Whatever happened to Barack the world’s smartest leader and incomparable statesman? Those days are gone forever. Instead, it would be impossible to catalog the staggering list of ill-advised, mistaken, foolish, naive and utterly inane decisions by Obama and his administration. So, instead—let us use a single Obama catastrophe, the events of Libya—to critique and symbolize his failed tenure. This is reasonable because every bad Barack habit and evil instinct is represented in this new American disaster.
In the November 2012 presidential election, America is given an opportunity almost no other country suffering under tyranny is offered—the chance to wake-up and toss out a despot before he fatally damages our noble Republic. Let us pray Americans will cast aside sentimentality and act as true patriots and save America from a crafty and utterly immoral, power-mad demagogue. For if Libya is not a wake up call for the average American, we may not be able to stop the implosion. But we must believe we can halt the rot if we act now.
It is obvious now that a tremendous and sadly avoidable tragedy struck Americans in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of 9/11. Has such a deadly lack of leadership ever emanated from the White House? Further, what impact will such brutal official indifference make upon the American psyche if this event is not harshly sanctioned at the voting booth?
Here is a brief description of what we know: US Ambassador Christopher Stevens traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi, Libya. Nervous over rising unrest in this Muslim African Mediterranean nation, Stevens asked repeatedly for more security but was refused. On the day of the attack he’d asked again. He was attacked after dark, and seven hours later he was dead, along with three others. And it now appears the US had notice of the event, time to respond, and resources within reach to mount a counter-assault. What is not clear is why the American military was not sent in to save our Ambassador. (The time-line of the attack is well laid out at Powerline. (Benghazigate: The state of the story)
But let’s recall some of the more unsavory elements of the Benghazi charade. The killing of Stevens occurred on September 11, 2012 after 9 pm. As we now know, the attack was prep-planned terrorism, not the result of any video protest, as the White House (WH) initially claimed. The assault pitted a large group of terrorists against a few Americans and some Libyan security guards, who fled almost immediately. Four Americans were killed.
After much WH disinformation, we now know a great deal of damning information about what actually happened (key video): The fight raged for 7 hours; the WH knew there was no video protest; Ambassador Stevens asked repeatedly for more security, including the day of the attack; the WH had a live feed for 5 hours of the firefight; there was a CIA safe house 1 mile down the road; A nearby US base was 480 miles away—Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, Italy; Former Navy SEALS at the nearby (1 mile) CIA annex asked three times if they could help Stevens and were told repeatedly to “stand down”; several agents finally volunteered to aid Stevens and ended up dying; that a Delta Force Team, designated a secret tier-one counter-terrorism team, was at Sigonella, at most 2 hours away; a US Military AC-130h-Specter Gunship was already in Benghazi but not sent to rescue Stevens (gunships mission: “close air support, air interdiction and armed reconnaissance”); that a strike was organized, the terrorists located, but the mission canceled when Barack did not have the nerve to pull the trigger.
It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.
Without Obama’s Muslim Spring policy, Benghazi probably never would have happened (Muslim Spring being the new American approach to using foreign rebels to wage war for liberty against dictators with American backing). So how did Barack’s Muslim Spring conversion take place? Actually, and against all of Barack’s claims of being a guileless freedom fighter—it was originally all about money, oil and power. Europeans wanted Obama to join anti-Gaddafi forces during the rebel uprising to help defend their oil interests, as Libya is Europe’s biggest supplier of petroleum. Barack did not want to be left out, seemingly standing for nothing again while mouthing empty cliches, as he had been before in Iran.
Typically, after what Barack felt was a successful campaign to oust Gaddafi, he took credit for the strategy. This is a longstanding habit (noted when he rode other legislator’s bills in the Illinois senate, despite having nothing to do with them). Writes one journalist in June 2011:
From Washington, the enthusiasm of the French for intervention in Libya is seen with a mixture of relief and puzzlement. The Americans do not want the job and are happy that someone else does. Indeed, President Nicolas Sarkozy’s willingness to intervene helped close a dangerous gap between the world of “values,” which would call for direct American intervention against Muammar al-Qaddafi, and the world of “interest,” which impelled President Barack Obama to restraint.
While Americans are relieved by France’s display of determination, they cannot refrain from expressing a sense of bemusement: Do the French really know what they are up against? What has happened to them? We know what war means, but they seem to have forgotten! Indeed, France and the United States seem to have switched roles from just a few years ago.
Sadly, Barack takes his own brand of “leadership” so seriously, and with the novelist’s joy for embellishment, that soon Europe’s Libyan intervention became another seed of his genius. Obama’s fiction of Libyan leadership was glorified in Vanity Fair in a silly panegyric called Obama’s Way. One weirdly effusive excerpt notes how Barack decided how the Libyan war would unfold:
A decision Barack Obama had made, more or less on his own. The president’s decision reached forward into the impersonal future—Qaddafi would be killed, Libya would hold its first free elections—but it also reached back into the personal past, to the things that had made Obama capable of walking alone into a room with a pencil and walking out a bit later with a conviction….He was especially alive to the power of a story to influence the American public. He believed he had been elected chiefly because he had told a story. Now the United States had forged a broad international coalition to help people who claimed to share our values rid themselves of a tyrant.
What can we learn about Barack just from his Libya fiasco? There are many lessons, actually. And they all lead to the realization that Obama is a typical Marxist—dishonest, unethical, and utterly ruthless. First, when it comes to crises—Obama is a reactor, not a true leader. For example, it took France to push him into action against Gaddafi, which he then characteristically claimed showed him to be the majordomo. Yet—if he really was a principled leader, unafraid to stand up to a bully—then why no action when Iran’s people protested the faked elections, rioted and were murdered?
The Obama’s Way article went so far as to claim the profound Barack deferred to philosophers and statesmen in framing his response:
Obama asked his speechwriters to dig up for him writings about war by people he admired: Saint Augustine, Churchill, Niebuhr, Gandhi, King. He wanted to reconcile the non-violent doctrines of two of his heroes, King and Gandhi, with his new role in the violent world. These writings came back to the speechwriters with key passages underlined and notes by the president to himself scrawled in the margin.
But instead, fraudulent Barack was again simply Leading From Behind. This is the only type of “leadership” with which Barack feels an affinity.
Second, as Libya has now come apart, Barack reveals his real persona. This is the uncaring, craftily ambitious, inexperienced yet know-it-all poseur. But, when storm clouds mount he is so unnerved by making big decisions he sprints to the sand to bury his head. This can be seen the way Obama reacted to the Gulf Oil Spill. His most memorable maneuver, after lecturing oil companies on safety, was golf. Bill Clinton offered more leadership suggesting we nuke the offending undersea oil gusher.
Third, Obama’s loss of nerve and decision to call off a military strike that could have taken out the Benghazi insurgents, and instead—just letting Americans die an agonizing, lonely death—is the most quintessential aspect of the story. This is because it reveals Barack as he truly is inside—an immoral, gutless, unfeeling, selfish, hypocritical, overly ambitious and hideously uncaring person. Obama ONLY cares about what he personally finds valuable, which obviously does not include individual Americans, or any random human beings.
We must admit in passing how weird it is to watch Barack devolve from his 2008 pseudo-statesman routine into his new disrespectful, perverted and immature persona. Undoubtedly this suits him better as it cuts closer to the bone.
How about a few suggestions as to Obama’s motivations in Benghazi? Why would Barack not give his ambassador Chris Stevens security when he repeatedly asked for more and apparently danger grew daily? Because this would go against Barack’s adolescent king-of-the-world fantasy which claimed he came in peace to heal the earth.
But when the WH and Pentagon could see live video that our ambassador in Libya was getting murdered, why wouldn’t Barack go in with military when he had the means easily within reach? And why would he cancel the military response after it was organized? Most probably because he believed it could escalate into something huge which would go against his peace-maker narrative. This would imperil his upcoming election. Instead, Obama decided to sentence 4 men to execution, betting he could cover up the small murder by blaming it on another—Barack’s MO—with a hack video. He expected the media would undoubtedly help him with the coverup—as they subsequently tried—and sweep him back into power. But since this failed, all bets are off.
Ultimately, Benghazi is a triumph of Barack’s famed pragmatism, where only the outcome matters, and anything that helps achieve the goal—like murder by abandonment, in this case—is considered ethical.
Barack is a self-centered, utterly unfeeling, revolution-seeking drone who cannot be bothered with the hard work of genuine leadership. And as terrifying as it sounds, he is a typical Marxist leader who wants to “save humanity,” but finds individuals not important enough to consider. It’s no wonder Barack’s White House loves Mao, a possible role model for crazy, unthinking and ideologically-driven tyranny from the man who murdered 77 million of his own countrymen. Or perhaps Vlad Lenin, first dictator of the USSR is his example, who said—“Any cook should be able to run the country.” Marxists have no respect for democracy, republicanism or capitalism.
Whatever the purpose of Barack’s presidency, he must face the decision of getting beaten at the ballot box in November 2012 or being impeached. Yes America, it has finally come to that after Barack’s murderous high treason!