin Bayyah was carrying a personal letter from Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi to President Obama which contained an urgent request to supply the Syrian “Mujahideen” with the necessary weapons to enable them to defeat the Syrian Army. The letter from Qaradawi also was said to thank the US for its support of the Libyan rebels and the Tunisian Revolution as well as denying that Muslims are either anti-Semitic or wish to destroy the State of Israel (it should be noted that Qaradawi himself is a virulent anti-Semite who has called for the death of all Jews).

Abdallah Bin Bayyah

Abdallah Bin Bayyah

Abdallah Bin Bayyah, last known to be living in Saudi Arabia, is a well known global Muslim Brotherhood figure originally from Mauritania. According to an on-line biography, he was born in Eastern Mauritania and was the son of “one of the greatest scholars of his time.” According to this source, Sheikh Bin Bayyah was taught Islamic subjects by his father and in his early 20’s, was sent by the Mauritanian government to Tunis to study Islamic jurisprudence. Upon his return to Mauritania, he became a judge in the Ministry of Justice. He was also chosen to be the head of the Shariah section of the court of appeals and later to “High Authority for Religious Affairs.” Sheikh Bin Bayyah held numerous government posts including Vice-President, Prime Minister, and Permanent Secretary of the People’s Party of Mauritania.

Sheikh Bin Bayyah also holds leadership positions in several organizations associated with support for terrorism and anti-Semitism. As noted above, he is President of the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance (GCRG) a a UK-based organization created to “improve” the Islamic education curriculum and headed by Abdullah Omar Naseef who has held many important positions in Saudi Arabia including serving as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council, President of King Abdul Aziz University, and most importantly as Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) from 1983-1993. Dr. Naseef also heads the Cairo-based International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief, (IICDR), an umbrella group for 86 Islamic organizations, many of which are associated with the Global Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas fundraising, or support for Al Qaeda.

Read more at The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch

 

Obama Doctrine: America Allies with Muslim Brotherhood to Promote Middle East ‘Stability’

20110520_ObamaIkhwan

 

By Barry Rubin:

Here is what I wrote in October 2010, when the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood — Muhammad al-Badi — had just given a sermon calling for the overthrow of Egypt’s government (which happened four months later) and a jihad against the United States, a country he considered weak, foolish, and in retreat from the Middle East:

[Al-Badi's sermon is] one of those obscure Middle East events of the utmost significance that is ignored by the Western mass media, especially because they happen in Arabic, not English; by Western governments, because they don’t fit their policies; and by experts, because they don’t mesh with their preconceptions.

Two and a half years ago, who would ever have thought that the United States would enter an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood? There were hints in President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, yet now it is clear that this is the new basis for regional security sought by the Obama administration.

For all practical purposes the closest allies to the United States are no longer Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a moderate Egypt, but an Islamist Egypt, an Islamist regime in Turkey, and the Syrian rebels led by the Brotherhood.

And literally every mainstream media outlet, every expert who speaks in public, every Democrat, and the majority of Republican politicians still don’t realize that this is true.

American history has witnessed the Truman Doctrine (help countries fight Communist takeover), the Nixon Doctrine (get local middle-sized powers to take part of the burden of the Cold War from the United States), the Carter Doctrine (defend Gulf Arab states from Iranian aggression), and the Reagan Doctrine (go on the offensive against Soviet expansionism).

Now, we have the Obama Doctrine: ally with the Muslim Brotherhood to transform the Middle East.

Is this an improvement on a strategy based on alliances with pro-Western dictators? We are still working with dictators, but now they are also anti-American and even more oppressive than their predecessors. The old dictators, as horrible as they were, were content with the status quo (except for Iraq, where the overthrow came without a new extremist regime taking power), whereas the Islamist dictators want the fundamental transformation of their societies. The old dictators were resigned to the regional situation; the Islamist ones want a wave of new revolutions, terrorism, wars against Israel.

And sooner or later they will strike out against America, just as they give their Salafist allies free rein to do so.

The occasion for declaring that an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups is the new Obama Doctrine is, of course, the decision to supply arms to the Syrian rebels. As recently as April 28 – a mere six weeks ago! — the New York Times was talking of an imminent rebel victory. Now, panic has set in regarding a total rebel collapse.  This has prompted a rush to give weapons to the rebels even as they seem to have stopped the government advance without additional American weapons. In some parts of the country the rebels are the ones advancing.

The weapons will be given to the Supreme Military Council, which runs the Free Syrian Army (FSA). But while the FSA is nominally led by defected military officers, most of its soldiers hold views closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The fig leaf will be that these guns are being given to “moderates” — like the people Senator John McCain met with. The truth is that  they will be given to people whose politics encompass hatred for Jews, Christians, and the West generally, and who are ready to engage in what, in American politics, has come to be known as homophobia and a War on Women.

If the rebels were to win, this would mean imposing a Muslim Brotherhood government on Syria. The Syrian political opposition organization the United States recognizes and has financially supported is overwhelmingly run by the Brotherhood, and it refuses to admit real moderates and Kurds on a serious level.

Note that this is the second Muslim Brotherhood entity the U.S. government has provided with weapons. The first was the Egyptian government, which — despite its questionable human rights record–  the Obama administration has no objection to helping. The shipment of weapons was not even postponed as a gesture.

Read more at PJ Media

 

There’s a Lot of ‘There’ There

20121029_LIBYA_obama_hillary_Clinton

 

Here’s the thing:  America must not allow Benghazi or Boston or the next Jihadi obscenity to be about “getting” Hillary Clinton or Obama or any other American. Such self-defeating rot is a goal right out of the Islamists’ playbook.  Benghazi showcases, more than anything else, the inefficacy of our present national security effort.

 

by CAPT. GARY HARRINGTON, US NAVY (RET.)

President Obama, at a May 13, 2013 press conference, explained there’s no “there” there in defending his administration regarding the events surrounding four American deaths in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.  Without a “there” there, that would signal to Congress that their criticism is groundless. But the evidence shows…not so fast, President Obama. Not only was there a “there” there, I propose the “there” was born of an unholy Immaculate Conception.

“You’d better not go into the woods” has been the administration’s refrain in the Benghazi narrative. This theme, from a popular child’s song, is apt since, “If you do, you’re sure of a big surprise because that’s where Teddy Bears have their picnics.”  The Benghazi Jihadi terrorists, not stuffed animals, have long planned “beneath the trees where nobody sees.”  In fact, their plans have influenced our government immensely, having caused this administration to fall for the Jihadi strategy. This is best seen in our recent purge of Islamist words – amazingly – from our own government’s military training materials. This prevailing correctness about language fosters deception, and this lies at the core of the Benghazi story.   “They hide and seek as long as they please…”

Toxic ideological picnics began with medieval Wahhabi and Salafi ideas that aren’t well studied, known or discussed in polite society or in press conferences, which makes them easy to obfuscate.  So to avoid a “big surprise” on the ideological origins of Benghazi, high government officials conceived a not-so-Immaculate Conception:  the You Tube video cover story.  The sperm was Salafi jihad.  The egg was a transnational progressive idea gone bad on the eve of a national election: the “normalization” of Benghazi.  A politically inconvenient truth about a Jihadi attack was deliberately blurred to protect a setback to a State Department pet project.

A forest and tree cliché is helpful to better conceive the Immaculate Conception. Benghazi is but one tree in the mature, mutating Jihadi forest.  We noticed the Bomb-the-U.S.-Homeland tree at the Boston marathon finish line, as we did earlier the other U.S. Homeland trees of Ft. Hood and Times Square.  In the heart of the forest lie the remains of older trees, some U.S Homeland and some international: the 9/11 tree, the original World Trade Towers tree, the USS Cole, the Marine Barracks and so on. The ghosts of Danny Pearl, Theo Van Gogh, Boston’s little Martin Richard, Ambassador Stevens, Colonel Higgins, Navy Diver Stethem, and so many others, wander “there.”  Aisha’s missing nose is buried “there.”  “There” is a transnational Jihadi forest that makes it hard for some political leaders to see – or even want to see – the trees that comprise it.

Weeds flourish on untended ground and they distract from the clear picture of the forest. They include the variegated flora of parsed talking points (such as “sideshows”), jailed patsy blasphemers, denied State Department Forward Emergency Support Teams (FEST), fired and demoted officials (some innocent of any wrongdoing), FBI, ICE and State Foot Draggers, AP definitions reset, and other troublesome mutants. The lexicon of the forest does not take rocket science to fathom.  We must explore and study it precisely because “tired little teddy bears” in high office have refused to define Islamist strategies and their undergrowth of motivating medieval ideas for decades.  We need to do it for ourselves.

Once the forest clears, you begin to recognize the patterns of the trees in daily headlines, and “catch them unaware” on Oped pages.  Author Dr. Walid Phares has defined these patterns as six distinct Jihadi strategies: Economic, Ideological, Political, Intelligence, Subversive, and Diplomatic.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

The Obama Administration’s Disgraceful Muslim Brotherhood Policy

aap_3281_MAR04_egyptker2_800x6001-450x337By :

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s Islamist Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government, which has the support of the Obama administration, has just issued arrest warrants for five activists on false charges that they allegedly used social media to incite violence against the Muslim Brotherhood.  These activists include a blogger who played a key role in the 2011 revolution that toppled President Hosni Mubarak.

Morsi was following through on his threat to the National Salvation Front and other opposition groups, which he issued last Sunday in the wake of clashes between protesters and the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo: “There is a president of the republic and there are emergency measures if any of them makes even the smallest of moves that undermines Egypt or the Egyptians. Their lives are worthless when it comes to the interests of Egypt and Egyptians. I am a president after a revolution, meaning that we can sacrifice a few so the country can move forward. It is absolutely no problem.”

In addition, the Muslim Brotherhood itself filed complaints against 169 opposition figures, which included a former presidential candidate who now works in television.

At the same time, sexual assaults against women have skyrocketed during the Morsi regime’s rule. And the Islamists who have been elevated into power blame the women for the violence against them. For example, an Islamist police general and lawmaker was quoted by the New York Times as proclaiming that “a girl contributes 100 percent to her own raping when she puts herself in these conditions.”

Read more at Front Page