Obama and the death of our ambassador in Libya

During the debate the other night, Obama tried to defend his administration’s handling of the debacle in Libya. I went to Hugh Hewitt’s website and found the following clips from major newspapers and speeches. They all indict the confusing and misleading ways Obama and his team characterized the attacks that left four of our people dead. Here are a few for your attention:

For Weeks Following The Terrorist Attacks In Libya, President Obama And His Advisers Offered “Shifting Accounts Of The Fatal Attacks.” “The Obama administration’s shifting accounts of the fatal attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, have left President Obama suddenly exposed on national security and foreign policy, a field where he had enjoyed a seemingly unassailable advantage over Mitt Romney in the presidential race.” (Mark Landler, “Shifting Reports On Libya Killings May Cost Obama,” The New York Times, 9/28/12)

  

USA Today: “In Fact, Every Aspect Of The Early Account — Peddled Most Prominently By U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — Has Unraveled.” “Three weeks after an attack in Libya killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, we now know that it did not spring from a spontaneous protest, spurred by an anti-Muslim video, as the Obama administration originally described it. In fact, every aspect of the early account — peddled most prominently by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — has unraveled.” (Editorial, “Shifting Libya Attack Story Raises Red Flags,”USA Today, 10/1/12)

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker: “For Political Reasons, It Certainly Was In The White House’s Interests To Not Portray The Attack As A Terrorist Incident…” “For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube.” (Glenn Kessler, “From Video To Terrorist Attack,” The Washington Post, 9/27/12)

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012: President Obama: “What We Do Know Is That The Natural Protests That Arose Because Of The Outrage Over The Video Were Used As An Excuse By Extremists…” QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests –” QUESTION: “Al Qaeda?” OBAMA: “Well, we don’t know yet.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Univision Town Hall, Miami, FL, 9/20/12)

SEPTEMBER 24, 2012: President Obama Appeared On The View And Again Refused To Call The Attack Terrorism, Only Saying That The Attack “Wasn’t Just A Mob Action.” “President Barack Obama said Monday that the Sept. 11 attack that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans ‘wasn’t just a mob action,’ but he stopped short of explicitly labeling the assault as an act of terrorism. Obama’s comments came as he taped an interview with ‘The View’ during a brief trip to New York to address the annual United National General Assembly. He had been asked whether the attack on the U.S. Consulate compound in the city of Benghazi was a terrorist act.”(Olivier Knox, “Obama: Libya Attack ‘Wasn’t Just A Mob Action,’” Yahoo News’ The Ticket, 9/24/12)

Please note that these last two articles come nearly two weeks after the attack. This is either gross incompetence or a cynical cover-up. Not a great choice. Let’s get rid of Obama in November.

The failures of Barack Obama (Jimmy Carter 2.0)

OK, I was bored and started thinking of ways Barack Obama has been a huge disappointment. Here are some, starting with foreign affairs. If I have time and don't get too discouraged, I'll switch to domestic disappointments.

First, there's the Arab world. Wasn't he going to get the angry Muslims on our side after repeated abject apologies for being an American? How has that worked out? Well, according to The Wall Street Journal, not so well--this year, Zogby International found that 5% of Egyptians had a favorable view of the U.S. In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, it was 9%. When will we learn that tyrants and crazies respect strength and resolve, not groveling?

How about trade with the world? Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1994, which helps facilitate nearly $2 trillion in the trade of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. George W. Bush helped get free trade agreements all across the world, from Australia to Singapore to Morocco to Bahrain. Number of these agreements signed by the current president: zero.

Then there's Libya. Obama entered this rebellion with the goal to remove the tyrant Gadhafi. Weeks later, the Libyan strongman is still there, and NATO looks like the Marx brothers. That will be seen by the rest of the world as a failure of Western resolve. Gadhafi will loom as a new threat to spread terrorism to the West.

What other stellar jobs has he been involved with? He has mistreated our ally Israel, he has repeatedly snubbed our best ally England, he failed to back Iranian protestors, he has allowed Afghanistan to spiral out of control, he urges North Korea to act better and get involved in multi-party talks (fat chance), he has been rebuffed by Putin when he attempted to set up better relations with Russia, he has not been able to put a halt to Iranian nuclear enrichment, he has allowed Chavez of Venezuela to build up connections with Iran. And so it goes.

His failure to pursue American interests, his inability to proclaim American exceptionalism, his belief that we are a nation in decline which must be gently guided down the path of senility--all these have disappointed me and so many others. But these failures are eclipsed by his domestic disasters, which I'll try to cover next time. We need a change in 2012.

Libya and the United Nations

The latest news from the United Nations reinforces the cynicism of many in the United States towards this world organization. It was set up in the aftermath of World War 2, much like the old League of Nations was established after the first world war. The utopian dreams were the same—if we could only get together and control any bad impulses of nations . . . Of course, we know how well the League functioned. The world ended up with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito. Not exactly what naïve world leaders like Woodrow Wilson were hoping for.

Now we have the United Nations dealing with Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. Just last January this august body looked into the regime’s moral progress through one of its agencies, The U.N. Human Rights Council.
It released its quadrennial report on human rights in Libya as part of its "universal periodic review." The UPR—advertised as one of the improvements of the Council when it replaced the U.N.'s old Human Rights Commission in 2006—is supposed to provide "objective and reliable information" on human rights in U.N. member states. Sure . . .

So how did Libya fare? According to The Wall Street Journal, the report notes that "a number of delegations commended Libya for the preparation and presentation of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stake holders in the preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground."

Now how did the council come to that conclusion? Well, to start with, Libya itself offered a generous assessment of its own rights record. Then other truly noble and humane countries lavished praise on Gadhafi’s government. Cuba commended Gadhafi for "the progress it made in . . . primary education," and North Korea lauded Libya's "achievements in the protection of human rights." I don’t know about you, but I feel relieved that such democratic, liberal, and sophisticated countries lined up behind Libya.

The sad part is seen in comments by countries that ought to know better but have been blinded by multicultural, relativistic, non-judgmental nonsense. For example, Australia, "welcomed Libya's progress in human rights." Canada praised "the recent legislation that granted women married to foreigners the right to pass on their Libyan nationality to their children." Then there was Poland, which highlighted Libya's "achievements in recent years, including its efforts to combat corruption and trafficking."

How about our country? Can you guess how it reacted, thanks to the leadership of President Obama, who has made a point of ignoring our friends and elevating our enemies? The U.S., which joined the Council as a sign of the Obama Administration's good global citizenship, "supported Libya's increased engagement with the international community." At least the U.S. also "expressed concern about reports of the torture of prisoners" along with other rights violations. Similarly limp statements of concern were offered by the Australians, Canadians and Poles.

Did any country report the real picture? Yes, little Switzerland noted that Libyan "courts continued to pronounce death sentences and inflict corporal punishment, including whipping and amputation." Gee, in my view that calls into question the praise heaped on Libya, or am I wrong?

So the U.N. continues to exist, thanks in large part to our donations. It’s hard to take this organization seriously when its human rights body has members like Libya and Cuba. What next—North Korea’s “Dear Leader” for the Nobel Peace Prize?