Ambassador Chris Stevens Is Dead; Al-Qaeda Is Alive
In our last discussion of Obama campaign myths, I recalled Joe Biden’s campaign bumper sticker that “Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.” We dismantled the latter part of it there. Now it’s time to take on the “Bin Laden is dead.”
Now just as GM is literally (as Joe Biden would say, whether it was or not) alive, if on life support, bin Laden is certainly dead, even if the evidence was disposed of, but in both cases, the phrases were code. With regard to the latter, it is code for “we beat al-Qaeda.” But in order to decode it, one must accept the premise that Osama bin Laden was identically equal to al-Qaeda, and that it would not survive his being fed to the fishes. And that is and always was nonsense. As I wrote the day his death was announced:
We were not at war with Osama bin Laden. Unlike Hitler, he did not invent the ideology. He merely took an existing one, and implemented it in a way unprecedented in modern times (though it had been in full force for centuries in the past — unfortunately, most people are unaware of history). He is not, and never was, essential to its survival. There was no signing of a surrender on the deck of the Missouri tonight. The troops cannot come home simply because we killed one guy who had been on the run for years.
I can readily understand why the administration wants to play this up as though the above weren’t true. They are desperate for any news on the political front that can rally the people, and distract them from its disastrous policies, not just on the war and foreign policy in general, but on five-dollar gas, rising grocery prices, continuing lack of jobs, continuing plunging home prices and increasing foreclosures, etc. etc. etc. They hope that a faux war victory will boost the poll ratings of a president who, if the election were to be held today, to almost anyone, would lose in a landslide.
Of course, defeating al-Qaeda is just part of a broader (and also false) campaign narrative. Recall that when the president made the Cairo speech in 2009, in which he spun fantasies about the history of both Islam and Europe, it was supposed to help repair all the supposed damage done to our relationship with the Muslim world by the malignant Bush administration. It was a part of the general process of reconciliation that would be ushered in by the ascendancy of the lowerer of oceans to the White House. As Charles Krauthammer notes:
Never lacking ambition or self-regard, Obama promised in Cairo, June 4, 2009, “a new beginning” offering Muslims “mutual respect,” unsubtly implying previous disrespect. Curious, as over the previous 20 years, America had six times committed its military forces on behalf of oppressed Muslims, three times for reasons of pure humanitarianism (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo), where no U.S. interests were at stake.
But no matter. Obama had come to remonstrate and restrain the hyperpower that, by his telling, had lost its way after 9/11, creating Guantanamo, practicing torture, imposing its will with arrogance and presumption.
First, he would cleanse by confession. Then he would heal. Why, given the unique sensitivities of his background — “my sister is half-Indonesian,” he proudly told an interviewer in 2007, amplifying on his exquisite appreciation of Islam — his very election would revolutionize relations.
Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the revolution.
Two years after the Cairo speech, the Muslim world’s view of America was as low or lower than ever, according to the Arab American Institute:
- While many Arabs were hopeful that the election of Barack Obama would improve U.S.-Arab relations, that hope has evaporated. Today, President Obama’s favorable ratings across the Arab world are 10% or less.
- Obama’s performance ratings are lowest on the two issues to which he has devoted the most energy: Palestine and engagement with the Muslim world.
- The killing of bin Laden only worsened attitudes toward the U.S.
[Emphasis added]
Yes, a little over three years after the revolution of new Arab relations with the U.S., Barack Obama is being burned in effigy overseas.
And come to think of it, if the Arab world is so upset about the bin Laden killing, will the president go again to the UN and make a speech about this movie when it comes out, declaring that the U.S. government that gave classified information to the film makers, while withholding it from Congress, had nothing to do with it? After all, it’s now de rigeur, or so it would seem, for such anti-Islamic features. Yes, bin Laden is dead, but al-Qaeda is somehow still kicking.
In the administration’s feckless abandonment of Iraq, essentially negating the gains of the past nine years and thousands of lives, al-Qaeda is resurgent there:
Without American forces to train and assist Iraqi commandos, the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq is still active in Iraq and is increasingly involved in Syria. With no American aircraft to patrol Iraqi airspace, Iraq has become a corridor for Iranian flights of military supplies to Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, American officials say.
And of course, the most clear and deadly resurgence was the one we saw in Benghazi on the anniversary of the biggest al-Qaeda attack, in which a U.S. ambassador was murdered for the first time in a third of a century, and the president decided to go to Vegas the next day, after (presumably, given the incompetence of this administration, perhaps the kindest assumption is that they didn’t bother to tell him) being informed by his own analysts that it was a terrorist attack.
Now one can understand why a president in perpetual campaign mode would send his hapless UN ambassador out several days later to spin tall tales about movie trailers and deny that it was terrorism. It’s because it inconveniently spoiled the false narrative of “bin Laden is dead.”
I have a new bumper sticker for Joe Biden. Chris Stevens is dead, and al-Qaeda is very much alive.
It was clear from the beginning that the death of Osama bin Laden changed nothing. Only an idiot would keep trumpeting bin Laden’s death as a major accomplishment when the facts showed that the battle continued with little or no change.
More telling than the death of bin Laden was the continued bowing to his followers by giving him “a proper Islamic funeral” so as not to offend the people who want to kill us. That funeral spoke louder than all the spiking the football about killing bin Laden.
To be sure, those who spin the narrative that ‘terror’ is dead (as if Islam has nothing to do with it!), because Bin Laden is swimming with the fishes, are either desperate to believe it, or mendacious in their spinning.
It is impossible, for rational folks, to contend that the death of one terror mastermind is the death of an entire ideology. And, herein lies the crux of the matter.
The bloody facts at hand tell an entirely different story, and this is exactly the story that PC media pundits, plus leftist leaders will NEVER tell.
To wit, here are just some of the truths – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/21/repeat-until-the-cows-come-home-there-is-no-moderate-islam-period-addendum-to-what-the-west-in-general-and-its-leaders-in-particular-know-about-islam-can-fill-less-than-a-thimble-m/
The truth shall set us free, as well as save western civilization!
Osama bin Laden was a very good muslim. Mohammad would be proud. Most all other muslims know this.
“In the administration’s feckless abandonment of Iraq, essentially negating the gains of the past nine years and thousands of lives, al-Qaeda is resurgent there”
Balderdash. This whole snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is nothing but a Dolchstosslegende Redux.
Iraq was not abandoned, fecklessly or otherwise. We left, not on the 16 month schedule that Barack Hussein Obama had promised during the 2008 campaign, but per the Bush/Maliki Status of Forces agreement. To allow us the great opportunity to stay and serve them for God only knows how many more years, the Iraqis demanded that they be able to try our Soldiers and Marines in Islamic Courts. To HELL with that!!! What gains of the last “nine” years? The ethnic cleansing of 2/3 of Iraq’s Christian population? Iraq’s being an Iranian ally, which they have been for years now? As far as a resurgent “al-Qaeda”, that’s “al-Qaeda in Iraq”, not the actual al-Qaeda. And if they are attacking the Iraqi government, Iran’s ally, good! Muslims killing Muslims – cry me a river.
Exactly. The enemy in Iraq is Islam, which we refused to either name or fight. I believe we left Iraq with a constitution that holds Islam as its official religion.
We accomplished very little in Iraq aside from strengthening Islam.
Furthermore, the Iraqi Constitution states that no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam.
Which means that in Iraq, there can never be equality of people regardless of their faith. Because Islam does not teach that.
To allow us the great opportunity to stay and serve them for God only knows how many more years, the Iraqis demanded that they be able to try our Soldiers and Marines in Islamic Courts. To HELL with that!!!
Obama didn’t even attempt to broker a better deal.
The pentagon was practically on bended knee begging. I guess they didn’t beg well enough.
““In the administration’s feckless abandonment of Iraq, essentially negating the gains of the past nine years and thousands of lives, al-Qaeda is resurgent there”
1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
- Ronald Reagan
Great post. The big question from here assuming we can eeek out a victgory in November is where do we go from here.
What course will Mitt set for our leaky ships loaded with unloaded guns sailing around in circles?
First I would suggest that we understand the Islamist mentality of my way or the highway.
Once we understand that we should act appropriately. We should decide whether or not the moderate muslims will rule the day in Iraq,Iran,Libya,Syria or anyone of a dozen other places where shaira will or already is the law of the land.
Once you know who your enemy is, proceed with caution.For those who say the enemy is Islamic terrorists I say,hardly! Its the false religion/method of control islam itself.
We need to know who we are up against and then act appropriately.
Muslims only respect those who’re stronger than they are. Kissing their butt doesn’t work.
We conservatives are never going to regain our credibility in foreign policy until we repudiate the Bush policy of nation-building once and for all.
Nation-building in Islamic lands, gets us nothing but dead American soldiers.
“The false campaign narrative of the president’s foreign policy.’
Obama does have a false foreign policy narrative, and so do you.
Pres. Obama’s efforts to appease the Gathering Threats of radical Islamism represented, and continue to represent, one plausible option in response to a complex array of global challenges that have no good approaches. In the absence of a clear solution for a painless victory, the question facing an American leader becomes: which approach or policy is least bad? This question is made pointed by the Iranian nuclear threat.
Neville Chamberlain was a good man, perhaps even a great man, who had the tragic misfortune of leading an Empire following decades of its decline in unwanted confrontation with a rising and aggressive power playing by a different and unfamiliar rule book. Appeasement seemed attractive to many Tories of the 1930s (and to the in-crowds of Oxford and Cambridge and to the smart set of London society) as a sensible short-term tactic to buy time. The tragedy was that Chamberlain himself swallowed the “Cool Aid of false hope” as if the tactics of appeasement were a strategy. Churchill based his subsequent strategy (promising only “blood, toil, tears and sweat” as bombs fell on London) on the foundational values of his nation.
The key question facing American voters is whether Pres. Obama has a true strategy underlying his tactics of appeasement — or whether managing American decline is itself the essence and unspoken aim of his tactics. Will the swagger of the Administration over the Bin Laden mission be seen by future generations of historians as akin to Chamberlain’s transient acclaim after Munich? If so, Obama’s tragedy, like that of Chamberlain, will be ours to share in a world aflame.
Naming “the enemy” would be a good place to begin. Afghan “soldiers” just killed two more of our troops; and what’s the response? Nothing … because they have NOT been named the enemy, which is of course ISLAM. Pandering to Islam is a helluva lot WORSE that what Chamberlain did; if had invited the SS to parliament and allowed Hitler to challenge/rewite British law under pressure from Hitler I could understand your comparisons but hey; not even Chamberlain could have imagined Britain adopting Islamic Law and norms that override British sovereignty. We have a clear and present danger in our midst, let alone anywhere else. Arab leaders, are convinced that Obama is weak and feckless; they’re rejoicing because now they have a perceived clear path to a worldwide Caliphate. Achmedimanutjob of Iran is gushing with anticipation of Obama’s re-coronation; after which of course he also sees a clear path not only to nuking Israel; but an easy clear path to destroying America. These Arab leaders are insane; insane and influenced by the most evil anti-life ideology; ISLAM. Someone PLEEEEZ expalin that to Obama.
Two more human sacrifices by our Mad Hatter Generals to Islam.
Ad hominem:
You’re a troll.
Do you like it that America’s troops are being murdered by those our generals call their “Partners in Peace”?
“You’re a troll.”
The most childish and witless ad hominem on the planet.
If the shoe fits wear it and why dont you give this site a rest and go troll someplace else
The sad reality and down side of the military in a democratic republic. The position of military officer – most especially “General officer” is a political appointment. The more corrupt and progressive Washington gets, so goes the military. The most cravenly liberal people I’ve ever worked for were Annapolis grads.
Human sacrifice 21st Century American style.
It would seem the Aztec High Priests of the 15th century have been reincarnated and are now in full reign at the building some still call the Pentagon.
America’s Generals are now very much like the Aztec High Priests of many centuries ago. The main difference, and it’s a relatively small one, is that instead of continually sacrificing what they regarded as their excess and disposable human property to the Sun God to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, America’s Generals keep trying to sacrifice America’s Constitution, and do sacrifice more and more of the lives and limbs of America’s troops, whom they regard as their excess and disposable human property, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars of America’s rapidly shrinking treasure, which although itself is of much lesser importance is still no small matter, to the gods they reverently call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, and maybe even get an extra star and another few assorted colorful baubles for which to adorn themselves.
Is our military fighting for anything most Americans would regard as at all decent in Afghanistan? Certainly not our Army, nor our Marines. America’s Generals have repeatedly ordered them to respect the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” and if American troops get shot to death by what their Generals call their Partners in Peace, then the Generals conclude that America’s derelict and sacrilegious troops must not have respected the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” nearly enough and order them to take still more religious and cultural “sensitivity” training so they can better respect the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan, maybe even enough where they can start joining in the practicing of that Noble Muslim Culture themselves, which would no doubt delight the Generals to no end.
There of course is never any “sensitivity” training ever even recommended for what America’s Generals call “The Noble People Of Afghanistan” so they might better understand and appreciate Western and American culture. But then as America’s Generals clearly must regard the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan as being far superior to Western and American culture, they would surely regard any such thing as, well, absolutely unthinkable, and blasphemous, and upon hearing any such suggestion would no doubt order even more “sensitivity” training.
* Mainstream Noble People of Afghanistan Muslim Culture includes child rape of both young girls and young boys, torturing dogs including puppies, total enslavement of women, stoning women to death for being raped, and death to apostates, which itself covers a whole lot, just to very briefly mention a few of the highlights.
Our generals with their orders to the troops are co-conspirators with those they call “Our Partners in Peace” and hence are guilty of murdering their own troops.
Bingo!, Husky.
” 6. HUSKY
‘Naming “the enemy” would be a good place to begin.’
Surely we’ve seen since Obama’s fondling of that travesty of a Nobel Peace prize……what was it?…three weeks after being elected?….and later when the Nobel Committee lamely said it was in “anticipation” of what he’d do rather than what he’d actually done after the waves of eyebrow raising……that Obama ballooning ego will not permit him to listen to explanations of anything. His claque of advisers know this, that’s why they rub his back.
So, we should concentrate on the very serious first part of what you said, publicly recognizing that Muslims/Islam are/is our 21st Cent. enemy, and that they’re very adeptly fighting their guerrilla war against the West, right inside the West.
One reason why we haven’t done this so far is that we may be afraid of the unknown reaction of the de facto subversion/infiltration of Muslims in our America. We seem to recognize the reality of their numbers, their building of new mosques in areas sparsely settled by Muslims (Middle Tennessee)in Muslim anticipation of future needs, but it’s politically incorrect to hurt their feelings lest they rise up and start slitting our throats here as they’re doing elsewhere.
They won’t actually do that, folks say, because the Muslims in America are “moderates”…..”moderated”, I’d say, by their human need for financial success and security.
This in turn, raises the spectre of Muslim “moderates’” hypocrisy in that they who are already here seem to like their material life which their Koran so derides.
We should think that if they are indeed practicing Muslims, they cannot be “moderates” at the same time. Aren’t they compelled to read and obey their Koran? Where’s the “moderation” in their Koran?
We Americans are in one helluva mess right now with all of this Muslim penetration right in the midst of a critical election where the uncaring, unthinking selfish majority couldn’t care less about such abstracts as “national security” and how that affects them personally as long as their benefit checks arrive in today’s mail. In their small minds, “First things first”…..”stick it to th’ man”, right?
Here we are.
I agree with you 100%! The situation is very similar to the period before WWII. The similarity is the lack of courage to face a growing threat albeit for different reasons. Britain and France did not have the stomach to revisit the horrors of WWI and were easily persuaded that Hitler could be accomodated.
The issue today is not a corrupt person or even government, but something else unprecedented. We can militarily destroy things, but that won’t earn us victory and peace. The conclusion that it is islam itself that is the problem is too frightening for most people to even consider as a possibility, let alone the reality.
As the islamists gather their forces and strength, it eventually should become understood. Will the unstanding come too late? Time will tell.
As we confront the growing threat from islam, we should also be aware of the Chinese. They will be all to willing to usurp dominence in an ever widening domain. The nations of that region need to prepare as America may be unavailable to help with enough force.
The world community is fracturing. We need to prepare for the results.
A misunderstanding of the true nature of Islam is one of the few things under the general heading of intellectual competency that Obama cannot be accused of.
“And of course, the most clear and deadly resurgence was the one we saw in Benghazi on the anniversary of the biggest al-Qaeda attack, in which a U.S. ambassador was murdered for the first time in a third of a century, and the president decided to go to Vegas the next day, after (presumably, given the incompetence of this administration, perhaps the kindest assumption is that they didn’t bother to tell him) being informed by his own analysts that it was a terrorist attack.”
And do you hear anybody in the mainstream media noting the DATE of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi? Unless I missed something, we just suffered our worst terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 and it happened while Obama was president. Um, isn’t that at least relevant to the coming election? And where is the outrage from the press? When it was thought that George W. Bush had some pathetic abstract “warning” about the attack on 9/11/2001, the press went crazy and Congress had hearings. Remember when Condi Rice had to sit before Congress and answer blistering questions about “What the administration knew and when they knew it?”
But what do we get now from the mainstream media? Only silence. Where is Congress in all of this? Shouldn’t they immediately be calling for hearings to determine what happened? And what was the ambassador doing in Benghazi in the first place without any protection? If it was (and still is) so dangerous for Americans to be there that the FBI can’t even get into Benghazi to examine the burned-out consulate, why did we send an unprotected ambassador into such a dangerous environment in the first place? And does this mean that Libya is now the new Somalia, only this one is right on the Mediterranean just a few miles away from mainland Europe. Shouldn’t the mainstream media at least be asking these questions?
No, it is clear that the mainstream media is so far in the tank for Obama that not even the death of four Americans will make them actually do THEIR JOBS. Pathetic, really, and people WILL remember this on Election Day.
Joe Biden’s campaign bumper sticker “Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.”
My retort – “GM is dying and bin Laden is coming back to life.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
The Romney campaign needs to pick up on the title to this article and get Romney to work it into a debate answer.
‘Ambassador Chris Stevens Is Dead; Al-Qaeda Is Alive!’ Where can I obtain such a bumper sticker? Possibly with a, ‘Thanks Barry,’ added.
Ambassador Chris Stevens Is Dead.
Al-Qaeda Is Alive!
“I Built this!” – Bowing Barry
There’s a simple message in this, one for every American.
If Obama didn’t care enough to protect his own Ambassadors against terrorism, why do you think he’ll protect you?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/on_the_road_to_benghazi_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz27xO7unf4
OBAMA LIED
STEVENS DIED
You’ve got that backwards.
People died, Obama lied.
Wasn’t our ambassador killed a third of a century ago before Chris Stevens also killed by moslem murders from the religion of peace? Yes now I remember, Frances Meloy, Jr. killed June 16, 1976 by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. No that’s not it. It was Cleo Noel killed March 2, 1973 by Black September. No that’s not it. It was Adolph Dubs killed Feb. 14, 1979 in Afghanistan by Setami Milli. To paraphrase noted political commentator Samuel L. Jackson: Wake the heck up people.
bumpersticker for nov
MUTATIS MUTANDIS 2012
The radical Islamists should take a good hard look at the history of the 1930′s and early 1940′s. Americans are slow to anger, but don’t get us pissed off. Once a majority of us are, we will annihilate you. The morons on Cairo and Teheran ougth to look very carefully at the Germany and Japan of 1945,
And as to GM being alive, it better stay alive for the 40,000+ cars that were recalled for problems that cause them to a huge problem for those owning these lemons.
Funny thing is that when a non-GM company has a recall it seems to be a head line story, but this isn’t treated quite the same.
And as others have said killing Bin Laden is not foreign policy, and killing him may have turned him into a martyr.
Don’t know if I want thousands of Islamists that want us dead to be shouting OBAMA we are OSAMA.
But this puts the lie to why we should or should not kill terrorists. Killing them makes them dead but creates martyrs. But is seems that this policy is trumpeted when done by a nobel peace prize winner, and castigated when done by a republican.
Osama bin Laden had long been retired from the active terrorist field. Killing him was an act of revenge, pure and simple. Not that acts of revenge don’t have their proper place and their own sort of utility, but let’s not pretend to a greater practical meaning than that.
Amb Stevens dead. Killed by al Qaeda and Obama’s negligence.
Please release my post from the spam filter.
to see what CFB had to say. I know that sometimes my postings never see the light of day; I have seen other people speak out as well about their comments not making it to the board.
I don’t quite know how to say this, but I’ll try. These articles are becoming ludicrous for the obvious:
al Qaeda is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Several Muslim men, one an Egyptian, one an Arab from Tulkarm in Samaria, a few others as well, were the intellectual founders of the movement.
Bin Laden was apparently personally influenced by the one from Tulkarm.
Morsi is Muslim Brotherhood (so was Arafat, as we learned after his death).
As was Sheikh Yassin – when he died, killed by an Israeli hit, the Brotherhood’s big shots came up from Cairo to Gaza to take over his funeral. Only then did some of the Hamas people learn they were controlled by the Brotherhood.
Barack Hussein Obama is fond of the Brotherhood, insisted that they attend his first overseas speech in Cairo, helped them overthrow Mubarak and then issued directives to some in the Egyptian revolution to push Morsi forward as a candidate for President.
Obama killed (if we are to believe the reports) Osama bin Ladin in Pakistan. He has ordered drone hits on other Al Qaeda members. So he does fight them. And then he turns around and promotes the spread of the Brotherhood through the Middle East, at least partially.
We are living a nightmare.
Nadhmi Auchi’s London law firm targets American Thinker website
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2012/09/30/nadhmi-auchis-london-law-firm-targets-american-thinker-website/
I sure hope Romney’s people are reading this. This is great material for the debates.
Ambassador Chris Stevens Is Dead; Al-Qaeda Is Alive
Excellent response to the mindless “Osama/GM” noise esp from Biden.
Of course, it’s not entirely fair, but that’s part of the beauty, fight bogus with bogus. An investigation may show that Stevens went in knowing his danger, and nobody really expects a complete end to al Qaeda anytime soon – or at all, since it cannot really be distinguished from the greater Islam.
But that too is the point. We cannot act AS IF al Qaeda is gone, we cannot just let it flourish, we cannot simply refuse to name Islam as the danger.
JOHNNY APPLESEED GOES TO FOGGY BOTTOM
————————————–
Ambassador Chris Stevens had no business being assigned to Libya. He was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. He paid a heavy price.
There was something lightweight about Amb. Stevens, in the same way there is something lightweight about VP candidate Paul Ryan. They both exemplify a kind of goody two-shoes, Johnny Appleseedish, not quite grown up persona that makes it difficult for me to take them seriously.
Stevens supposedly “loved” Arab culture. That any mature, Western man could make such a statement except in a jocular way was my first indication that Stevens had to be looked at in a little more depth. The results of my investigations have not been pretty.
Supposedly, the ambassador was “fluent in Arabic.” Highly doubtful. As far as I can figure out, his formal training/education did not require knowledge of this language. His undergraduate major was “history” and then he went to law school.
His first contact with the “Moslem” world was as a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco “teaching English” following his graduation from college. That statement and those facts are open to major interpretations and misinterpretations.
First of all, the Peace Corps is not what it used to be. I won’t go into details here, but I will say that teaching English in Morocco via the Peace Corps has long been known as, well, as a program of ill-repute (to put it kindly). What on earth was Stevens doing there?
Many US ambassadors have a page on YouTube in which they introduce themselves and then blast away in the language of their assigned country. Stevens comes out with a badly pronounced “Salam Alaykum” and then proceeds to speak in English. Why not Arabic? (because he’s not fluent is why…not even close).
Something else I found suspicious. Supposedly he “loved” Arab culture so much he used to go out at night and sip tea with “merchants” at the local suq. Anybody that knows the Middle East in depth knows that this kind of behavior is totally unbecoming an “ambassador”. No other ambassador would dream of doing such a thing. He might get away with it in Paris or Zurich or Warsaw. In Damascus or Amman or Riyadh? Forget it.
Some Roman emperors and certain Moslem Caliphs were known to “roam the streets” at night to be with the “ people”. Most eventually disappeared on one of their rounds, never to be heard from again.
Stevens didn’t deserve what he got. But the poor guy was delusional about the Middle East. He never should have been sent there or accepted the job.
It does not take a military genius to recognize that our leaders do not have a clue, from day to day, about prosecuting this war to victory. Then Gen Petraeus judged that there was a small number of Taliban in Afghanistan; he did not mention that they would walk behind our soldiers with loaded weapons while wearing our ally’s uniform. What is his assessment now that our Libyan Ambassador in buried and a number of our embassies had our enemy’s flag hoisted above them?
The reason we can never win this war is that we can not identify our enemy. Since Gen Frank drove to Baghdad, we have been largely incompetent in identifying, localizing, and neutralizing our enemy. Let me be quick to note that the attack, deep in Pakistan, by our Navy Seals was a breath taking tactical maneuver; they are heroes. But this tactical plan to get Ben Laden carries no credit above their field commanders. Those who are responsible for strategy, long term degradation of our enemy, are incompetent. They consider eternal war, and infinite expenditures as a normal career.
The coming debates should address hard questions to President Obama:
What conditions will you demand to stay another month in Afghanistan? To leave? No nation has ever announced a date of withdrawal from active combat and won a war. Our soldiers are dying for no clear reason. Tell us why you sacrifice them?
Can you say, “Terrorist”? Can you identify those who seek our death? How will you handle them if they fall into our hands? Gitmo? Confinement by our allies?
What do your demand of our allies in Afghanistan?
What is your policy for preventing our ambassadorial staffs from being murdered, and our soil over run by military units, flying their flag over our dirt?
Why have you been so incompetent in allying a billion Muslims in a conflict with those whose actions directly violates the basic tenets of their faith? Why is your ability to win hearts and minds so uniformly lousy across Islam?
Do you have a scintilla of a plan which will successfully end this war?
After five or six combat tours our warriors, their families, and their equipment are worn out. Broken marriages, and increased suicides are real indicators. How can you spread their load, which they endure?
If you win the election, will you keep your present Cabinet? What have they accomplished that merits a continued position?
What conditions will you demand to stay another month in Afghanistan? To leave? No nation has ever announced a date of withdrawal from active combat and won a war.
This president doesn’t believe that America should ever “win” wars — we are too stained with sin. The only verb he ever has for America and wars is “ending” them.
I read somewhere that the hit on our ambassador was carried out for revenge on us killing al queda #2. If right that would mean they are still plotting there revenge on us for killing al queda #1 (osama bin laden). Is Obama’s team studying this?
It irks me to no end that the Obama campaign, abetted by a credulous–no, enabling–press, can get away with claiming some stellar foreign policy record. The foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster at every turn, filled with missteps and strategic blunders. But because most people are ignorant, they accept the myth at face value. But ooh the transnational elite loves him–he’s so ethnic and committed to taking his country down a peg or two–cut that military Obama!
This is a President who doesn’t attend security briefings, allowed and then covered up a terrorist attack that killed a US ambassador in Libya, which they destabilized along with Mali and other areas in NW Africa–in the middle of which who casually asserted in an interview that Egypt is not an ally.
Whose ego and inexperience led him to muck up even more the Israeli-Trans-Jordanian conflict. Whose uncertain response to the Iranian uprisings and Arab democratic revolutions (caused by Bush policy, it’s true) has left a hash of our position in the ME.
Who silently watches as China continues to steal and spy on our government, military, and business community with impunity.
Who is credited with pulling us out of Afghanistan at the same time as he committed a half-hearted imitation surge while declaring a withdrawal date–an Afghanistan where our policy is in tatters and more Americans have died under his watch for a policy he doesn’t even believe in. But he got in there and told Karzai who was boss–no more video conferences for you!
Who is lauded for ending the Iraq war when in reality all he did was fail to agree to a small continuing and stabilizing US presence (Bush negotiated the withdrawal date and everything else).
And don’t even get me started on the bin Laden thing. Although I will say it maybe wasn’t the best way to exploit the intelligence “treasure trove” by announcing it immediately afterward–and maybe it would have been nice to try to get back the top secret military helicopter before we announced to the world to point their cameras at it. Of course the intelligence and strategic assets brought to bear in location, planning, nad executing the raid were also inherited from Bush. And don’t look now but maybe our overall situation in Pakistan has maybe not been handled the best either.
I guess it is of a piece with the GM narrative–Obama saved the American car industry. Actually it was Bush who saved GM with a bridge loan. All Obama did was allow the bankruptcy and illegally intervene and run roughshod over our legal system in pushing the UAW over bondholders. And of course GM isn’t in good shape today after $50 billion.
Or that Obama saved us from another depression–funny but I thought TARP did that, before Obama got into office. The failed stimulus (where are all those glorious public works projects we got for the almost $1 trillion–plus interest?) certainly didn’t do it! With almost 2 years of FILIBUSTER-PROOF majorities in Congress Obama spent most of it shoving a giant federal takeover of healthcare down our throats–oh but it was those Republicans who made him do that instead of focusing on the economy. And when the electorate put Republicans into office in 2010, why they were supposed to get there and then immediately turn around, acquiesce to a cosmetic Obama “jobs” program to burn another half trill on maintaining the overweight public sector in high trim, doing the opposite of what they promised on the campaign trail.
Or how Bush policies caused the financial crisis–tax cuts (somewhat larger than the ones Al Gore wanted) caused the crisis? Is pushing unqualified buyers into home ownership a Republican policy? Was that Bush who ended the division between commercial and investment banking? Were those Republican cronies at Fannie and Freddie?
But don’t worry, because in a second term Obama is going to save the economy and fix the debt by sticking it to mildly well off and rich people, generating another $50 bill or so in revenue per year–although I guess when you increase federal spending to 25% of GDP, $50 billion doesn’t really help.
Then again, why am I talking about any of this: If you listen to the MSM/NPR axis you will be made to understand that all the news is about the horrible Romney campaign. Fact check that Romney for us guys! Keep debunking things, explain how all the fact-checkers declared that Obama didn’t do anything to welfare reform–trust us, we are experts. And how substantive (and true) criticisms of Obama’s sneaky welfare changes are equivalent to running ads asserting that Mitt Romney is a corporate felon who killed someone.
You know what? This country deserves the leaders it elects. We are well past the tipping point when too many people are coopted into the government redistribution infrastructure. Tyranny of the mob, directed by cynical overclass leftist elites handing out other people’s money and exploiting racial grievances and the faction of identity politics to maintain power.
Clearly I should just give up. Don’t bother telling me, I already know.
Give up if you must but before you do, please cast your vote to cancel out an Obama vote on November 6.
The Obama folks as us to credit that “GENERAL MOTORS IS ALIVE AND OBAMA IS DEAD.” To that we now need to add that now the Arab world is rioting in the streets shouting that “OBAMA WE ARE NOW ALL OSAMA.”
Also interesting is looking at then State Senator Obama’s October 2, 2002 speech on Iraq. As I recall, he started considering running for US Senate in mid 2002.
President Obama is a big talker. Paraphrasing Clint Eastwood, sometimes you just have to say…we’ve got to let you go.
Here’s a transcript of the speech from October 2, 2002
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469
“Unlike Hitler, he did not invent the ideology.”
I would argue this side of the comparison. The ideology was around long before Hitler. Nazism was simply the apotheosis of Marx’s socialism and (especially) the antisemitism that has been part and parcel of Europe for centuries.
“The enemy in Iraq is Islam, which we refused to either name or fight. I believe we left Iraq with a constitution that holds Islam as its official religion.”
Truman understand the dangers of Shinto. How can these idiots fail to understand the danger of Islam, an international and ancient enemy born as an attack on Judeo Christian values and history?
Truman set the precedent for Japan, and all we have to do is observe Japan today to witness what the best solution would be. Any nation that causes us to go to war with them will be destroyed to the extent required for us to replace their constitution with the same guidelines. We tolerate no dangerous nations that can’t keep their religion separate from their judicial systems and government leaders. Why pay billions to support something we know to be dangerous and don’t even allow ourselves to do? Screw Egypt until they separate church and state completely with a Japanese style (military for defense only) constitution. Now, before Iran gets the nukes, because Egypt may not be the last nation we need to de-claw permanently.
Otherwise, Armageddon seems near.
Fantastic beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your site, how can i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account aided me a appropriate deal. I were tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast provided vibrant clear concept