Skip to comments.The NY Times Unwittingly Destroys Obama (Caroline Glick)
Posted on 01/05/2014 7:20:28 AM PST by RoosterRedux
The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its Middle East policy.
Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional.
Indeed, is far from clear that the paper realizes what it has done.
Last Saturday the Times published an 8,000-word account by David Kirkpatrick detailing the terrorist strike against the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In it, Kirkpatrick tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obamas counterterrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.
Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009, speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University. Ever since, they have been the rationale behind US counterterror strategy and US Middle East policy.
Obamas first assertion is that radical Islam is not inherently hostile to the US. As a consequence, America can appease radical Islamists. Moreover, once radical Muslims are appeased, they will become US allies, (replacing the allies the US abandons to appease the radical Muslims).
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
The Obama Administration - America in steep decline
All of this will be covered up or otherwise distorted by MSM to protect “The ONE”.
OK. Why did Hillary and Obama use American taxpayer funded facilities, personnel, equipment and money to overthrow the government of Libya?
The Clinton’s chumming it up with Muslim Brotherhood goes back to the 1980’s long before the jug eared clown was anywhere to be scene.
Everything is strictly Hillary’s policies, the jug eared clown is simply along for the ride.
Hillary made a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, you help me get into power I help you get your caliphate.
Hillary had to deliver something to get the MB’s continued support getting her into power.
This charade only goes on because the Saudis keep dumping wads of cash onto both sides of the aisle.
I agree with you that Obama and Hillary overthrew the government of Libya for THEIR PERSONAL benefit. I’m not so sure that they did it as a trade off to the MB.
Obombya and Hillary were using Libya as a staging ground for Middle East intervention, and now that it blew up on them, Hitlary has danced and faked falling down and any other form of hiding the truth (again, sic)that it takes to keep her chances alive of running to be the first ‘woman’ president of this country. The MSM will do ANYTHING to enable this to happen! including lying, covering, buttressing, idolizing, sanitizing...
Why would Hillary want to be President of The United States? What are her motives? What are Obama’s motives? Castro said that he was overthrowing the government of Cuba to help the people. As he looks around the world, does he believe he’s helped his people? Or did he just help himself? I see people’s wants and needs driving their behavior. Anybody can say they are for the people, but are they? Or are they just using that as a front to enrich themselves?
If the New York Times is interested in helping Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, it should never allow the word ‘’Beghazi’’ to be printed in its newspaper.
Benghazi was a foreign-policy disaster for the Obama administration. In fact, ‘’Benghazi’’ symbolizes the failure of Hillary and the Obama administration, just as ‘’Munich’’ symbolizes the failure of Neville Chamberlain’s pre-war British government.
Why else did Hillary Clinton make her infamous screaming plea, ‘’What difference does it make?!’’ during Congress’s Benghazi hearings than to try to minimize the importance of the whole politically toxic Benghazi issue and to get it as far out of the public’s consciousness as possible?
Yet here is the New York Times resurrecting with great fanfare everything the Democrats would like buried just so that some reporter can make a few minor, deceitful propaganda points which only a minuscule number of NYT devotees will bother to read.
Because the alternative was to use their own money, and liberals never - never - spend their own money?
Just a SWAG.
Liberalism is a circular firing squad...there are bound to be “friendly fire” casualties.
My problem with Caroline Glick’s arguments and Kirkpatricks, Oreilly’s, Hume’s, Krauthammers, Hannitie’s, Megan’s and on and on is that in the face of over-whelming evidence that this man should be impeached, tried in the Senate and removed from office they continue to refer to him as “MR. President” and treat his positions on everything as if they had any validity to them whatsoever.
It is time for what’s left of a media in this country to simply start calling for the House Judiciary Committee to pass out to the full house it’s Articles of Impeachment that it is sitting on. Yes, the Senate will not vote to convict and remove Obama. But, the trial will be held in the Senate in an election year and that will focus the Marxist media and all remaining media on the trial and therefore the Obama’s................where focus should be. In the meantime any thought or position on anything the man has should be about as creditable as if it were coming from the President of oh, say, Liberia or Haiti. The man is a Marxist/communist that stains the sofa’s in the Oval Office, and should be treated each day as such,like they did Nixon, period!
Right now, it is the Republican Party who has either the rubber backbone or corrupt AND rubbery backbone that has these Articles of Impeachment impounded in the House Judiciary Committee, Make no mistake about that.
We all should be focused on turning up the heat on the Judiciary Committee Chairman.
And that's exactly what will happen if we take back the Senate in Nov.
Sorry, the pubbies have no backbone at all. Rubber or otherwise.
.........certainly if Cruz has anything to say about it it will..............
........with the exception of Cruz and Lee, I agree!
The comment wasn’t for all, but it seems to be a bell curve distribution. We seem to have 20 to 30 solid reliable folks in congress.
I agree but I still believe 12 years for a Senator or a Representative and then go home.
I can buy that.