Posted on 10/21/2014 5:10:48 AM PDT by SJackson
Reprinted from RedState.com.
When conservatives consider the casualties of Obama’s national security policies, their attention is drawn quite naturally to Benghazi. In this shameful episode, the Obama Administration sacrificed an ambassador and three American heroes to protect a deceptive presidential campaign message in which Obama claimed that the war against al-Qaeda was over and won (“Osama bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run”). The facts are these: Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American heroes were sent into an al-Qaeda stomping ground that the British and other diplomatic consulates had already evacuated; they were denied the security they had requested; they were then left to die during a seven hour fire fight when their compound was attacked, and finally betrayed in death, when Obama and his representatives lied to the world about what had taken place and when he failed to bring their killers to justice as he had mendaciously promised he would.
Benghazi can be seen as the collateral damage caused by presidential lies – and worse – presidential denial that there is in fact a war that Islamists have declared on America. Instead Obama insists – in the official language he authorized and that is still in place – that America’s responses to acts of Islamic terror should be described as “overseas contingency operations.” If Islamic murders and beheadings take place in the homeland, Obama calls them “workplace violence.” Benghazi is also the most shameful presidential abandonment of Americans in the field in our history – a disgrace compounded when Obama justified his trade of five Taliban Generals for one American deserter by saying Americans don’t leave their countrymen on the battlefield, which is precisely what he did in Benghazi. All of which justifies the conservative focus on this terrible event.
But the casualties of Obama’s reign in Benghazi are dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of deaths his policies have led to in Syria and Iraq, and the millions of Iraqis, Syrians and Lybians that those same policies have caused to flee their homes and become homeless in Turkey, Tunisia and other places of refuge. Obama’s legacy is defined by his ideological aversion to American power, his rule as the most anti-military president in our history, and his deeds as an “anti-war” activist, opposed to the “war on terror” because he believes that America’s (and Israel’s) policies are the cause of terrorism and the hatred that Islamic fanatics direct against our country.
Because of his ideological opposition to American power, Obama deliberately and openly surrendered America’s gains in Iraq, which had been won through the sacrifice of thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of American casualties. By deliberately handing over America’s massive military base in Iraq – a country that borders Syria, Afghanistan and Iran – Obama turned that country over to the terrorists and Iran, as his generals and intelligence chief and secretary of defense warned it would. Obama disregarded the warnings from his national security advisers – as no other American president would have – because he regarded America rather than the terrorists as the threat. In abandoning Iraq and deliberately losing the peace, he betrayed every American and every Iraqi who gave their lives to keep Iraq out of the hands of the terrorists and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Obama’s stubborn refusal to use America’s military might – ground forces backed by air power – when Assad crossed the “red line” Obama had drawn in Syria created a second power vacuum that the terrorists filled, thus leading to the emergence of ISIS or ISIL – the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant. Defenders of Obama will claim that the American public would not have supported a military intervention in Syria even if Obama had ordered one. But why is that? It is because for eleven years, beginning with their assault on “Bush’s war” in Iraq, the Democrats have sabotaged the war on terror, claiming that America’s use of power for anything but “humanitarian” purposes is illegitimate, dangerous and the root cause of the terrorist problem.
Because it was “humanitarian” Obama felt justified in conducting an unauthorized, illegal intervention in Libya to overthrow an anti-al Qaeda dictator, saying it was to prevent an invisible threat to civilians there. The result? Al-Qaeda is now a dominant force in Libya, and 1.8 million Libyans – a third of the population – have fled to Tunisia. Another brutal Obama legacy. Yet, how firm is Obama’s commitment to humanitarian interventions? In Iraq he stood by while more than half a million Christians were either slaughtered or driven into exile by ISIS murderers on their mission to cleanse the earth of infidels. This was the oldest Christian community in the world, going back to the time of Christ, and Obama let it be systematically destroyed before bad press and pressure from his own party caused him to intervene to save Yazvidis and a Christian remnant trapped on a mountain top.
The Obama presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for Iraqis, Syrians, and Libyans. Now that ISIS is in control of territory the size of a state, has access to hundreds of millions of petrol dollars and advanced U.S. ordnance, not to mention chemical weapons that Saddam left behind, it is an impending disaster for the American homeland as well.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Thank you David Horowitz for summarizing so well the dangerous moribund un-American character of the Obama administration.
The simple explanation and the one that covers all of the President’s actions is that he is a Moslem. America is the major Infidel obstacle to the worldwide Umma and this Moslem finds himself in charge of America. It is as if a committed Russian Communist had been elected to the Presidency of the US in 1968. With that understanding all the blurry confusion comes into sharp focus. The Sultan is competently doing what his Relìgion and his Book require him to do and he is doing it effectively. Sometimes he has to backpedal just a little bit as in bombing his Daesh comrades in Iraq and Syria but he does that at as low a level as possible and that action was forced on him by the military that he does not yet fully control.
Where is the GOP on this?
Arming al Qaeda, nearly every one (as McCain);
Keeping the border open -— even after EV-68 and Ebola;
Hiding, as usual (except Sen. Cruz);
Supporting their King (ask Boehner);
Protecting ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE (McConnell said this week
it would STAY, even in his home state).
The only passionate political action he ever took when he was in the Illinois state house was to push for bills that made sure babies who survived and abortion would be killed like a clubbed baby seal.
Sorta makes you think that under that seemingly calm exterior is the heart of a cold blooded killer.
It is the job of the President to explain to the citizens why the military forces of The United States must be used in a specified conflict. Obama never did this with Libya. Why? Because he’s arrogant? He is, but the Democrats do everything based on politics. It would have made political sense for Obama to lay out the case for military action in Libya, but he never did. Why? Because while the Democrats always consider the politics of every situation, the reason they do so is to gather wealth. The Democrats wanted Qadaffi’s wealth, and they realized that they might not be able to get it through normal diplomatic and military means. So, in the case of Libya, the Democrat’s greed overcame their normal political process. That is why Libya is so deadly to the Democrat Party. They got in a hurry and have left themselves vulnerable.
*calm exterior is the heart of a cold blooded killer*
Never mind the association with Bill Ayres and the study of Alinsky.
Those reading this already know all of this back in 2006. Benghazi might have been a deal the Regime made with the Islamos in exchange for something else.
Its a guess.
There is no "sort of." Any reading of his bios or of interviews with those who have known him for years demonstrates conclusively that this man is a genuine, full blooded, 100% bonafide monster. In what way would the embodiment of the anti Christ be assembled that would differ in substance from the current CIC?
Yeah. I can hardly wait for a “conservative” Senate. Then they can all do a whole lot of nothing while America is left rotting on the vine. Like, our “conservative” House.
Everything is proceeding nicely according to the plan.
Hillary did have a thing for Palestine, so it would be safe to say she would have been it on it too.
Blowback is a bitch, ain't it?
No difference at all. My “sort of” is just my way of stating the obvious.
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.