Posted by: Ann Corcoran | September 15, 2012

Glick: Did he understand why he was being murdered?

Does Hillary Clinton understand, yet?

That is what Caroline Glick wondered in her response to the brutal murder of our US Ambassador to Libya and three fellow Americans earlier this week.   One of three links I urge you to open and consider this morning as we see Obama’s foreign policy of naivete and appeasement (if that is all it was!) go up in flames, is Center for Security Policy fellow and Jerusalem resident Glick’s response to the horror of Libya.

Here is Glick:

As he suffocated to death at the US Consulate in Benghazi on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the US, did US Ambassador Christopher Stevens understand why he and his fellow Americans were being murdered?

From what we have learned of this man since he was killed, it is clear that he was extremely courageous. He stole into Benghazi in April 2011 on a cargo ship to serve as chief US liaison officer to the rebel forces fighting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. He did the business of the US government in makeshift offices and moved from safe house to safe house under what can only be considered dire conditions of combat.

But did he understand the forces he was unleashing?

How many readers here understood way back even as the so-called “Arab Spring” got underway that the Obama Administration had apparently no grasp of that fundamental question?   Indeed, how  many Americans shook their heads in horror at President Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009.   He set himself up for failure with such a suck-up speech to the Islamists.   And, as his mentor Rev. Wright might say about Obama himself now—America’s chickens have come home to roost.

And, I hope Mitt Romney and his handlers will not now run and hide the minute the complicit media has ganged up on him.   As Obama watched the coffins-–the transfer of remains ceremony—arrive at Andrews Air Force Base, it should be apparent to him and Hillary that they were witnessing the end of their own political careers.

“Clinton the bewildered stewardess of US foreign policy,”  Glick continues:

Stevens arrived in Benghazi at an early phase of US involvement in the rebellion against Gaddafi, a former US foe who had been neutered since 2004. But even then it was clear that the rebels with whom he worked included jihadist fighters associated with al-Qaida. Their significance became obvious when just after the regime fell in November 2011, rebel forces foisted the flag of al-Qaida over the courthouse in Benghazi.

Did Stevens understand what this meant? Perhaps he did. But his boss, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, certainly didn’t. Following Tuesday’s attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Clinton said, “Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.”

Clinton, the bewildered stewardess of US foreign policy, then proclaimed with utter certainty that there is nothing to be concerned about. “We must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya,” she said.

Of course, what she failed to mention was that after the rebels felled Gaddafi’s regime – with US support – they began imposing Islamic law over large swathes of the country.

There is more, read it all.  Then, take a minute and play and re-play Hillary’s overjoyed response to Gaddafi’s end.   Who is laughing now?  Who are the warmongers?  Ask yourselves if any Republican administration official, or Secretary of State would have given such an inappropriate, childish even, response to a reporter’s question.

The second link, I would like you to open is this one—a column by a British pastor here at The Telegraph:

Perhaps there are, after all, limits to political correctness.  (Rev. Peter Mullen)

It was refreshing to read such a plain and unequivocal line in today’s editorial column: “The simple fact is that Islamic fundamentalists are irreconcilable. To them the US will remain the Great Satan.” This was, of course, a comment on the murder of the US ambassador to Libya.

I wonder if, in the midst of all this horror, we might begin to see signs of hope? I mean, might we at last be beginning to escape the mealy-mouthed world of all that has for long remained unsayable. Perhaps there are, after all, limits to political correctness. I dare to breathe the hope that maybe western societies will not die the death of a thousand euphemisms. I thought I detected signs of this dawning sanity just after 9/11. We were shocked into reality then. And we were geared for war. People expected it. There was a creepy silence in the streets of the City of London. Weekday attendances at our lunchtime Eucharists doubled and tripled. There were reassuring signs of seriousness. Then, within a few weeks, under a barrage of media propaganda telling us that 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, euphemistic orthodoxy and the fatal disease of appeasement returned.

It has been with us ever since.

[…..]

The fact is that a resurgent, militant anti-western Islamic fundamentalism is the gravest threat to civilisation.

And, finally, watch Rep. Michele Bachmann’s speech at the Values Voter Summit*  this week and wonder what might have been if a more “clear-eyed” leader like Bachmann was in charge of American foreign policy.   Not in a million years would you see her cackling over bringing down a leader of another country, as reprehensible as Gaddafi was, Libya’s civil war was Libya’s problem.  Think of it, not only did we get involved but we helped the wrong side!  We helped bring the “rebels” to power and look what it got us.

* The Values Voter Summit has become a rival to CPAC because it covers issues that the establishment Republicans at CPAC will not cover.  Grover Norquist and David Keene would never have allowed a speech by Rep. Bachmann like the one she delivered yesterday.


Responses

  1. […] it was out of stunning naivete or something more sinister.   One thing is clear though, with the death of Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans their careers should be dead as well.  If Obama was smart he would fire […]

  2. I know many State Department folks, and Ambassador Stevens reminds me of them — highly educated, hard-working & over-achieving, but essentially clueless (I apologize for speaking ill of the dead.)

    Typical diplomats work hard to find “nuances” in every aspect of foreign policy. The more “nuances” they can find, the smarter that makes them. When you talk to them about US foreign policy, they automatically dismiss you as a rube because you can’t possibly understand all the “nuances” that they can see.

    I’m convinced that Ambassador Stevens was so busy thinking through all the “nuances” of the situation in Libya that he never understood the big picture of what he was putting in motion.

    • Very good observation Paul.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: