Benghazi, Bergdahl and Hamas


Obama change he can believe inOriginally published by FoxNews.

It is about time that pundits stop describing President Obama’s foreign policy as weak. There is a straight line between emboldening Syria’s Assad by calling him a reformer, Egypt’s Morsi a democrat, Turkey’s Erdogan a friend, Iran’s Rouhani a moderate, and now a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, a peace partner.

Monday’s speedy announcement that the United States will work with and pay for a PLO-Hamas coalition government is a strong and predictable step in an alarming pattern.

Every one of these moves has deliberately driven a wedge between Obama and Israel. President Obama’s priority is, and always has been, the Muslim world. It has made no difference to this partiality that in the latter world American hostages are languishing in prison cells, the killers of Americans are government insiders, official anti-Semitism is flourishing, and the locals are brutalized.

At the same time, President Obama has a recurring problem with his choice of best friends. There is an inconvenient discord between the terrorism and violence emanating from his BFF’s and his putative job as commander-in-chief.

The difficulty presents itself, for example, in the context of Benghazi. The anger over Benghazi is more than justified, but not because it is still a mystery why the president sent no one to bomb Libya in order to save Americans under attack. He may have hurt somebody on the ground who was not American, or he may have stirred up local resentment.

President Obama has never made a secret of his “counter-terrorism” policy. In May 2013 he said quite clearly that even in the face of “terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people,” “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.”

Speaking at West Point on May 28, 2014 he reiterated that in taking direct action “against terrorism,” we may strike “only where there is near certainty of no civilian casualties.”

The problem is not that he’s unclear. It’s that he isn’t right. International law does not require planning for zero civilian casualties – which would simply encourage combatants to use more civilians as human shields. The Geneva Conventions test is one of proportionality: “An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life [or] injury to civilians” is prohibited if it “would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”

So international law is not what is driving President Obama’s foreign policy. What’s really eating him is that he believes we are our own worst enemy. As he said at West Point: “our actions should meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.” He is worried that if we defend ourselves, we “stir up local resentments.”

That’s a green light for the political enablers of terrorists everywhere to start writing UN speeches, mount new phony demonstrations, and concoct more bogus Islamophobia charges. If we are the ones responsible for creating more terrorists by fighting terrorists, then we may as well just go golfing.

The President’s release of top five Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo this past weekend fits the dogma. As early as May 21, 2009, the President told us: “the existence of Guantanamo…created …terrorists…It is a rallying cry for our enemies.” Unsurprisingly, they prefer their terrorist buddies back in the field.

Similarly, our drone program is dwindling – nothing in Pakistan’s tribal areas since last December – because our enemies don’t like it either. But then, why would they?

Which brings us back to the President’s embrace of a Palestinian government that includes the terror organization, Hamas – just hours after the PLO-Hamas deal was done.

Why the rush? Why was the issue of legitimizing a terror organization, dedicated to the annihilation of one of our closest allies, not worth more than a few seconds thought?

The answer is that for President Obama, it was just business as usual. His top priority is not delegitimizing terrorists and fighting to win, but avoiding stirring up local resentments. And Palestinians have made fabricating resentment for every imaginable affront into an art form. “A house is being built!” is a favorite, while Palestinian rocket-launchers and kidnappers and would-be suicide bombers are plying their wares.

Furthermore, the President never seriously tried to stop it. He could have threatened and ensured harsh economic and political repercussions, which Congress would have supported. But he didn’t. Just as he didn’t make any such threats when the Palestinians went to the UN in November 2012 to become a non-member observer state. And just as he didn’t when the Palestinians started signing treaties this past April that legally are only open to states.

The ugly truth is that President Obama is happy to let the UN turn Palestine into a state, and thereby allow Palestinians to avoid negotiation, avoid recognition of the Jewish state, and avoid genuine commitment to peaceful coexistence with its Jewish neighbor. Unilateralism and the UN was always the back-up plan to Kerry’s egoistic globe-hopping.

Asked about Hamas’ continued commitment to militarism, Psaki responded “we’ll continue to evaluate the specifics here.”

The specifics are simple. One more Jew-hating, Israel-bashing, American foe has been welcomed into Obama’s Islamist inner circle.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Judahlevi

    Obama has Muslim family members, a Muslim name, and believes that power is on the Muslims side because they are more numerous. A committed leftist, he believes in the ‘greater good’ source of morality which may even be used to justify genocide.

    When he was running for political office, he felt he needed to cater to the Jewish leftists for their support and money. He no longer feels the need, and his pro-Muslim side is clearly coming out into the open.

    American leftist Jews were the same “useful idiots” for Obama as those used by the former Soviets. And “idiots” they have been.

    • liz

      Yes, and every American that voted for him is his “useful idiot”.

      • Judahlevi

        Very true.

    • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

      In his second book, he described moral equivalence between Palestinians and Israelis. That was a big clue that he was not neutral in matters regarding the Middle East. That is one of many reasons I did not vote for him.

      • Judahlevi

        Anyone claiming “moral equivalence” between Palestinian Arabs and Israelis cannot make that claim without adding substantial, and undeserved, moral weight to the PA side. You are right that it revealed a preference.

    • Johnny Palestine

      And idiots they still are. During the Rwandan genocide of mid-1994 — in which some 800,000 people were massacred in a 100-day period — Rice was a key player in the Clinton administration’s decision not to intervene in a peacekeeping role, so as to avoid becoming embroiled in a politically risky endeavor where no strategic U.S. interests were in play. (Classified documents prove conclusively that Rice and her fellow Clinton administration officials were — contrary to claims they made soon after the period of mass slaughter in Rwanda — fully aware of how extensive the Rwandan carnage was.)

      • Drakken

        Not to defend ole Clinton and that incompetent idiot Rice but, why would we intervene between blacks slaughtering each other in Rwanda? It is a everyday occurrence in Africa, in the Congo alone there were 4-5 million slaughtered there between the tribes. Why aren’t we intervening in South Africa to prevent the whites from being slaughtered by the blacks? This is bloody Africa!

        • A

          “But, why would we intervene between blacks slaughtering each other in Rwanda?”

          Great question, but it would be even better to ask… “why would we intervene between MORONS slaughtering each other in Rwanda, Somali, Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Iraq, Yemen and now in Ukraine?”.

  • WillielomanIII

    great article….exactly correct

  • BMS

    Is it a surprise to anyone that President Barrack HUSSAIN Obama has opened his arms to embrace the new Palestinian/Hamas government. He engages with terrorists, he supports the Muslim Brotherhood and refuses to EVER criticize any MUSLIM. Even the Ft Hood killings were WORK PLACE VIOLENCE. Please!!!. I hope all the bleeding heart Hollywood Jews that thought this President was a man of hope and change and listened to all his BS about how committed he was to a secure and strong Israel are choking on their millions and counting their wasted donated dollars. You were fools and he got you good!. He is having a good hearty laugh and your dollars are heading to the Palestinian/Hamas anti-Israel government.

    • Bert

      Obama is bent on shrinking Israel to a non survivable size and also dismantling America. Both societies are having difficulty in resisting this evil.

  • JVictor

    One thing is perfectly clear: everything that this administration
    has done regarding foreign policy is to embolden the enemies of Israel
    and to force Israel to act on her own. Obama is essentially pressing to
    make Jerusalem a burden for the nations who would gather against her
    and hurl her away. If his policies and behavior do not smack of
    anti-Semitism, I don’t know what else would qualify.

    People are saying that the Bergdahl incident may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back with regard to the MSM finally calling out the Obama administration’s repeated treasonous activities. We’ll see. At the end of the day, I am afraid that the photo ops with the reunited family will provide too much milk of distraction causing the MSM to forgo pursuing the meat of the issue.

  • liz

    As this article makes clear, Obama is deliberately betraying our country to our enemies. He should be tried for treason.
    After six years of witnessing this repeated pattern, no one can call it accidental.
    It is an outrage that he is allowed to continue one more day in office.

    • BS77

      A good metaphor for this Administration: The Titanic. The crew are the media enablers and shills who refuse to report the grim reality of what is going on The passengers are the oblivious voters and citizens. The officers are the Administration……..racing full speed ahead towards the iceberg of disaster, war, economic ruin and collapse. It is a dreadful situation.

      • American1969

        At least the Titanic had a band! ;)

  • SoCalMike

    The Obama regime is criminal but the criminality won’t be gone when Obama leaves. His view is anti-American anti-West and is embraced by the party core at every level.
    The Michael Moore mindset is now the centerpiece and driving force behind the Democrat Party and I’ve yet to hear a single member of the spineless opposition to utter a word.

    • The March Hare

      It has been that way since the 70s.

    • Rob Paydon

      I noticed that too it’s not overstating to say they look afraid to call him out completely, to mention impeachment or even to say enoughs enough. There was one time that people were testifying in front of some republican reps and one dem walked in and I can’t remember who it was but the whole dynamic changed and he was the only one to mention impeachment and it was used while asking if anyone there felt that Obama should be impeached, it almost seemed like a dare, so for some reasons the people that should be reining him in seem actually afraid to do it and then on a fox interview they had a couple repubs and a dem and the repubs were taking Obama to task and she did the same thing she said well impeach him then like she knew that was beyond the scope of reality

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    I am a very cautious person, but I have come to believe that POTUS is out to destroy our country, why I cannot tell. And now the WSJ is kvetching about polarization around “feminism, abortion, and the counter-culture.” You would think that William Galston would have mentioned foreign policy, including the war on terror and not coincidentally, Israel. Just as stupidly, he believes that “moderates” inhabit the Democratic Party (obviously a projection of himself).

    • American1969

      Obama is anti-American and anti-colonialism as well as anti-capitalism. He’s a Marxist !@#$-bent on destroying this country.

  • Sharps Rifle

    Obama’s foreign policy can be summed up in one word: Treason.

    • Drakken

      With a healthy dose of FUBAR and a complete clusterf**k. Everything this administration has touched has turned to sh*t.

  • El Cid

    Well said. Why doesn’t the president get himself on side with congress at least once? That’s what Clinton successfully did.

    Obama’s foreign policy is indeed very consistent and against the core of the American position.

    Among the acts against Israel of this administration, it is worth adding the leaks to the press of shared intelligence intended to scuttle Israel’s offensive planning against Iran’s nuclear arms project.

  • American1969

    Everything this president has done with regard to his foreign policy has been to undermine this country and its allies. He has no love for this nation and wants to see it torn down. He is anti-American and anti-colonialist, and he sees America and her allies as the enemy, not our actual enemies that are terrorizing everyone around the globe.
    Obama is a traitor. Impeach!

  • Walter Sieruk

    The extreme incompetence and ignorance of Obama is unbelievable. He should be impeached.

  • CI18

    The Democratic administration and party have misread Muslim opposition to the United States and the West. It does not matter what the U.S. and the West does or does not do. The Muslim world considers the United Nations to be another western Crusade that not only needs to be stopped, but also that parts of the West need to be occupied to keep western Crusade in check. The Muslim focus on Israel, along with the UN resolutions condemning Israel, are part of the Muslim program to reverse and push back western Crusade. Since the UN is the arena of western Crusade, the Muslims are trying to turn the tables against western Crusade at the UN, starting with the UN resolutions condemning Israel and going on from there, so that the UN becomes the arena of Muslim jihad against western Crusade. Unfortunately, because of growing anti-Semitism in the West, which the Muslims may be counting on in their jihad against western Crusade, the West is oblivious to the Muslim jihad against western Crusade at the United Nations because the West thinks it is just Muslim opposition to the state of Israel. So the West believes it can assuage Muslim jihad by going along with the UN condemnations of Israel, when in fact the West only throws fuel on to the fire of Muslim rage against the West because it only increases what is in Muslim eyes the crime of western Crusade by engaging in the UN resolutions condemning Israel. The West has so strongly bought into this UN resolution condemning Israel narrative that apparently the West will not realize there is a Muslim jihad against western Crusade until it is too late. This problem is even further exacerbated when Republicans and conservatives also buy into this UN resolution condemning Israel narrative. If you want to know why Muslims are so vehemently opposed to western Crusade through the United Nations, just look back at the history of the Crusades from about 1000 to 700 years ago. It does not matter whether or not the West does not think it is conducting a Crusade through the United Nations; what matters is that the Muslim consider the West to be conducting a Crusade with the United Nations; and that is why they are fighting against us, not because of what Israel does or does not do.

    • liz

      So Muslims are opposed to the West because of crap that happened 1,000 to 700 years ago. Well that figures, since they are mentally stuck in the 7th century and following a barbaric, primitive code of laws that the rest of the world had advanced beyond even then. What losers.

      • 95Theses

        An uninspired code of laws, at that.

  • popseal

    Claims to be a Christian, but only from the “teeth out”. In his terms it is called the ‘politics of the moment’, translated, “I can lie when ever it advances my agenda”!

  • SoCalMike

    One of the worst things about Obama is the unwillingness or inability of political opposition or even those rare “decent” people in his own party willing to confront and powerfully oppose what he has already done, is doing and plans to do.

  • c0mm0ncenz

    This is an excellent discussion of the direction the US is taking through their elected prez and Congress. Congress could stop the aid to the Hamas PA. Why don’t they? Yet the aid to Egypt is being withheld, aid that is needed to fight terrorists in the Sinai. It’s as clear as glass that Obama is pro-terrorist and anti-law but as unclear as mud why US citizens stand behind him.. Look at his record: he was illegally instated as prez as his legality to serve as prez has yet to be established, he violates the Constitution, he funds Hamas which is against the law, he’s withholding planes from Egypt in violation of prior agreement, and so on. At the same time, he forbids the building of homes in Israel. Where is the uproar from US citizens? This is despicable. Every American and every congressman is responsible for the destabilization of the middle east through their support of the obama administration. If aid to the PA was withheld, they would fall. The excuse before was that a void would be left which would be filled by Hamas. So now, Hamas is being supported by the US. Does this make sense?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    President Obama has never made a secret of his “counter-terrorism” policy. In May 2013 he said quite clearly that even in the face of “terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people,” “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.”

    Two things: Muslims are not terrorists, and they are not perpetrating terrorism in response to anything. Instead, Muslims are jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), and they are waging jihad (holy war) both violently and non-violently, but astronomically far more non-violently as opposed to violently, in the cause of Allah against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme. As the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam (the only kind) is the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude, through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

    Moreover, waging jihad in the cause of Allah against all infidels in one form or another, either violently or non-violently and via stealth and deception, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims. Thus, all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists, as in AQ, or non-violent jihadists, as in the millions of Muslims that have migrated to the infidel world for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that per the text and tenets of Islam must be executed.

    It’s not like Muslims have any individual choice in the matter. As unlike faith-based religions, Islam, in stark contrast, is a so-called religion of submission. As the first and foremost prerequisite of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission of all Muslims to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for apostasy and death for blasphemy.

    Hence, as in faith-based religions where adherents have the individual free will to choose either to believe, i.e., have faith, or not to believe, i.e., not to have faith, there is no such individual freedom of conscience allowed for Muslims to choose not to believe in Islam, as leaving Islam, which constitutes apostasy, is a capital offense.

    Likewise Muslims that refuse to openly fulfill their holy obligations under Islam or who renounce Islam publically are guilty of the offense of blasphemy, and blasphemy, like apostasy, is also a capital offense under Islam.

    In other words, a so-called “moderate” Muslim under Islam’s extremely rigid guidelines is a blasphemous apostate that according to the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed. Thus, the question the infidel world needs to ask itself, is Islam under these rigid conditions a true religion or is Islam some sort of cult?

    Not to mention, what is the “will of Allah” that all Muslims totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for apostasy and death for blasphemy? In essence, it is Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, and which is extremely draconian relative to modern day laws, as it is the creation of a 7th century ruthless barbarian.

    In addition, Muslims also believe that since the Quran is the direct verbatim text of Allah (God) as delivered to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel that it is absolutely flawless and perfectly just, since it is divine, i.e., emanates directly from Allah (God). Thus, according to the texts and tenets of Islam, Sharia not only supersedes all laws emanating from very fallible man, including the Geneva Conventions, it must replace them as well.

    Hence, is a so-called religion that kills all adherents that apostatize or who commits blasphemy, that makes waging jihad (holy war) in one form or another a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, and whose sole fundamental purpose is the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, an actual religion or is it a very totalitarian cult. I vote the latter.

    Of course, for Muslims Islam is a religion, as they believe that it is their religion. Nevertheless, Islam is obviously fundamentally different from all actual faith-based religions.

    Furthermore, there are no civilians in Islam, as waging jihad in one form or another in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims. Thus, all Muslims including the women, children, and the elderly are all jihadists in one form or another. In other words, there are no civilians in Islam like there are civilians in the infidel world. Just because Muslims are non-violent, it doesn’t mean they aren’t waging jihad. Indeed, astronomically far more jihad manifests today non-violently relative to violently.

    In addition, Muslims never wage the violent forms of jihad within the guidelines that are set forth under the Geneva Conventions, as in Islam Sharia supersedes all laws emanating from man because it is divine. Therefore, violent jihadists target and murder all infidels alike regardless if they are women, children, the elderly, combatants, or civilian non-combatants.

    Hence, the infidel world needs to come to terms with the fact that the Islamic totalitarian world is a completely foreign and alien world relative to our own infidel world, and we must approach it in that manner as well.

    Speaking at West Point on May 28, 2014 he reiterated that in taking direct action “against terrorism,” we may strike “only where there is near certainty of no civilian casualties.”

    Again, there are no civilians in Islam as all Muslims, per the dictates of Islam, are jihadists in one form or another. Meanwhile, violent jihadists also never make any distinction between combatants and civilian non-combatants when attacking infidels.

    What’s really eating him is that he believes we are our own worst enemy. As he said at West Point: “our actions should meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.” He is worried that if we defend ourselves, we “stir up local resentments.”

    And that is a very good reason why the infidel world must stop morally equating and conflating what is jihad, a holy war waged to ultimately make Islam supreme, with being terrorism. Again, Muslims aren’t terrorists reacting to greedy American imperialism, America’s interventionist foreign policies, or to harsh Israeli policies, for that matter. They are jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), waging jihad in the cause of Allah against all infidels both violently and non-violently to ultimately make Islam supreme, because waging jihad is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Indeed, making Islam supreme is the sole fundamental purpose of Islam.

    Which brings us back to the President’s embrace of a Palestinian government that includes the terror organization, Hamas – just hours after the PLO-Hamas deal was done.

    What is happening in Israel is not a conflict over land the Israelis are alleged to have stolen from the Arabs. As a matter of fact, it is not even a conflict between only Arabs and Israelis, as Israel is demonized and vilified throughout the Islamic totalitarian world.

    Instead, what is happening in Israel is an old fashion run of the mill jihad (holy war) is being waged by the Islamic totalitarian world through their proxies — the so-called Palestinians — to eventually subjugate the Jewish infidels into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude, and to ultimately make Islam supreme in Israel via the eventual imposition of Sharia. Indeed, the jihad being waged by the Islamic totalitarian world against the Jewish infidels in Israel is no different whatsoever from the greater global jihad at large the Islamic totalitarian world is waging against all infidels and all religions throughout the world.

    The answer is that for President Obama, it was just business as usual. His top priority is not delegitimizing terrorists and fighting to win, but avoiding stirring up local resentments.

    Again, another reason for the infidel world to stop morally equating and conflating what is actually jihad waged by all Muslims to ultimately make Islam supreme as somehow being terrorism. It’s not. For instance, terrorism is always and only violent and can be for any number of causes. While jihad, on the other hand, is waged both violently and non-violently and is always and only in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme. Indeed, terrorism is a universal manifestation of all societies, while jihad is distinctly unique to only Islamic totalitarian society alone.

    The fundamental mistake Obama is making would be impossible to make if the infidel world stopped morally equating and conflating what is jihad (holy war) as somehow being terrorism.

    The ugly truth is that President Obama is happy to let the UN turn Palestine into a state.

    The UN is a cesspool of Marxist totalitarians and Islamic totalitarians and should be abandoned ASAP. There is nothing to be gained by being a member of the UN and much to be lost. Being a member of the UN is like negotiating with terrorists or jihadists, you will lose every time, as their cause supersedes everything, including their honor.