Posted on 05/10/2013 5:40:27 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
The mishandling of Benghazi undermined a prominent Muslim moderate.
A significant point made in riveting testimony by Gregory Hicks, the State Departments former deputy chief of mission in Libya, has largely been missed in the coverage of Wenesdays Benghazi hearing. It is worth highlighting, not least because doing so illuminates the depth of the Obama administrations depravity.
In its assiduous effort to defraud the American people, for 2012-campaign purposes, into believing that the Benghazi massacre was provoked by an anti-Islamic Internet video rather than having been a coordinated jihadist attack that undermined President Obamas claim to have decimated al-Qaeda the administration betrayed its self-proclaimed commitment to establishing democracy in Islamic countries.
It has been widely reported that, during the hearing, Mr. Hicks was asked to respond to the infamously cynical, transparently rehearsed rant What difference, at this point, does it make? by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her long-delayed congressional testimony about Benghazi back in January. Hicks first observed that the real question was, What difference did it make? (his emphasis), then proceeded to explain that the difference was enormous . . . and enormously damaging. The reason has to do with Mohammed Magariaf, the president of Libyas new, post-Qaddafi General National Congress. In a pleasant surprise during the dark days after the Benghazi massacre, President Magariaf forcefully condemned the attack as the work of Islamic terrorists. For career State Department officials such as him, Hicks elaborated, this was a major coup. Now, to say Hicks was a compelling witness is an understatement. On this point, though, he did not flesh out what he meant. That is why it has not gotten the attention it deserves.
As readers who follow our discussions here know, I am not a fan of Islamic-democracy promotion at least, not the way our government has done it for the last 20 years, which is more a matter of forcing democracy to accommodate anti-democratic sharia law than of instilling the principles of Western liberty. For present purposes, however, the point is not to rehash this debate.
Like most of our best foreign-service officers, Gregory Hicks is a true believer in helping Islamic countries achieve what he called their dream of democracy. This was a goal the Bush and Clinton administration set themselves to. It is, moreover, what the Obama administration claims is its top imperative in the Middle East the reason why Obama has insisted, for example, on starting an unprovoked war to topple Qaddafi, on giving billions in aid and sophisticated weaponry to Egypts Muslim Brotherhood government, and on supporting the rebels in Syria despite their ties to the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.
What officials like Hicks realize but have difficulty explaining for to explain it is to admit the gargantuan uncertainty of the task is that democratization calls for authentic Muslim moderates to separate themselves from violent jihadists (and, I would add, from sharia chauvinists posing as moderates). If they are unwilling or unable to do so, there can be no real democracy. There can be only the law of the jihadist jungle or, at best, a milder sharia totalitarianism that, though we may refer to it as democracy, is not democracy in any real sense.
As we have seen time and again, however, this is a very hard thing for moderates to do. Again, my point here is not to repeat what Ive said a million times about how foolish we are not to study Islamic-supremacist ideology. But the unyielding fact is that this ideology is prevalent throughout the Middle East it is not just the stuff of fringe terrorists. And it teaches that those who sow discord in the ummah by, for example, condemning fellow Muslims or endorsing Western standards over sharia subjugation should be ostracized or even killed.
It takes a great deal of bravery for a Muslim to make a stand against this. He is sure to be vilified as an apostate for doing so. Sharias penalty for apostasy is death, and the so-called Muslim Street is well known to take such matters into its own hands. This is why President Magariafs acknowledgment that the atrocity in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and his forceful condemnation of the jihadists who carried it out, was such a coup in the eyes of Hicks.
Libya is a plenary Islamic country. Magariaf is a Sunni Muslim from Benghazi albeit one who lived for decades in the U.S. He was among Qaddafis most prominent enemies, and is reputed to be a liberal in the classic sense, supporting free elections and free speech, as well as equality among citizens and between the sexes. Not surprisingly, he has been the target of multiple assassination attempts, the most recent one in January. He is, in sum, exactly the kind of ally the democracy project desperately needs if it is to have any chance of success.
Magariafs condemnation of the Benghazi terrorist attack was an announcement to the world that there are prominent Muslims willing to run the risk of taking on the jihadists the very thing we justifiably complain that we dont hear nearly enough of from self-professed moderates. It was also an announcement that there are Muslims prepared to stand publicly and strongly with the United States, even if that means influential sharia jurists will condemn them for breaking ranks.
None of this was lost on the White House. Yet President Obama dispatched Susan Rice to the Sunday talk shows anyway her talking points oozing with deceit, as Steve Hayess devastating report in The Weekly Standard has demonstrated. Rice directly contradicted Magariaf, maintaining that the attack on our compound resulted from a spontaneous protest provoked by a hateful video defaming Islams prophet. This disgusting performance mounting evidence proves she knew what she said was false badly undermined Magariafs credibility. Worse, it implied that the jihadists who murdered our officials were justified in their rage, if not in their savage actions i.e., that sharia blasphemy principles trump the free speech that any real democracy must have as its foundation.
That, Hicks said, is why his jaw dropped when he heard Rices assertions, which, he further recalled, left him personally stunned and embarrassed for our country. He was embarrassed because the cause for which he has spent much of his career struggling the cause for which American blood and treasure have been copiously sacrificed for a dozen years had been cravenly sold out.
For what its worth, Ive long thought the democratization cause is neither plausible nor a vital American interest. Unlike Hicks, I do not believe that the State Department should have been in Benghazi at all we should never have diplomatic posts in places where we cannot responsibly safeguard them. But my pessimism about the prospects of the mission is a matter separate from the great respect I have that we all should have for the courage and dedication of Americans officials, such as Hicks, who have labored to give Muslims overseas a chance for freedom in the sincere belief that doing so promotes our national security.
That is what Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the rest of the cabal betrayed. And for no better reason than that telling the truth about Benghazi would have wounded Obamas campaign less than two months before Election Day. Bluntly, a jihadist attack in the heart of the rebel resistance to Qaddafi made it embarrassingly clear that Obama had not crushed al-Qaeda. It showed that the presidents Libya misadventure had empowered Americas enemies. This the reelection effort could not afford, so the administration used the video and familiar demagoguery about dread Islamophobia to cover it up.
For many years, the Islamic-democracy project has been a passion of both Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats. If I were one of them, Id be pretty damn angry right now.
This is the first that I've ever seen Andy McCarthy identify a 'moderate' Muslim leader who has spoken out against the Islamic supremacists.
And 0bama and Hitlery cut him off at the knees.
“Islamic Democracy” Isn’t that an oxymoron?
I know there’s a picture of a burkha clad woman holding up a sign that says “democracy go to hell”.
Yea. And I’ve never heard Andrew C. McCarthy ... who knows, has fought against and has written about for decades the ‘myth’ of moderate or democratic Islam ... refer to it in any other way but oxymoronic. Which is why I took notice of this article and story.
It’s impossible to install a true democracy in governments ruled by a brainwashing cult religion.
They DO NOT WANT democracy. They want Sharia.
I WISH Obama would betray Islamic “Democracy.”
Islamic Democracy is one MAN, one vote, ONCE.
Unfortunately, we have had that all over the ME and North Africa.
Given this the only logical policy for the United States is to try and install a friendly dictator that is a moderate and not a religious fanatic.
In a burkia, all women can pretend they are beautiful.
Look at that freak who insisted she wear a burka in court because there would be eligible males and muslim women had to “hide their beauty”. [she was no beauty!]
Selling out friends and trying to buy off enemies. The exact opposite of a good incentive plan.
There is also a niqab’d Muslimah with a sign, “Freedom Go To H***”.
Democracy & Shariah? Don’t make this “infidel” laugh!
(And now a word from our sponsor: Nuke Makkah NOW!)
For the traitors,the ends justify the means
I believe it is the first given example of the word in most dictionaries. Please find me one instance where there has ever been more than one free election in an Islamic country.
Obamas Betrayal of American Democracy
Of course Iron, but the larger point is in this article and in Hicks testimony.
The dummies undermined the Libyan President who was making a definitive statement and our a*holes made a mockery of him.
I found that part of Hicks testimony quite compelling.
It called them all out for the lame cover story.
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.