How WikiLeaks Exposed Obama’s Incompetence

Pages: 1 2

The latest Wikileaks document dump has revealed many things, but few are more daunting than the Obama administration’s determination to cling to assumptions about worldwide terror and its perpetrators, as opposed to dealing with the reality of what’s actually occurring. In fairness to Mr. Obama, some of these assumptions long pre-date his term in office.  For example, it is no secret that several previous administrations have been involved in a Palestinian-Israeli “peace process” that has resulted abundance of process and precious little in the way of peace.  Yet this current release reveals that Mr. Obama is either incredibly naive, or, more likely, the victim of one of the oldest self-inflicted political “diseases” in existence: the triumph of ideology over reality.

Underscoring this view of the president is his reaction to the Wikileaks fiasco itself. “While I was concerned the exposure of sensitive information from the battlefield that can endanger people and operations, the fact is that these documents do not reveal any interest not yet been exposed during a public debate about the war in Afghanistan,” said president Obama–back in July, before the current trove of documents was made public.

With regard to this latest release, the president has been conspicuously silent regarding the new documents.  Perhaps he thought Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s assertion that “this disclosure is not just an attack on America, it’s an attack on the international community” was sufficient.  Or perhaps, as former U.N Ambassador John Bolton asserts, “this sustained, collective inaction exemplifies the Obama administration’s all-too-common attitude towards threats to America’s international interests. The president, unlike the long line of his predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt, simply does not put national security at the centre of his political priorities.”

What do the documents reveal?  First and foremost, might be the idea that the definition of word “ally” has been stretched to its breaking point.  A classified memo written by Hillary Clinton revealed that with respect to our “ally” Saudi Arabia, terrorist donors in that country ”constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” That would be the same Saudi Arabia, which according to testimony by Undersecretary of the Treasury for Financial and Terrorism Intelligence, Stuart Levey on October 6, 2009 before Senate Banking Committee, is sending terrorist funding “to Iraq, to South-East Asia and to any other place where there are terrorists…”

It is also the same Saudi Arabia with whom this administration is currently negotiating a $60 billion arms sale.

Our other major “ally” in the Middle East?  Pakistan.  Yet the nation which harbors the likely command-and-control center of al Qaeda in its North Waziristan region is reportedly unmoved, as the cables reveal, by the United States’ “deep concerns about the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.” This ever-increasing nuclear stockpile could be obtained by terrorists taking advantage of what the cables characterized as an “increasingly unstable” country.  In an interview with the BBC, Pakistani High Commissioner to the UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, claimed that such weapons ”are the dearest assets that we have and we’ll not allow anything to fall into any adventurer’s hands.”  In October, president Obama approved another $7.5 billion dollars in aid to Paksitan, tripling the previous level.  It also committed itself to an additional five years of aid which co-author of the bill, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), claimed would ”build a relationship with the people to show that what we want is a relationship that meets their interests and needs.”

Perhaps Mr. Kerry should be more concerned with a relationship that meets our interests and needs.

Another prominent assumption which takes a hit is the Obama administration’s continuing determination to pin the hopes of undermining the advance of Islamic terror on securing a “two-state solution” between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  To be fair, such an assumption has been around far longer than Mr. Obama’s term in office. Several previous administrations have bought into the idea that the “peace process” is an all-purpose panacea for defusing terrorist ambitions.

Yet the ongoing friction between the Israelis and the Palestinians can hardly explain the proliferation of terrorist groups far beyond the scope of the Middle East.  As Yoram Ettinger reveals in a column for, the Wikileak documents reveal that “Muslim terrorists operate along the joint border of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, as well as in San Paulo, Foz do Iguacu and Parana, Brazil. Independent of Israel’s policies and existence, the Lashkar-E-Taiba, Jaish-E-Mohammed and other Islamic terrorist organizations –operating with the backing of Pakistan–target India. Moreover, Lashkar-E-Taiba expands its presence in Pakistan–where it collaborates with the Inter Services Intelligence–Sri Lanka and Nepal in order to intensify terrorism in India.”

One would be hard-pressed to conclude that such organizations would turn their jihadist swords into plowshares if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were resolved.

Such a naive assumption is underscored by perhaps the most important revelation of the Wikileaks release:  the Arabian Peninsula’s contempt and fear of Israel apparently pales in comparison to that which is engendered by the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. Leaders there, notably Saudi King Abdullah and King Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa of Bahrain, have privately begged the Untied State to take military action against the nation they consider the primary threat to their well-being.  London-based Arabic newspaper, Elaph, highlighted the concerns of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE, much of which centers around Iranian attempts to penetrate their security and intelligence agencies, as well as their ongoing suspicion as to the true nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Yet at a recently concluded summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Abu Dhabi, the public facade was re-erected:  the closing statement of the meeting “reiterated Arab support for Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Sigthor

    Interesting article even though I think Obama is dealing with this situation pretty much like Clinton would do, an easier more thought process to see how the first days go.
    Bush would without a doubt react a lot harsher and demand execution and be on the Sarah Palin, he would also use this to rush another law through the senate to limit personal freedom with the argument that it was national security, and people would have supported cutting there own privacy because of an outrage that will last few months, but privacy cut will most likely be a permanent situation.

    Regarding terrorist funding, it is worth to point it out that the average European looks at Israeli as a terrorist group funded by the US, and look at Pakistan as a victim.

    • YeshuaisAdonai

      "Regarding terrorist funding, it is worth to point it out that the average European looks at Israeli as a terrorist group funded by the US, and look at Pakistan as a victim. "

      What the average European thinks about the situation with Israel is irrelevant given that many of those European nations have rolled over and allowed muslims to take over their neighborhoods. Israel is constantly condemned for taking the action other western nations should take against aggressive terrorist organizations.

    • sebyandrew

      Bush will always be there to kick around, won't he? The great mitigator.

    • davarino

      So you havent seen what is happening at the airports? This admin still wire tapping.

      So when Isreal defends herself, she is the terrorist? Pakistan is a victim of whom, itself?

    • Chiggles

      Ha! This pinhead doesn't even know the difference between Pakistan and Palestine. And Eurotwits like him call Americans ignorant.

  • Ross

    I agree, when people of Iran came to the streets and shouted "Obama Obama are you with us or with them" Obama choused to be with the Mullahs. He tried to shake hands with Ahmadinejad. He keeps Iranian main opposition PMOI in the list of FTO to appease Mullahs. He should stay on the side of Iranian people so Iranian people get rid of the Mullahs. In that case most of the problems in Middle East will disappear.

  • dennis

    Nothing new under the sun… osama is a muslim and the state department filled with people who harboured some of the worst nazis, aided islam's bloodthirsty quest for power in afganistan, bosnia and kosvo al for the sacred purpose of a 'juedrein' world… thanks lefties

    • trickyblain

      No problem, man! Enjoy!

    • TILIS

      On the contrary, the state dept is drapped in Israeli flags. Do a U tube on interviews with past employyees there and see what they say about Israeli/Jewish influence. They run the place. Stop peddling rubbish about Nazi's in the US Govt aiding muslim power. What you say couldn't be more ridiculous. Why do you think America gets stared down by Israel all the time??????

  • Jones

    Ross said: “… He should stay on the side of Iranian people so Iranian people get rid of the Mullahs. In that case most of the problems in Middle East will disappear.”

    That is like saying: “… He should stay on the side of Italian people so Italian people get rid of the Clergy. In that case most of the problems in Europe will disappear.”

    Just ain’t gonna happen. Reality check time.

  • SHmuelHaLevi

    I offer a view from the Middle East SHUK, or open air markets.
    Soetoro is without a doubt one step ahead of Bozo The Clown on an Islamic mode.
    I also find the "Little Shop of Horrors" very much alike the Nazi riddled SD.
    And to those which happen to be friends of the USA, he acts like "IT".
    Otherwise, what Foreign policy"?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    It is also the same Saudi Arabia with whom this administration is currently negotiating a $60 billion arms sale.

    Which is ludicrous because it will inevitably be used against us. Ultimately, we need to eradicate the House of Saud and confiscate its oil wealth and oil assets. Otherwise, they will use their oil wealth and oil assets perpetually against the West to wage jihad via violent jihad and stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad, which they have been doing already for many years.

    The fact that we consider our most mortal enemies in the world to be valuable allies is demonstrative of the gross incompetence that is endemic throughout our federal government and especially in our State Department, which has been thoroughly corrupted by years of Saudi bribes, and bribes that are a very effective form of stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad that the House of Saud has employed against us and our allies for many years, as they now wield enormous influence in America and throughout Europe today.

    Not to mention that pictures of US Presidents bowing down, holding hands, and even kissing Saudi rulers on the lips to demonstrate their fealty to the House of Saud also indicates that the office of President has also been thoroughly corrupted via this stealth treachery as well. Someone ought to investigate how much money GHWB, WJC, and GWB have all received from the Saudis and the Gulf States. Obama is obviously very implicit in this corruption as well as he has been the biggest Muhammadan sympathizer yet to hold the office, as witness to this proposed $60 billion sale demonstrates.

    This ever-increasing nuclear stockpile could be obtained by terrorists taking advantage of what the cables characterized as an “increasingly unstable” country.

    For all intents and purposes, Pakistan’s ever-increasing nuclear stockpile is already in the hands of terrorists, only they are terrorists of the stealth and deceptive non-violent variety, which is far more dangerous than even the violent variety because they operate for the most part below the level of scrutiny and completely undetected. In addition, one of the biggest reasons Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile, which consist of far more than what is needed to obliterate India, is ever-increasing is because of US financial aid, which frees up money elsewhere to be used for increasing that nuclear stockpile.

    In any event, if Iran is allowed to get a nuclear stockpile of its own, which seems to be the current trajectory, watch how fast Pakistan morphs into the nuclear supermarket of the Sunni world, thanks in large part to billions of dollars of US financial aid to our mortal enemies. We are financing our own demise thanks to the corruption and gross incompetence of the leaders we are electing. In addition, large parts of our federal government and also public institutions have also been corrupted and are also complicit in this treachery, including the so-called MSM.

    With respect to the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is not a conflict between the Israelis and the so-called Palestinians as is portrayed by the media. Instead, it is a jihad being waged against the Jewish infidel state of Israel by the camp of Islam, and it is one of many such jihads being waged all around the world, both overt and stealth, that altogether comprises the greater global jihad at large. Furthermore, all peace processes aside, that jihad being waged against the Jewish infidel state of Israel is permanent like all other jihads and will continue perpetually as long as Israel continues to exist, just like the greater global jihad at large will also continue to be waged perpetually as long as unbelievers still control territory that hasn’t been rendered Dar al Islam via the imposition of Sharia.

    How that accrues to American interests is beyond this writer’s comprehension.

    Great article, but the problem encompasses both major political parties. The Dhimmicrat Party is beyond hopeless, and the few Republicans that are aware of the situation are marginalized as right wing extremists and even bigots. I don’t know about other conservatives but this conservative is not voting for any presidential candidate unless that candidate can demonstrate a suitable working knowledge of the global jihad. In fact, if the Republican Party weren’t already thoroughly corrupted, defending the West from the global jihad and this clash of civilizations would already be its number one issue, and turncoat saboteurs like Grover Norquist would be locked up for life or otherwise executed.

    • ApolloSpeaks


      • davarino

        Yup, this will demonstrate to all the knuckle heads that God is not with islam/terrorists.

    • Wesley69

      Though the House of Saud has been playing both sides against the middle, I would be hesitant about overthrowing it and occupying it. Such an occupation, first off, would not fly with the American people. However, making conditions for our continued support, I would demand that their contributions for Radical Muslim schools throughout the US and the world ends as well as their support for terrorist organizations. They would also need to renounce global Jihad. It would help if we could break out oil addiction without damaging our economy.

      I believe you are correct in your assessments of Pakistan and the Palestinians. Both countries have their eternal enemies: India and Israel. However, should the Iranians get nuclear weapons, this may change the equation in the region radically. All of a sudden, the enemy of my enemy is my friend may come into play and resolve certain conflicts and irritants to stability in this region.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Such an occupation, first off, would not fly with the American people.

        I don’t understand why do we need to occupy Saudi Arabia? The last thing I would ever support is occupying another Islamic country. Hell, I don’t even support the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, because they are both exceedingly fantasy based. However, I would support confiscating their oil assets and occupying those parts of the country, but nothing else. And the reason I would support such action is because if we don’t, they will just use the proceeds derived from the sale of oil to wage jihad perpetually against us per the dictates of Islam.

        However, making conditions for our continued support, I would demand that their contributions for Radical Muslim schools throughout the US and the world ends as well as their support for terrorist organizations. They would also need to renounce global Jihad.

        We’ve been demanding since 9/11 that they stop and they still haven’t stopped yet. The fact of the matter is it would be sacrileges for them to stop. As long as they have oil wealth, that oil wealth will be used to wage jihad perpetually against unbelievers until such time as there is no more land controlled by unbelievers. Hence, eradicating the House of Saud may sound a little extreme to the uninitiated, but they have been waging jihad, both overt and stealth, against the West for decades and nothing else will stop it other than eradicating them and seizing their oil wealth and oil assets. By the way, that also includes doing the same thing with respect to the Gulf States. In fact, nothing else will end the global jihad. As long as they have the means to wage jihad, they will wage jihad per the tenets of Islam.

        It would help if we could break out oil addiction without damaging our economy.

        Even if we did, it still would not stop the global jihad. There is only one thing that will stop it, see above.

        With respect to Iran, the nuclear genie must not be let out of the bottle as that will inevitably lead to a nuclear WWIII that will make WWII seem like nice picnic in the park.

        • Wesley69

          The key to Saudi Arabia is its oil wealth. The key for the US is to commit ourselves to Energy Independence using oil, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, oil sands, natural gas. We need all sources to achieve this goal. We could convert our cars to run on natural gas. The problem is extreme environmentalism and an administration totally in accord with these radicals. Any policy changes may have to wait two years until we get Obama out of office.

          The Saud family will still finance global jihad regardless of what we do. However, if we don't have to depend upon the Saudis, we could turn on them and play them as they have played us. As I stated their wealth is their oil. So we threaten it – just like they threatened to blow it up during the Oil Embargo of 1973 to prevent a US invasion. We don't have to hit Mecca and Medina to get them to understand.

          As for Iran, it will get its weapons if this administration has its way. The best things that can happen are sabotage and assassinations, and supporting regime change. But I agree, Iran must not get nuclear weapons.

  • ApolloSpeaks


    Click my name for the story

  • Wesley69

    The president, unlike the long line of his predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt, simply does not put national security at the centre of his political priorities.

    This line from the article is disturbing because it is true. Obama's ambition to be the leader of this world is astounding.
    To that end, he is willing to sell his soul and our security, our freedom.
    To that end, he calls terrorism man-made catastrophes and have extended terrorists rights in our courts.
    To that end, he announced a troop surge in Afghanistan with withdrawals to begin at a certain date which only encourage al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
    To that end, he has expressed his concern that should he continue operations in Afghanistan that he would lose his political base.
    To that end he demands that Israel give into Palestinian demands without reciprocity of the other side.
    To that end he junked the defensive missile shield in Eastern Europe to appease Russia.
    To that end he concluded an unfavorable treaty with Russia that would throw away our strategic edge in defensive missiles. Hopefully, the Senate will reject it.
    To that end he has said the US will not immediately retaliate against a country attacking us with biologicals with our nuclear weapons.
    To that end he has bowed before the leaders of China and Saudi Arabia. To this day and with the help of past administrations, we are subservient to China for money and Saudi Arabia for oil.
    To that end he has told the world the US is behind some of greatest evils in the world.
    To that end he has done little than talk with Iran about their development of nuclear weapons. Nor did he support Iranian dissidents who would replace the rule of the Mullahs.
    To that end, he wants NASA to focus on making Arabs feel good about their scientific & mathematical achievements of the past, instead of pushing a national effect to get our people into space without the aid of the Russians.
    To that end, he, like his predecessor, has done little to secure the border with Mexico allowing the drug war to spill into this country.
    To his credit, he has picked up the number of drone attacks into Pakistan killing al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
    To his credit, he appointed the proper general to head the military operations in Afghanistan.

    Does this sound like a leader dedicated to the security of his country? Better yet, is Mr. O. the type of leader whom other nations would respect and fear because of his resolve?

  • Wesley69

    WikiLeaks didn't really expose anything more about Obama’s incompetence, that we already didn't know. It just confirms it. Is he to blame for his short-comings? No, WE THE PEOPLE, did not do our homework. We voted as if we were participating in American Idol. Will WE THE PEOPLE make the same mistake again? Here’s hoping his charm and soaring rhetoric don’t fool a majority of us again!

  • Ret. Marine

    I don't believe this report told us anything other than what we already knew of the "won's" incompetence. We have had two years of his blundering, dictates, orders, and an assorrtment of disrespect for the American public at large. As far as the muslim population at large, they are all terrorist in waiting, they don't need an excuse to do what they do. It is what their religion of peices demands of all of them.

    When this Nation decides to elect real leadership, maybe then we should demand all funds going out of this country of terror supporters be paid back in full with interest. If not we just take their nukes away from them and be done with it. And by all means start bulldozing their headquarters ( mosques) to the ground, deport every last one of them and then maybe if they feel froggy we just get the bombers in the air without any warning and make a glass parking lot of of the whole m/e, problem solved, no apologizing for it either. What do we recieve out of our support, more terrorist in waiting demanding we change to their backwards culture, enough already. Some of us are really sick and tired of this whole mess and the COWARDS calling themselves our leaders.

    • TILIS

      This is such a helpful and insightful comment I really cannot imagine why you haven't stood for Congress yet



  • Carbon Dioxide

    Where the the author describes the approach of the Obama Administration (including Clinton and Bush) approach to foreign policy in the most troubled parts of the world as a "triumph of ideology over reality", is the ideology best described as PC, leftism or PC in support of leftism/progressiveism?