Skip to comments.A Duplicitous Administration
Posted on 09/23/2012 5:32:25 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
If they lie, you cant trust them. Thats a fairly straightforward rule. It is certainly the one that trial lawyers bank on.
It is not a hard and fast rule. A person may shade the truth for various reasons: vanity, personal allegiances, financial incentives, etc. Usually, once you figure out the relevant motivation, you can sort out on what matters he is probably credible and what he is prone to lie about. Sometimes, though, the story is so unbelievable, so insulting to the intelligence, that a rational juror knows it is best to discount all of the testimony or, worse, to conclude that the truth is likely the opposite of the witnesss desperate version.
Of course, all the worlds a stage, not a courtroom. I am reminded of this when, as now, I happen to have a book out (Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy) that speaks to events currently roiling the world. I am reminded, that is, that I am no longer a trial lawyer making arguments to a jury. Now I am a writer who makes his arguments to the public and, at book-publication times like these, through the prism of the mainstream media. So it was that, in a few interviews this week, I have been asked about two currently raging symptoms of Spring Fever, the Libya attacks and the Blind Sheikh.
Todays journalists do not resemble jurors. The interviews proceed in a now-familiar pattern. We go through the events of last weeks atrocity in Libya, where U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi. Again and again, Obama-administration officials insisted that the killings were the result of spontaneous rioting over an obscure movie casting Islams prophet in an unflattering light a movie from months ago, a movie virtually no one knew about, much less saw, a production so cockamamie that calling it a movie fails the straight-face test.
As the administration well knew, this was a coordinated jihadist attack led by al-Qaeda-affiliated forces, clearly well-trained and equipped with sophisticated weapons. One of the participants was a former Gitmo prisoner, detained there for years because it was patent that, given the chance, hed go back to the jihad. There appears to have been forewarning about likely trouble on the 9/11 anniversary.
Did anyone really need in-depth intelligence to recognize these dangers? Part of the reason the United States struck up an alliance with Qaddafis despicable regime was his intelligence cooperation: Per capita, Libya sent more jihadists to Iraq to fight against American troops than any other country. The only difference between then and now is that, with Obama having toppled Qaddafi in a war the U.S. launched without provocation and on the side of al-Qaeda, the rabidly anti-American Islamists of Benghazi now have access to high-powered weaponry previously unavailable to them. A movie? Before the president ever got to his unseemly Vegas fundraiser, with the nation still mourning its dead, it was pluperfectly obvious that wed been subjected to a terrorist strike that had nothing to do with a moronic movie.
Yet our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, repeated the farcical Obama-admnistration line with a straight face. It was insulting, and even reporters for whom Obama can do no wrong could not take it seriously. In some of my interviews there has been nervous laughter not over the situation, which is so deadly serious, but over the administrations line, which has been ludicrous.
But then we get to the Blind Sheikh. I prosecuted Omar Abdel Rahman back in my former trial-lawyer life. He is less than 20 years into his life sentence for terrorism convictions. During his time in prison, he nevertheless managed to issue the fatwa Osama bin Laden credited as the required sharia green-light for the 9/11 attacks. So I have been asked often this week about reports that he may be transferred to his native Egypt. There, as Spring Fever demonstrates, the populace is overwhelmingly adherent to the supremacist Islam that dominates the Middle East. There, his war against America makes him a hero, and he would be welcomed, triumphantly, as such.
Could that possibly happen? You bet it could, Ive told my interlocutors, it could and it will. Watch for the frightening weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day, when, no matter who wins the election, Barack Obama will retain all the awesome power of the presidency without any of the accountability of an impending election.
But wait, Im admonished. Theyve denied it. The Justice Department has denied it. So has the State Department, and at least one member of the National Security Council. How much clearer can they be?
I dont know. How much clearer could they have been about Libya?
The Obama administration is the witness whose testimony a jury would discount out of hand. We trust jurors to decide important questions because they bring to the task the common sense of the community. After Libya, the sensible person says, Never again. The sensible person does not even see the point of asking Obama officials for information.
Not the media, though. Whether it is Libya, the practically complete fence along the Mexican border, the Obamacare tax that is not a tax, the indignant denial of gun-running, cutting the deficit in half by the end of the first term, the composite girlfriend, the most transparent administration in history, and so on the media compartmentalizes from lie to lie, assessing the next as if the last had never happened.
Does the president rate the benefit of the doubt at this point? Seriously?
No way this administration would spring a notorious terrorist? Are you kidding?
The president has already released the terrorists responsible for murdering our five soldiers in Karbala. In his last go-round at Justice, Eric Holder orchestrated pardons for convicted FALN terrorists pardons signed off on by President Clinton, who went on to release two convicted Weather Underground terrorists on his way out the Oval Office door.
There is nothing new here. Reports that the State Department was discussing a transfer of the Blind Sheikh back to Egypt surfaced months ago, in the context of a potential swap for democracy activists the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was then detaining. The administration then issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin, a member of the Islamic Group the Blind Sheikhs terrorist organization, to which it is a felony to provide material assistance. The purpose was to invite Eldin to, yes, the White House, for consultations with top American national-security officials on prospective relations between the United States and the new, Islamist Egypt. As the administration had to know he would do, he pressed his top agenda item: The United States must return the Blind Sheikh as a gift to the revolution.
Eldin obviously felt very comfortable making the demand. We do not know exactly what he was told or what message he took back to Egypt. We do know that shortly afterward, as soon as the Muslim Brotherhoods Mohamed Morsi was announced as winner of the July presidential election, Morsi publicly vowed to pressure the United States to transfer the Blind Sheikh back home.
Did the Obama administration express outrage? Did the president tell Morsi, Not in a million years? No, he dispatched Secretary of State Clinton to Cairo for a friendly face-to-face meeting with Morsi right after she paid a visit to the ruling generals, squeezing them to surrender power to the popularly elected Brotherhood regime. Then the Obama administration got about the business of planning both more billions in aid for Egypt and a red-carpet welcome for Morsi at the White House the kind of meeting our actual ally, Israel, asked for but cant seem to get as our busy commander-in-chief bounces from David Letterman to Jay-Z.
But dont worry: Obama would never send the Blind Sheikh back to Egypt after the election, when the wrath of voters is no longer a concern for him. After all, administration officials have sworn otherwise, and we know we can take that to the bank, right?
Very revealing article. And Andrew McCarthy knows what he’s talking about.
Well, they were all actively promoting the lie and doing so in a coordinated fashion so we know they all got the same talking points . This line from Hillary Clinton is a classic: To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and repressible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. What I wish somebody would have asked Clinton was .. When you say it is disgusting and reprehensible, what do you mean? The movie itself is poorly written, poorly acted and quite amateurish as a dramatic recreation . But at least some of it is quite accurate and well in line with the historical evidence of who Mohammed was, no? He was a murderous thug, he cut deals with people/groups and promptly went back on his word, he was a sexual deviant/adulterer/fornicator .. and he created a religion to justify all that he did. So what exactly is disgusting and reprehensible .the historical Mohammed? Or the fact that somebody dared to make a movie about the historical Mohammed that demonstrated these characteristics? You called it a great religion . can you name one thing that was great about the life of Mohammed?
Excellent. Annoy a liberal...present the truth.
The only solution is to split it into two separate states.
Difficult, certainly. But there is no alternative if the original republic is to be saved.
“The Obama administration is the witness whose testimony a jury would discount out of hand. We trust jurors to decide important questions because they bring to the task the common sense of the community. After Libya, the sensible person says, ‘Never again.’ The sensible person does not even see the point of asking Obama officials for information.”
Understatement of the decade.