Skip to comments.Obama’s Nightmare
Posted on 11/15/2012 12:55:07 PM PST by upbeat5
The scandal engulfing two of our top military and intelligence officers could not be coming at a worse time: the Middle East has never been more unstable and closer to multiple, interconnected explosions. Virtually every American president since Dwight Eisenhower has had a Middle Eastern country that brought him grief. For Ike, it was Lebanons civil war and Israels Sinai invasion. For Lyndon Johnson, it was the 1967 Six-Day War. For Nixon, it was the 1973 war. For Carter, it was the Iranian Revolution. For Ronald Reagan, it was Lebanon. For George H.W. Bush, it was Iraq. For Bill Clinton, it was Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. For George W. Bush, it was Iraq and Afghanistan. For Barack Obamas first term, it was Iran and Afghanistan, again. And for Obamas second term, I fear that it could be the full nightmare all of them at once. The whole Middle East erupts in one giant sound and light show of civil wars, states collapsing and refugee dislocations, as the keystone of the entire region Syria gets pulled asunder and the disorder spills across the neighborhood.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'd suggest that Egypt is more likely the keystone.
Obama isn’t having a nightmare, he’s busy with his jihad against unbelievers
The big difference is the guy in the WH hasn’t a clue what to do. His main intent was to get re elected. He left four people to die. By the grace of God, and in fact the bravery of two of these men, 30 more Americans were not killed or made hostage.
I hold my breath, because it’s clear any day it will erupt. Does anyone NOT believe that the current assault on Israel is happening because of Obama’s reelection? This is just the beginning. They’re pushing Israel into war to test what Obama will do...
Upon a moments reflection, it’s clear that Israel is the keystone of the ME.
And, we have the most inexperienced, corrupt bunch of children running this country.
This is Obama’s dream come true—to destroy the US economy and to weaken us globally. Obama and the LEFT have worked very hard to get these results.
US foreign policy: Foment chaos, overthrow secular dictatorships, advance the Muslim mob, advantage the Muslim Brotherhood, prepare the way for the Creation of the Greater Caliphate, weaken Israel and encourage those who would attack her, run interference to give Iran time to perfect their nuclear weapons, ... That's a start on the Obama foreign policy.
I hold my breath, because its clear any day it will erupt. Does anyone NOT believe that the current assault on Israel is happening because of Obamas reelection? This is just the beginning. Theyre pushing Israel into war to test what Obama will do...
i disagree a little with your wording. they’re not testing obama, they know he hates israel. if anything, they’re testing how far the american people will allow them to go.
Most of the problems cited stem from the naive and sophmoric foreign policies of the 0bama - klinton State Dept.
For A REAL NIGHTMARE, they should ask the families of the four men 0bama watched die at Benghazi while he didn't raise a finger to help because he was more concerned with his fund raising trip to Vegas.
The forces of 7th Century darkness know they have a friend in Osama Obama.He,too,has been carrying out his own little “jihad” over the last 20+ years.
Hussein’s foreign policy is to be flexible with the Russians and to give aid and comfort to Jihadists.
Our foreign policy is obvious...Appeasement to our enemies, alienation of our allies, and deception for those in the US.
“Obama’s Wet Dream” is more like it.
What will he suffer? Nothing.
What will he gain? Everything he and his ilk have always wanted.
It might be a nightmare if he was truly an American. He’s not.
Obama and his buddies are making money off of war in the Middle East.
Read the three part story on The Chicago Connection at chicagopaytoplay.com. Read Aaron Klein’s stories at WND. Look up RESPOSIBILITY TO PROTECT. Look up THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP and see who is on their board.....George Soros.
Benghazi is inconvenient to Obama because it’s part of his bigger scheme to make money off the suffering and death in the Middle East.
The difference is that none of those other presidents caused war. They just had to respond. Obama directly fueled instability in eqypt and libya and it is now spilling over to other areas.
for people who live in a reality world of right, wrong, and honor, it would be a nightmare. But for Obama...he doesn’t feel any of these things. It’s all fun...fun...fun, he’ll laugh about this on the David Letterman show in 3 weeks. Like the people who died in Benghazi.
I'm no expert. (got that out of the way)
History seems to suggest that many of the ME nations side with the anticipated winners of any conflict. Normally they side with whoever is allied with the US. Iran and Syria are the exceptions. Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc. They tend to wait to see what everyone else is doing, pick a winner and hope to not get any on themselves.
I fear this situation is more volatile because Moscow is making moves in defense of the Paeos and influencing Egypt. If the ME picks up on the fact that Israel is on her own in this, they may smell blood in the water and throw in.
Iran is loving this. His man got re-elected and the machines are spinning.
“Paeos” —> Pallis?
Honor, discipline, and a sense of right and wrong are quaint customs from another time, and have no place in this regime. The whole business with General Petraeus was a two-fer or even a three-fer for them. A man with a lifetime of honorable service, who has exercised exemplary judgment under trying conditions, is subjected to jeering and condemnation when first called up to testify, being branded even before he spoke as “General Betray-Us” by the wits of the leftist media and academia. But regardless, he was tapped for the highly sensitive position as head of the CIA, at a time when their very mission was under attack from the same witty and overly clever denizens of the fever swamps of the left, and his discharge of duties is subverted by contradictory and confused disruptions in the chain of command, with interference from other branches of government whose purposes ran counter to good statesmanship. Then, in an obscure chain of circumstances, he finds himself stripped bare, with his reputation, his job, his personal life, and just about all his future prospects hanging in shreds, exposed as what appears to be a cheat, a liar, and of little or no integrity.
For the leftists that infest the corridors of power in the high councils of this country, this was an enormous victory. Humbled in the public square, with a resounding defeat at the polls, and a chorus of condemnation raining down, those who believe in those “quaint” concepts of honor, discipline and the sense of right and wrong, have been put to the rout.
We may have lost the culture of the greater mass. The remainder are well advised to throw up a wall against the engulfing firestorm, and form ramparts from where we may first defend, then by inches, bits, and pieces, take back the territories that have been lost to chaos and mind-numbing greed, unfettered by any guiding principle or decency.
The problem with our foreign policy is that we can’t admit what it is: promote Islam and destroy the US. That’s essentially Obama’s goal, and the people under him are terrified of him and are carrying out his orders.
The Petraeus episode is not a “scandal” or “sexscapade,” but is being made to look like one because it is simply the way Obama has chosen to rid himself of someone who may have been complaisant but suddenly, when he saw Americans being sacrificed for this policy, woke up and said no.
Obama planned to hold the “scandal” over Petraeus’ head to control him and then get rid of him if he was the GOP’s candidate for VP, but he wasn’t.So Obama, favored by Satan, actually discovered an even better use for it.
Of late (the last few decades), it seems to me that the CIA needed to be completely disbanded and started all over again with a new crew and culture.
Sorry, but “Betrayus” came from the right.
His acceptance of ROE that naively promoted local Muslim “partners” and forbade US troops to fire back unless they virtually had the jihadi knife at their throats was one of the things that led to so many troop deaths. So the nickname “Betrayus” may have had a bit of foundation, although I’m not sure that he was fully aware of what he was being ordered to do...until fairly recently.
I realize that it is not the position of a general to argue with the Secretary of Defense or the President, who I assume were responsible for these orders (and some of them began under Bush after Rumsfeld had left). Petraeus convinced Bush and his cabinet and their successors to go for the “surge,” which was simply what we should have been doing all along (sending in enough troops to kill the enemy) but then he never came out and protected the troops, even from prosecution for killing the enemy. This is because he was a military man and simply followed orders, so perhaps he wasn’t really responsible for the ROE, but he should at least have said something, which he never did.
So Petreaus was pretty compromised and a lot of the criticism came from the right (although, as usual,the critics didn’t offer any solutions).
This is not Obama’s Nightmare, this is Obama’s wet dream - this is actually part of the Arab Spring and the continue rise of Islamic chaos in the Middle East. It is the part of the rise of the Islamic prophet to return because of the chaos. The Islamic prophet is the Christian/Jews ant-christ, watch because will the precursor of things to come - rise in oil prices, more discord in America.
What foreign policy? Just ask Valerie Jarrett, she’s running the country through the auspices of Iranian apeasement.
Who knows who he voted for a few daze ago.
Petraeus is much more of a Clan/Nation builder than a warrior.
Always has been, always will be
Tomato, Tomawto... whatever. :o)
Just checkin’. </head scratchin’>
Thanks upbeat5. Lucky for him, he can blame the Jews.
Not that dr mom but a dr mom! My kids are my proudest accomplishment and my great joy
Got a Bible?
I suspect the good news might be that Obama didn’t stay in the Situation Room when one of the most significant military events occurred on his watch.
The bad news, I suspect, is that he might be developing a lust to watch snuff films in the privacy of his residence and this encouraged his inaction.
I recently reread the email that ran the circuits soon after the 9/11 Benghazi event, which asserted the entire raid was a deal between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Obama Administration, to kidnap Stevens, then release him to gain Obama popularity in his re-election. The email CT continues to assert the mission failed when the 2 ex-SEALs intervened, causing some 80 enemy casualties, resulting in the attackers believing they had been tricked, becoming upset, then killing the SEALs.
There is one inconvenient fact in the reported events. The first half might be true, but only 4 Americans were killed: the Ambassador and CommO, due to smoke inhalation, and the 2 ex-SEALs, reportedly by 1 registration round then 3 mortar rounds.
The inconvenient fact is that more Americans weren’t killed.
If mortar rounds were used, in the darkness, after displacing on moving targets who were repeatedly lazing their position, several points arise.
1) Mortars are area weapons and can penetrate bldgs.
2) Some 20-50 Americans were brought out a few hours later.
3) If this was an isolated enemy without comm to others who were American friendlies, and felt betrayed, seeking vengeance, there would have been significantly more casualties. Most of the casualties likely would not have been the 2 ex-SEALS in the hours of darkness.
I am led to consider a number of other associations existed such as one of the following:
1) exSEALSs were killed by friendlies inside the compound.
2) ex SEALs were targeted by others with hi-tech targeting capacity, able to discern between any others in the compound, AND if so targeted, were cognizant others in the compound were not a risk to their mission.
3) Some type of liaison occurred between attackers and diplomats when in the CIA compound for them to risk leaving the area for the airport.
4) Attackers were a friendly Black Op posing as terrorists to those outside the inner circle, using a mob to pose as political unrest, but the political mob stupidly set the compound ablaze with diesel, resulting in the unintended death of Stevens and the CommO, while obscuring night vision from verifying the location of Stevens until later found by others.
5) Only the 2 ex-SEALs were killed because they were not part of the preplanned op and may have been too close to interior operations to have overheard or witnessed mechanics of the operation. Killed by other senior diplomat or the Administration team controlling the operation to safeguard the operational integrity of the mission.
6) Remainder of attackers departed after the ex-SEALs were killed, without killing other Americans in the CIA Annex by direct order of somebody controlling their operation.
7) Attackers may have been Muslim militants, but very well controlled and with Friendly BlackOp liaisons in direct control of their actions.
IMHO, it took direct intervening control, in hours of darkness, to avoid killing other Americans, if not all of them, if this had been a terrorist operation which was unopposed and without air on station for over 7 hours. The only real question is who controlled the Black Op?
Judging from our Administration’s behavior, I believe Obama had full knowledge of who was controlling it.
Case in point,... Obama reportedly was on the phone to Netanyahu, in an unplanned phonecon, immediately after the NCA converged, about 1-1/2 hrs after the attack commenced, which would have been a convenient time for them to converge in a preplanned operation.
I suspect Obama was pinging Netanyahu to perceive how much he knew, as the operation wasn’t going fully as planned, but some high risk branch or sequal operation was contingent upon this tactical operation.
If actual events are only partly true with this theory, a number of things would be consistent with the events.
1) Limited number of personnel fully aware of the situation.
2) Ambassador might have been aware,... would explain why he went back in to the Residence instead of out the window to escape the fire. A would explain his walking near the gate when the Turkish envoy left about an hour before the events in darkness, unprotected. He might have been posing to allow the kidnapping without much risk to others.
3) Other diplomats might have concurred or directed others to take out the ex-SEALs to allow all others to leave safely, still within the bounds of the preplanned op.
4) exSEALs reported told to stand-down. This not only manifests intent by command not to use self-defense against armed attackers, it also denied the Command and Control direct reliable military eyes on target. Only explanation is they didn’t want the attackers identified or tracked or monitored.
There are lots of inexplicable behaviors of liberal ‘Democrats’ on the national stage explained if is is true.
There have been many photo ops of National level Demo/Soc/Prog leaders who visit known enemies such as Chavez, or who were allies to anybody who was associated with WMDs during Iraq II,...the so-called, show us the proof of Hussein’s WMDs crowd. This group doesn’t believe in the rule of law, as much as they believe in relative morality and power politics. They would prefer to control terrorists in the same way they seek to control organized crime,...by becoming the more powerful gang and playing the same game as the terrorists, not by preventing terrorism.
Obama is resetting his focus after the election. He won’t be satiated by American politics. He will be tempted by international control. The changes in leadership throughout the midEast, if not orchestrated by him, will entice his skill sets to control them by use of terrorist groups he will grow and control.
He wants to be known as Napoleon.
Three questions for Benghazi-Coward Obama:
1.) Are you HIDING INFORMATION from the US Congress about the Benghazi Massacre?
2.) Have you been LYING to the US Congress, The Media, or the American Public about the Benghazi Massacre?
3.) Were you, as Commander in Chief, GROSSLY NEGLIGENT about your responsibilities to protect and assist those four Americans who subsequently were murdered in the Benghazi Massacre?
BTW, the large cap words were the same as the 3 charges handed down yesterday to BP for punishment of their Gulf of Mexico underwater blowout, a while back.
Since the US Government is going to hold a company accountable for their poor decisions, then it should hold its CIC accountable his poor decisions, AND use the same legal charges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.