Yesterday, when most of the mainstream media busied themselves pounding Mitt Romney for having the chutzpah to denounce the initial apology for American freedom of speech issued by the U.S. embassy in Cairo, they were missing a much more important story. As Islamist attacks on the U.S. escalated throughout the Middle East, it became apparent that the Obama administration’s recent bout of back slapping celebration over its foreign and defense policy was completely unjustified. Not only were the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department sleeping while terrorist forces plotted a full-scale assault on our mission in Benghazi, Libya but other al Qaeda operatives were at work throughout the region plotting mischief.
As the New York Times reports today, the assault on the U.S. embassy in Sana, Yemen was apparently fomented by one Abdul Majid al-Zandani, whom they describe as, “a onetime mentor to Osama bin Laden” and someone who, “was named a ‘specially designated global terrorist’ by the United States Treasury Department in 2004.” Would it be considered in bad taste to ask why, if the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism policy is such a raging success, such a person is still on the loose? Equally interesting is the answer to the question of how it is that in Libya, a country where American influence is supposed to be currently strong, this administration found itself surprised by the appearance of armed foes. Though Democrats spent the last week furiously patting themselves on the back for having such a tough and successful leader at the helm, it appears that not only is the country just as unpopular in the Middle East as it was when George W. Bush was president, but that the security situation there may be rapidly unraveling. Though no one in Washington is allowed to say the phrase “war on terror” anymore, it appears that Islamists have no trouble in continuing their war on America.
These events in Libya, Egypt and Yemen may be just the tip of the Islamist iceberg. We now know that the kerfuffle over a trailer for an anti-Muslim movie was merely a cover for attacks on American targets in the Middle East by an al-Qaeda movement that is, despite the death of Osama bin Laden, very much alive and well. As the Times relates, U.S. forces continue to try to battle al-Qaeda. Earlier this week, one of the group’s top operatives in Yemen was killed by a U.S. drone strike. But not all of America’s security problems can be solved with remote control bombs.
Rather than this topic being a source of strength for President Obama, the embarrassing and tragic events of the past few days show it to be a weakness. This is a president who came into office desperate to ingratiate himself with the Arab and Muslim worlds, but who has discovered that a policy of engagement with Islamists has utterly failed.
In Egypt, Obama equivocated while the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power. He has chosen to embrace the now Islamist government there with debt forgiveness and continued aid only to see it stand by and watch while our embassy was assaulted.
In Iran, the president spent years on failed policies of engagement and diplomacy. Rather than set red lines on the Iranian nuclear program that would trigger action rather than more talk, he has made it abundantly clear he is more interested in stopping Israel from forestalling Tehran’s bomb than he is about the threat itself.
It is true that Osama bin Laden is dead, but that creditable action hasn’t ended the Islamist threat. The president has lost his way in the Middle East and is too full of self-regard to acknowledge the problem. Rather than dumping on Romney for stating the obvious about a disgraceful apology, the media needs to start scrutinizing an administration with a floundering foreign policy. Whether he knows it or not, the president’s long-running touchdown dance over bin Laden is over.
This reminds me of Rome's 500 year effort to "control the border" and to eliminate the threat of the German tribes. It was a good plan until they ran out of money,and more "Germans" resided in the empire than Romans.
It could well be that it was not the German invasions of the 5th and sixth centuries that sunk the Empire, but the Muslim invasion of the 7th. By and large the Germans were Romanized: witness the Gothic kingdom in Italy overthrown by Justinian. The Muslims were another story. They seem to have capitalized on the Persian wars which devastated the great cities of the Eastern Med. The “Romans” fought the Persians to a standstill, but then the Arabs joined with the Persians to overthrow Roman authority in the Levant, and then seem to have taken over the Persian Empire. In 678, an Arab fleet attacked Constantinople itself but could nor breech its walls. The region seems not to have recovered from the Arab Conquest for several hundred years, and Arab pirates devastated trade on the Middle Sea. The German barbarians did start the Dark Age in Britain, for they eliminated almost all traces of Roman civilization there. But it was the Arab barbarians who ravaged the Levant and North Africa, and Spain.
Those terrorists are in big, big trouble. n nI guess they didn't hear Biden describe Obama's Spine of Steel, which he observed firsthand in the White House situation room the night Bin Laden was killed. n nObama sat there, resolutely clutching his coffee cup, He said 'go!', with no more than a few moments thought about the implications to his reelection prospects should the raid fail and Seals die.
More than a few moments, if the reports about deferring it three times to appease Valerie Jarrett are correct.
They called him in from the Golf course when the time came, he is still in his golf clothes. Someone threw a jacket on him.. Hillary and Panetta made the decision. 0bama had nothing to do with it, he just takes credit whenever possible. Thats how he works..
"Would it be considered in bad taste to ask why, if the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism policy is such a raging success, such a person is still on the loose?" n nWHAT?!?! There's still a major terrorist on the loose? Proof enough of Obama's failure. And no, it's not in bad taste to ask; it's asinine and completely characteristic of Commentary.
Nice strawman, Hillel. No one said "proof enough", but this together with tons of other evidence shows O's foreign policy is indeed a failure unless the goal is to take the US down a notch or two. But you would probably think that is a success, too.
To hear Team O describe it, the world is safe again since bin Laden was taken out. I'm glad he's gone, and I think his death is a victory, albeit a purely symbolic one. The trouble is that oo Obama, symbolism equals substance. n nI won't criticize him (or you) of "bad taste" for failing to recognize the difference. I'll just criticize both of you for being stupid.
I can't help but wonder if these attacks are a part of Obama's predicted "October Surprise". Now would be a great time because the yesterday the MSM ran a "squirrel conspiracy" for Obama "Our Imam in Chief" and there's enough time until November 6 for the regime to claim "plausible dependability". Obama is desperate and willing to do ANYTHING, use anyone, cost as many lives is necessary to be re-elected. Theses attacks are just the beginning, folks, so hand on to your hats and barf bags.
how can you be sure that the Islamists did it. maybe it is just the supporters of Gaddafi as a revenge for the killing of their leader. in Egypt and Yemen nothing happened just protestations against the satanic movie.
Liz Cheney is awesome.
I just read her article (thanks for the link) and I say "Liz Cheney for President!"
This is the result of Obama's foreign policy where the US betrays loyal and steadfast allies like Israel and cozies up to rogue dictators and Islamic terrorist regimes like the ones in Egypt and Libya.
It is Bush's fault that we didn't have intelligence on this. (Baack Obamam) And the MSM
Thank you for the Link. Also to Keep America Safe. n nAnd thank God for Ms Cheney. And her Dad.
Because he isn't as articulate or insightful as Liz Cheney is. The question you should be asking is this: How is it possible that, after giving us John McCain in 2008, the GOP has once again done the unthinkable, by choosing Mitt Romney to run against Obama? n nWe must vote for Mitt, because we need to get Obama outta' there! But then we must decide whether the GOP can be repaired. If not, then we'll have to form another party, a conservative party, one based on the thinking of Washington, Lincoln and Reagan—instead of Nixon, Ford and George W. Bush. n nWe have heard all we can take of the abortion "debates," the anti-gay vitriol, the anti-stem cell nonsense, the Creationism-in-the-classroom b.s., and all the other fluff that has corrupted our party and rendered it distasteful to broad swaths of centrist, moderate voters. As for the Religious Right, they have to be told that they have no place in politics, unless they check their religious rhetoric at the door! n nI am a religious Jew, a patriotic American, a Zionist activist and a conservative. That kind of "soup" is one America can "drink" with pride! But not the stuff the GOP floods us with. As a Republican myself, it pains me to even consider disowning my party. But for me, the GOP is the Party of Lincoln, of Reagan. And that party doesn't exist any longer. n nTime to move on, build another political force in America, discard what cannot and will not be either repaired or redeemed. So, vote for Mitt like the rest of us, and then we'll do the thing that must be done….form a new Conservative Party, one devoted to governance, fiscal and trade matters, assuring orderly and transparent markets, maintaining a strong national defense, forming alliances and making agreements with foreign powers as our national interest dictates, and protecting our land, water, air and wilderness. That is what a conservative party is supposed to do. It is not supposed to tell women whether to have children, or not; or whom they can marry, or not; or whether they can do research on human stem cells, or not; or whether it's okay to pray in the public schools, or not. Those things, with some exceptions, are reserved to the states and municipalities, the entities that issue birth certificates, marriage licenses and inspect institutions for health and other standards. This is not what the federal government should be addressing, and it never was.
Perhaps because you are a Jew, you haven’t a clue about the worldview of the “Religious Right, Anymore than I know about the different sects of Judaism. IAC. the culture wars are linked to economic matters because Obama view means that he sees radical feminism and gay rights as a justified assault on the bourgeosie family. It has been a source of strength in the Jewish community, and is very much in line with What Max Weber referred to as the Protestant ethic and thought it a necessary condition for modern capitalism. Destroy the family, and property rights will also be brought low. Which is why the Marxist-Leninists had only contempt for the traditional family, and of course the Church or Synagogue because each stood between the individual and the State.
The State Dept deserves congratulation for their abysmal incompetence. But the are great when it comes to antagonize and undermine Israel! nThe mass media are committing treason against the American people and America.
I'm not so sure about the premise of the article. The press and the Obama administration will do everything they can to get this off the front page and forgotten, so they can trot back on the field and spike the ball once again. Just wait until mid-October.