Motives – Benghazi, Israel & Obama

Some comments about the events over the past week in the Middle East.

One, it is important to O that the events of Benghazi be interpreted under the guise of the video that has been labeled as anti-Mohammad. Why? Because O had promised during the last presidential election campaign to resolve the anti-America sentiment of Islamists. See he would usher in an era of peace and understanding. Central to this action was his apologetic speech to all Muslims in Cairo during his first year as president. If the events of Benghazi were a planned attack and that even in reference to 9/11 as well as the recent death of another A-Q leader, then clearly O not only failed on this campaign promise it also shows his lack of understanding and ignorance about the whole ideological war.  This is a point that Romney-Ryan need to bang home to the US citizens.

Second, the red line Israel wants from the O administration. O says when the US knows for certain that Iran is going to make a nuclear weapon THEN when will the US act militarily. This obviously is a dangerous position to base one’s actions on and Israel wants to make sure that that is the only red line option O has or if there is room for one prior to that realization. Now what I am going to share will probably not be popular but unless I learn some truth that rebuts I am standing on this position. I am persuaded that O’s desire is to push the nuclear weapon argument against Israel. My way of thinking is this: O punts the heavy reality of his goal to a second term or at worst that it be the next administration’s problem. Let’s say – horror of horrors that O wins a second term as president of the US. I believe his plan is to roll out like: “Iran, what will it take to ensure you will not seek a nuclear weapon?” Response> “when all countries in the Middle East do not have this technology – meaning specifically – Israel.” O to Israel> “this is a fair request > we need Israel to admit to its nuclear weapons and agree to have them destroyed.” This will shift the onus of the nuclear discussion off of Iran and put the pressure and the black hat on Israel.

As you can see this is not a discussion he wants to take place before the election. Such action would likely result in his defeat. The use of drones that he has allowed is not a contradiction ideologically to what I figure his goal is because the drones use is against extreme terrorist Muslims which are sowing discontent during his presidency. I am fully persuaded that a second term would include a drastic reduction if not elimination of drone use to kill terrorists.

We desperately need a regime change in DC and hopefully in November we will receive the news that it is coming soon.

Just “saying”

I opened the Fox News website last night and immediately closed the browser. There is no justification for showing that. Of course considering they have shown the pictures of dead Hussein, Kaddafi and others the precedent was set. Still no need even when it was of those losers. Our country has completed lost – no actually – thrown away the understanding and valuing of modesty and dignity for the human being.

From everything I have read & heard the ambassador was a stand up guy. He really believed he could help and make a difference.

BTW – Romney did nothing wrong in how he handled the whole Cairo, Libya thing. He nailed it on the head both times and the chief empty suit again chose not to be a leader. In fact I thought Hillary did a A+ job with her comments that were about five minutes before Romney’s. And they were only scheduled AFTER Romney announced he would make a statement. She was supposed to speak at 10:30 with the president. Yesterday because of the whole travel thing I was able to watch the whole MSM, press relations and spin unroll in real time. We currently have a vacuum in leadership from the presidential seat. May God have mercy and grace on our nation at the next election and replace him with someone who is a leader.

Failed leadership – again

What is unfolding in Egypt & Libya is proof once again that the current president is absent with American leadership.

A man who is supposed to be president of our nation who does not believe that our nation is exceptional. An ambassador and 3 staff members killed in Libya with the embassy engulfed in flames. Embassy in Cairo overrun and vandalized. Over comments about Mohammad in a film.

Clinton’s remark yesterday that there are no red lines in reference to Iran and its nuclear program again reveals the poor leadership in our executive branch.

No time to meet with Netanyahu which has been revealed what is more important: appearance on Letterman and other campaign stops.

Watch for the spin and continued lack of leadership. Watch for the puffery and arrogance.

 

if you were in charge

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=284682

http://www.debka.com/article/22350/Obama-and-Netanyahu-shadowbox-on-Iran-ahead-of-final-round-Sept-28

“It’s roughly about a year right now. A little more than a year. And so … we think we will have the opportunity once we know that they’ve made that decision, take the action necessary to stop (Iran),” Panetta said on CBS’s “This Morning” program.”

 

2 cents:

If you were the leader of a country or even a group of people who has:

  1. heard repeatedly over the last eight years from another country near your location that they desire to see you wiped off the face of the earth
  2. knew that said country spent millions of dollars if not billions to arm and train terrorists to wreak havoc against your nation
  3. knew that they have a religious practice which advocates lying to get to your ultimate objective
  4. said country then begins a nuclear program which they do their best to be secretive while stating it is for civil/non-military application

 

Would you – the leader of the country put your people’s lives in the hands of someone else who can and does respond to the known 4 points with a comment that is steeped in “if” vocabulary?

 

Another way to think about it – using the same and FACTUAL points – as a career which is based on political philosophy and perception of leadership would you place your career’s future in the hands of such “wavering” precepts? As a political being wouldn’t you own your career and try to get in front of these scary realities so as to not lose points on perceived leadership abilities and strategic thinking misfires?

 

Lets look at it another way. If you were the president of the USA and your nation had just been attacked – lets say in at least four different ways – actually four terrorist attacks – would you try remedy the disagreement and loss of life with going to the UN and asking for them to open diplomatic channels with the terrorists so that we can agree to disagree but stop loss of life? It is 9/11 today and is that what the CES would have done in response to the attacks if he had been president instead of Bush? What kind of leadership would that have been perceived as?

 

Netanyahu has the reality of a 9/11 on a scale that could in one fell swoop eliminate the nation of his people. Just because Ahmadinejad is a leader of a nation does it make him less dangerous the a Bin-Laden was just a few years ago?  After all Ahmadinejad has a large armed military force plus a couple large terrorist organizations in his control.

 

Does the CES disagree with the way Bush handles the terrorist leader? If so – then why did he order the take down of him via military action without Pakistani sovereign support? Why is he using drones to kill terrorists abroad?

 

 

 

Remember CES = chief empty suit = current US president

Ottawa – out

A bit of interesting, possibly telling, news: Canada pulls out & closes embassy in Tehran while also expelling Iranian diplomats from Canada.

Here information can be found in reference to the caper referred to in the article.

2 cents:

Indeed a good question – why now? I don’t find it hard to believe that it is just as the Canadians are saying. Why? In today’s world of technology, leaks and so-called transparency (which is only that way if it provides positive positioning by those being so-called transparent) – I find it hard to believe that Canada – alone – got whiff of something. Personally I think the leaders in Ottawa should have left a long time ago, in fact why even have an embassy there? So anytime the Canadians actually wised up and left would lead to the question “why now?” Make sense?

Why share on this blog?

1. Further isolation of Iran means more pressure on them and also enraging them.
2. In the possibility the why now question is a whiff of something.