The Meaning of Benghazi
The death of four Americans on 9/11/12 in a consulate in
Benghazi, Libya has become political trouble for the Obama campaign in multiple
ways. His foreign policy, denying Islamic roots of terror, leads to either misunderstanding or covering up the motivations of terrorists in Benghazi, as well as not preparing for a possible 9/11 attack.
1.
CONTINUING TERROR ATTACKS SHOW FOREIGN POLICY
FAILURE
Contrary to the Obama campaign, the war on terror is not
over. Bin Laden is dead by Al Qaeda and other groups are not. Obama’s election
was supposed to be a reset of relations between the US and Middle Eastern
nations, ushering in an era of closer relations in the spirit of multicultural
understanding. In fact, the record shows relations have worsened: Iran is
closer to nuclear weapons; Iraq is working with Iran; the “Arab Spring” handed
over Egypt, Libya, and other nations from secular dictators to the Muslim
Brotherhood and other fundamentalists; more Americans have died in Afghanistan
in four years under Obama than under eight years under Bush.
Getting rid of Qaddafi paved the way for an al Qaeda
resurgence.
Going into Libya was solely Obama’s decision. Libya posed no
threat to the US; Qaddafi had voluntarily turned over WMD research materials
and ended his WMD development program after the US invaded Iraq, for fear that
he would be next. Obama sent US forces in over the objections of many, citing
imminent slaughter of innocents. Yet he never went before the American people,
or Congress, to make the case for going in; it was taken as self-explanatory
that we must act to prevent a massive slaughter.
What does the intelligence say about Libya and al Qaeda? National
Security reporter Bill Gertz writes at http://freebeacon.com/al-qaeda-winter/
that a “54-page unclassified report describes al
Qaeda—which President Barack Obama recently declared to be in decline—as
“seeking to create an al Qaeda clandestine network in Libya that could be
activated in the future to destabilize the government and/or to offer
logistical support to al Qaeda’s activities in North Africa and the Sahel”—the
Sahara desert region stretching across northern Africa.
The report is dated
August 2012 and was published before the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S.
consulate in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens
and three other Americans.”
What is al Qaeda doing in Libya?
“Strategically, al
Qaeda’s goal in the country is to set up a “caliphate, instituting sharia, and
ending the Western presence in Muslim lands,” the report said.
“Al-Qaeda’s primary
goal in Libya is to establish an Islamic emirate as part of its overall
objective to reestablish the caliphate.””
Did Obama see the report? If he did, why say al Qaeda is in
decline? If not, why not? This is unclassified material, so one can wonder what
other material the President would be privy to. It came out in August, so he
had plenty of time to see the material.
Note the clear statement here of the long-term goal of al
Qaeda. It is exactly the same as the long term goal of all Muslim
fundamentalists: the entire world under the rule of Sharia law.
Where is the President on this? Is he speaking out against
Sharia law – or dodging the issue?
More generally, those benefitting the most from the last
four years are militant fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. From
the “Arab Spring” to the present, they’ve gained considerable political power
throughout the Middle East. American interests have suffered as a result. Egypt,
for instance, has torn up the Camp David Accords in which, among other things,
they officially recognized Israel’s right to exist. This brings them closer to
their goal of a pan-national Islamic state throughout the region, and
ultimately, a world under Sharia law.
Contrary to 2008 promises of establishing closer ties with
the Middle East, we see that four years later the terror attacks continue. His
overarching policy of cozying up to the Middle East, of building bridges
instead of waging war, has not worked.
In today’s WSJ, an excellent op-ed by Douglas J. Feith and
Seth Cropsey explains a fundamental error in Obama’s foreign policy: a failure
to acknowledge the obvious and name the enemy. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444354004578061134174936450.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
“[T]here's a bigger problem here
than cynicism. It is that the administration's first response—to blame an
American video, not Islamist terrorists—reflected strategic misjudgments. First
is the refusal to accept that the terrorism threat is part of a larger problem
of Islamist extremism. And second is the belief that terrorism is spawned not
by religious fanaticism but by grievances about social, economic and other problems
for which America bears fault.
When Mr. Obama became
president, he was intent on repudiating the previous administration's war on
terrorism, which saw al Qaeda as part of a diverse international movement of
Islamist extremists hostile to the United States, to liberal democratic
principles (in particular the rights of women), and to most governments of
predominantly Muslim countries.”
“The problem with
ignoring ideology is made clear—unintentionally—in President Obama's National
Counter-Terrorism Strategy, released in June 2011. In it he writes: "We
are at war with a specific organization—al-Qa'ida." But America also has
to work aggressively against Hezbollah, he notes a few pages later—and against
a number of terrorist groups in South Asia, he further adds, "even if we
achieve the ultimate defeat of al-Qa'ida in the Afghanistan-Pakistan
theater."
So our problem is
substantially broader than al Qaeda—and even broader than al Qaeda and its
affiliates. What all these groups have in common is Islamist ideology—yet Mr.
Obama ignores that.”
This is the heart of it: Obama acts as if Islamic ideology were irrelevent to terrorism. When confronted with the issue, as he was with Benghazi, he looks to other explanations.
“Because Mr. Obama
misdiagnoses terrorism and extremism, it is not surprising that he failed to
recognize their consequences; instead, he reflexively looked in the Benghazi
wreckage for a cause that originated in this country.
Such thinking infects
many streams of Obama administration foreign policy. If the president were
clear-eyed about Islamist extremism, he wouldn't have cold-shouldered the
antiregime demonstrators in Iran in June 2009. He wouldn't have cut funds for
promoting democracy and human rights abroad. He wouldn't have made a diplomatic
representative of Salam al-Marayati, who calls for Hezbollah's removal from the
U.S. terrorist list and has said that "Israel should be put on the suspect
list" for the 9/11 attack. And the president wouldn't have spent more
energy denouncing foolish American bigots than condemning organized,
anti-American terrorism.”
What happened was not an isolated case. It is indicative of his overall foreign policy failure.
2. LAX PREPARATION INDICATES EITHER IGNORANCE OR
INDIFFERENCE
I’ve yet to hear anyone ask a simple question: given it was
the first 9/11 anniversary following the death of Bin Laden, why didn’t we beef
up security around possible targets? There’s no need for direct intelligence
about specifics; the anniversary itself would be sufficient justification.
Also, it was already known that Benghazi was rife with Al Qaeda supporters; why
not beef up security based on that? When requests came in, why not beef up
security based on that?
Regardless of the reasons for the lax security, the
responsibility for it lies ultimately with the President. It demonstrates a
failure to prepare based on the facts available.
3.
THE COVER-UP SHOWS OBAMA LIED REPEATEDLY
In an earlier post http://strikingthemes.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazi-attack-timeline-of-cover-up.html
I showed the timeline of the narrative which continues to daily “evolve” –
based on what was or wasn’t said at the Rose Garden, for instance.
The clear truth is the early reports said nothing about this
being a terrorist attack, despite clear statements to the contrary from
intelligence agencies within 24 hours of the attack. The changing story is not
consistent with itself, nor with reports from others who have come forward. The
Obama administration has spent several days lying to the public, then lying
about lying.
So much for the most transparent administration in history. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FIrNGkd3Uc&feature=related
4.
OBAMA REFUSES TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY
Obama blamed various people: those behind the video; the
CIA; the State Dept. Then Hillary Clinton took the blame. Finally, at the
second Presidential debate, Obama stood up and claimed he was ultimately
responsible.
5.
OBAMA’S REACTION INDICATES LACK OF FOCUS ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE
Obama now has a documented record of not attending his daily
intelligence briefings, unlike prior Presidents. Both Bush and Clinton attended
nearly 100% of their daily briefings.
It’s one thing to read documents; it’s another to sit down
with the authors of the document, to ask questions and probe deeper on
different aspects.
His attendance record points to a lack of concern.
Immediately following the 9/11/12 attack, Obama could have called
in all experts on the subject. He could have gone over all details of the event
to understand what was happening and what to do about it.
But he didn’t. He flew to a fundraiser in Las Vegas instead.
LOOKING FORWARD
Some might object here and say: “He should have beefed up
security. He should’ve come clean about the facts. But this is an isolated
incident. It’s tragic, but let’s move on.”
Now that we’ve had four years to see how Obama operates, we
can look at an actual record to see how he’ll act in the future. And that
record is not good.
In this case, consider his actions with Benghazi.
The tragedy could have been prevented, or at least reduced,
had the consulate been better protected. This was not an intelligence failure.
Everyone knows the significance of the date September 11. It takes no special
knowledge to guess that terrorists would want to commemorate that with a new
attack. We could have issued an alert about it. We could have beefed up
security. That we didn’t is a failure to either understand the situation or to
take it seriously by preparing for it. Either is a serious flaw for any
President when it comes to major issues like terrorism.
His response after the attack was to fly to Las Vegas for a
fundraiser. He should have stopped what he was doing and made it a priority to
focus on the issue. It is at least comparable to Bush’s “Katrina moment” where
his foes claimed the mere appearance of apathy was terrible. Here, Obama could
have at least made an effort to appear to take the issue seriously.
His response is also akin to Watergate. Nixon’s foes claimed
the cover-up was unbecoming of a President, regardless of the scale of the
crimes committed. That standard applies here: if he covered up the facts, and
lied repeatedly to the public, he should be held accountable.
We know who the terrorists are and what they want. They are
the Muslims willing to engage in, or support those who engage in, violence to
ultimately place the world under Sharia law.
To defend our rights and our freedom, to defend our very
lives, we need a leader who understands this issue and is willing to act
accordingly. Obama has demonstrated an inability to do so. Benghazi is just one
example.
Some may say Benghazi was a mistake; others want to ascribe
malice and say it was intentional. In the end the results are the same. We have
a President who is either unable or unwilling to identify Islam as the ideology
driving the terrorists; to see the “Arab Spring” as a sweeping swing toward
theocracy in the Arab region; to see the terrorist acts not as isolated
incidents but as small pieces of a bigger war; to act to prepare Americans
abroad for threats; and to ultimately take responsibility for his mistakes and
be honest with the American public.
We need an honest, responsible person in the President. He needs to have a better foreign policy, and especially a better policy toward fighting terrroists, their supporters, and their ideological roots.
