Saturday, May 18, 2013

The Big Lie of Benghazi

Mike L.

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said this on Face the Nation:
"It began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video."
This is not reflective of the CIA memorandum which emphasized the fact that this was a coordinated attack, not a matter of crazed Muslims screeching to the heavens about some slight on the honor of the Prophet Muhammed.

They scrubbed any reference to al-Qaeda or radical Islam and tried to foist off responsibility for the attack on that internet video. Doing so is very consistent with Obama administration policies that seek to bolster radical Islam while pretending that the movement hardly exists or is increasingly irrelevant.

Part of the reason that I find myself attracted to this scandal is because it seems so well reflective of the Obama administration stance on radical Islam, more generally. The rise of radical Islam throughout the Muslim Middle East is an exceedingly serious, exceedingly dangerous, development that Obama and his followers perpetually downplay.

They pretend like it is not important and that we would do better to ignore it.  I disagree.  I think the rise of radical Islam throughout the Middle East is something that the American public needs to be better aware of and I think that it is a topic that we are in dire need of discussion about.

By scrubbing references to al-Qaeda or radical Islam from the CIA memorandum the Department of State was merely following Obama administration protocol - or perhaps inclinations is a better word - when it comes to this topic.

What the Obama administration has done is to convey to the American people the notion that the problem with political Islam is mainly limited to the "extremist" wing as exemplified by al-Qaeda.  In this way they reduce the problem to primarily that one group which they then told us was more or less defeated.  The implication of that, of course, is that radical Islam is not something that we need to very much concern ourselves about.

I find it deeply irresponsible, entirely counterproductive, and quite simply not honest.

The problem is not just the rise of radical Islam throughout the Middle East, but the progressive-left disinclination to even face it.  One wonders just why this is?  Why does the left, and why does the Obama administration, insist upon the ostrich routine on this issue?  What I have suggested in the past is that it's basically a hangover from the Bush II administration.  Because the Bush administration used the so-called "War on Terror" in a cynical manner for political and electoral reasons, and to move funds in various directions, progressives (like myself) dismissed it as posturing, or worse.

This does not mean, however, that radical Islam is merely some distopian fantasy out of the feverish imaginations of Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

Sticking one's head in the sand in the hopes that this problem will go away is the very last thing that we should be doing and it is exactly what Obama and his administration is very much encouraging us to do.

I find it foolish and, in fact, it constitutes the primary reason that Chris Stevens and his people are now dead.  They were killed by Obama administration stupidity on the question of radical Islam.

In any case, what we might call Islamism Denial is at the heart of the Benghazi scandal because it is at the heart of the Obama administration policies when it comes to this issue.

It's the Big Lie of Benghazi.


  1. You said it well in a former post:

    The Obama administration sought to protect radical Islam because they hoped to work with radical Islam going forward. We can only speculate about just why the Obama administration would have an interest in promoting radical Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, but a generous interpretation is one that emphasizes a desire to reform and moderate and democratize such groups because to do so would be in America's national interest.

    To me, it's as simple as that, an approach that has been built over decades. They really believe there is a kinder side to a force that enslaves people and cut off heads. Even if only a minority, they wield this force to coerce and then oppress their societies, which increasingly adopt this hateful mentality.

    I think far too many people who maintain this idea that we will civilize them are naive and uniformed about the nature of what the imperialist OIC wants and the actual religious principles that underlie the violence.

    I do not believe that Obama seeks to bolster political Islam, even if his policies may have that effect. I think his reasoning is flawed, however, because he comes from the milieu of identity politics with its contorted, unrealistic, theories of relativism and universality.

    1. I don't know, School.

      I do not believe that Obama seeks to bolster political Islam...

      Well, you may be right, but it doesn't change the fact that he has done exactly that.

      I do not see any way to avoid the conclusion. Hillary Clinton flew to Cairo in order to help ensure that the Egyptian military stood down in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and now the MB is ensconced in power in that country.

      Given the fact that the MB is the foremost Islamist organization in the world, it seems hard to argue that the Obama administration - despite whatever else it may have thought it was doing - was not bolstering political Islam.

      That may not have been their primary intention, but it was a clear and obvious effect, nonetheless.

      Don't you think?

    2. But you also have to understand the humanitarian racist mind that believes we make them hate us and that if we are nice to them they will be nice to us.

      As for Obama & Co., they should have been able to see the effect, but they seem too enamored with their theories to see the obvious. They just believe they are smarter and more in touch, when in reality we too often see their negligent performance and cluelessness.

    3. "The Humanitarian Racist Mind"

      That sounds like a good title for a piece! It has a vaguely 1950's-sounding / Frankfurt School ring to it.

      It boggles my mind that people can look at the obvious and refuse to acknowledge that the obvious is obvious.

      When Barack Obama gave the Brotherhood front seat tickets at the Cairo speech over Mubarak's objections, it was clear to me that he favored political Islam.

      A = A.

      When Obama helped force out Mubarak knowing full-well that the Brotherhood was in the wings it reinforced this conclusion.

      A = A.

      When Hillary flew to Cairo in order to oversea the standing down of the Egyptian military in favor of the Brotherhood, that conclusion was again reinforced and, yet, virtually no one within the pro-Israel Jewish community was acknowledging the fact.

      The Obama administration bolstered the rise of radical Islam during the "Arab Spring."

      I would therefore say, "Hey, Obama is bolstering the rise of radical Islam during the 'Arab Spring'" and our progressive-left friends would spit hatred at me and call me a liar.

      It was just very, very odd.

      {And remains so.}

  2. You are assuming that people actually look.

    As Obama befriends some Islamists, he kills other without qualm. I think his attempt to change the MB and others will fail miserably, but most Progressives will support him no matter what.

    Most are generally removed from the matter, which is why it is so easy to look only at one's navel and contemplate responsibility for making others do bad things, then attack those who speak out against the actors.