Tags: chicago illinois political corruption, kill switch internet, obama nation, american middle class revolt 2011, high taxes, 17% unemployment, egypt in america, madcow political commentary, fox news 2011 commentary, incumbent president re-election campaign, frankenstein stumbling home, reverent wright, bill ayers, government corrupt chicago, rahmn emmanuel, american middle class outrage 2011, american tea party 2011, illinois politics, chicago politics criminal enterprise
Copyright 2011-3011 By Chase Kyla Hunter, All Rights Reserved.
You know it’s bad when the new world order “White House” directed mass media agencies begin to tell the truth about the cluelessness, insulated narcissism and inept foreign policy of the Obama administration.
Imagine: everything that tea party blogs and truth researchers have been screaming on the internet for five years now about this man, this calculatedly aloof and inept President, who pretended he was America’s new political Messiah four years ago, is finally, four years too late, being discussed in “official” American media outlets. I could just shake the men and women at Newsweek, clanking their heads together.
Where was all this truthful reporting with “eyes wide open” when we needed it four years ago? I personally hope Newsweek goes out of business in karmic retribution for their absolute and purposed failing to vet and investigate this man four years ago when he came out of far left field, [where he lives], to run for national office, three years after admitting to reporters he did not have the experience to do so.
The mass media numbskulls who elected this man now have the sad and silly karmic duty of reporting on his collapsing presidency to the nation, as if we didn’t already know. We were all three to four years ahead of you, Newsweek. You are so fired.
NEWSWEEK’s new columnist on Obama’s Egypt debacle and the vacuum it exposes.
“The statesman can only wait and listen until he hears the footsteps of God resounding through events; then he must jump up and grasp the hem of His coat, that is all.” Thus Otto von Bismarck, the great Prussian statesman who united Germany and thereby reshaped Europe’s balance of power nearly a century and a half ago.
Last week, for the second time in his presidency, Barack Obama heard those footsteps, jumped up to grasp a historic opportunity … and missed it completely.
In Bismarck’s case it was not so much God’s coattails he caught as the revolutionary wave of mid-19th-century German nationalism. And he did more than catch it; he managed to surf it in a direction of his own choosing. The wave Obama just missed—again—is the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy. It has surged through the region twice since he was elected: once in Iran in the summer of 2009, the second time right across North Africa, from Tunisia all the way down the Red Sea to Yemen. But the swell has been biggest in Egypt, the Middle East’s most populous country.
In each case, the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave, Bismarck style, by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail. In the case of Iran, he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. This time around, in Egypt, it was worse. He did both—some days exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, other days drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.”
The result has been a foreign-policy debacle. The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak’s cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn’t end there. America’s two closest friends in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—are both disgusted. The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington’s failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration’s apparent cluelessness.
Last week, while other commentators ran around Cairo’s Tahrir Square, hyperventilating about what they saw as an Arab 1989, I flew to Tel Aviv for the annual Herzliya security conference. The consensus among the assembled experts on the Middle East? A colossal failure of American foreign policy.
This failure was not the result of bad luck. It was the predictable consequence of the Obama administration’s lack of any kind of coherent grand strategy, a deficit about which more than a few veterans of U.S. foreign policy making have long worried. The president himself is not wholly to blame. Although cosmopolitan by both birth and upbringing, Obama was an unusually parochial politician prior to his election, judging by his scant public pronouncements on foreign-policy issues.
Yet no president can be expected to be omniscient. That is what advisers are for. The real responsibility for the current strategic vacuum lies not with Obama himself, but with the National Security Council, and in particular with the man who ran it until last October: retired Gen. James L. Jones. I suspected at the time of his appointment that General Jones was a poor choice. A big, bluff Marine, he once astonished me by recommending that Turkish troops might lend the United States support in Iraq. He seemed mildly surprised when I suggested the Iraqis might resent such a reminder of centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule.
The best national-security advisers have combined deep knowledge of international relations with an ability to play the Machiavellian Beltway game, which means competing for the president’s ear against the other would-be players in the policymaking process: not only the defense secretary but also the secretary of state and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. No one has ever done this better than Henry Kissinger. But the crucial thing about Kissinger as national-security adviser was not the speed with which he learned the dark arts of interdepartmental turf warfare. It was the skill with which he, in partnership with Richard Nixon, forged a grand strategy for the United States at a time of alarming geopolitical instability.
The essence of that strategy was, first, to prioritize (for example, détente with the Soviets before human-rights issues within the U.S.S.R.) and then to exert pressure by deliberately linking key issues. In their hardest task—salvaging peace with honor in Indochina by preserving the independence of South Vietnam—Nixon and Kissinger ultimately could not succeed. But in the Middle East they were able to eject the Soviets from a position of influence and turn Egypt from a threat into a malleable ally. And their overtures to China exploited the divisions within the Communist bloc, helping to set Beijing on an epoch-making new course of economic openness.
The contrast between the foreign policy of the Nixon-Ford years and that of President Jimmy Carter is a stark reminder of how easily foreign policy can founder when there is a failure of strategic thinking. The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which took the Carter administration wholly by surprise, was a catastrophe far greater than the loss of South Vietnam.
Remind you of anything? “This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times last week. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”
I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration’s strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which Mubarak faced a popular revolt. Yet the very essence of rigorous strategic thinking is to devise such a scenario and to think through the best responses to them, preferably two or three moves ahead of actual or potential adversaries. It is only by doing these things—ranking priorities and gaming scenarios—that a coherent foreign policy can be made. The Israelis have been hard at work doing this. All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency.
These were his words back in June 2009:
America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
Those lines will come back to haunt Obama if, as cannot be ruled out, the ultimate beneficiary of his bungling in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains by far the best organized opposition force in the country—and wholly committed to the restoration of the caliphate and the strict application of Sharia. Would such an outcome advance “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings” in Egypt? Somehow, I don’t think so.
Grand strategy is all about the necessity of choice. Today, it means choosing between a daunting list of objectives: to resist the spread of radical Islam, to limit Iran’s ambition to become dominant in the Middle East, to contain the rise of China as an economic rival, to guard against a Russian “reconquista” of Eastern Europe—and so on. The defining characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy has been not just a failure to prioritize, but also a failure to recognize the need to do so. A succession of speeches saying, in essence, “I am not George W. Bush” is no substitute for a strategy.
Bismarck knew how to choose. He understood that riding the nationalist wave would enable Prussia to become the dominant force in Germany, but that thereafter the No. 1 objective must be to keep France and Russia from uniting against his new Reich. When asked for his opinion about colonizing Africa, Bismarck famously replied: “My map of Africa lies in Europe. Here lies Russia and here lies France, and we are in the middle. That is my map of Africa.”
Tragically, no one knows where Barack Obama’s map of the Middle East is. At best, it is in the heartland states of America, where the fate of his presidency will be decided next year, just as Jimmy Carter’s was back in 1980.
At worst, he has no map at all.
- Obama’s Egypt and Foreign Policy Failires – Newsweek (news.google.com)
- Obama’s Egypt and Foreign Policy Failires (newsweek.com)
- Niall Ferguson Blasts Obama’s Foreign Policy (thedailybeast.com)
- Mubarak in coma? (hotair.com)
- Newsweek Cheat Sheet: What’s in This Week’s Issue (thedailybeast.com)
- In U.S. Signals to Egypt, Obama Straddled a Rift (nytimes.com)
- In US Signals to Egypt, Obama Straddled a Rift – New York Times (news.google.com)
- Obama Team Looked Unsteady in Response to Egypt Protesters (businessweek.com)
- Obama’s strategy was to pressure Mubarak without intruding – Los Angeles Times (news.google.com)
- Obama Leadership Tested by Fast-Changing Egypt Crisis (businessweek.com)
- Foreign Policy: Why You Should Care About Egypt (npr.org)
Copyright 2011-3011 By Chase Kyla Hunter, Re-post Courtesy of World Net Daily 2011
Egypt now fears Obama a ‘Manchurian President‘
‘They are trying to understand why he is acting against U.S. interests’
“Mubarak’s regime feels Obama is pushing the advancement of the Muslim Brotherhood against U.S. interests,” said WND’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior reporter Aaron Klein. “They are genuinely trying to understand why Obama
is seemingly championing the anti-regime protests.”
Klein said that a top Egyptian diplomat with whom he has developed a rapport over the last few years asked him earlier this week to explain Obama’s motivation to support the opposition to Mubarak. “I told him none of this should be a surprise,” said Klein, “that the Obama administration has developed an extensive relationship over the last few years
with allies of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Posted: February 02, 2011
8:43 pm Eastern
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Top members of the Egyptian government say they feel betrayed by President Obama, charging that he is acting against American interests.
“Mubarak’s regime feels Obama is pushing the advancement of the Muslim Brotherhood against U.S. interests,” said WND’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior reporter Aaron Klein. “They are genuinely trying to understand why Obama is seemingly championing the anti-regime protests.”
Klein said that a top Egyptian diplomat with whom he has developed a rapport over the last few years asked him earlier this week to explain Obama’s motivation to support the opposition to Mubarak.
“I told him none of this should be a surprise,” said Klein, “that the Obama administration has developed an extensive relationship over the last few years with allies of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Get the comprehensive probe that exposes Obama’s Marxist, anti-American past – and present, in “Manchurian President.”
“That my investigating has proven that Obama has been closely associated throughout his political career with radical-left elements who have long petitioned for policies many believe are aimed at weakening the American enterprise both domestically and internationally.”
“The Egyptian diplomat seemed surprised,” said Klein. “I told him this material was thoroughly documented in my latest book.”
The diplomat requested 20 copies of Klein’s New York Times bestselling book investigating Obama, “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s ties to communists, socialists, and other anti-American extremists.”
The diplomat said he would deliver the book, which was co-authored by Brenda J. Elliott, to senior officials in Mubarak’s embattled government.
Obama in recent days urged Mubarak to give up power in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood forms the main opposition.
Mubarak has been a staunch U.S. ally and a recipient of billions of dollars in military aid. His regime has long been considered a stabilizing force in the Arab world.
The Obama administration’s support for the unrest is strikingly reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s support of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, which marked the birth of modern Islamist expansion.
(Story continues below)
Some Muslim clerics are already calling the riots in Egypt simply an extension of 1979’s Islamist conquests.
“Thirty-one years after the victory of the Islamic Republic, we are faced with the obvious fact that these movements are the aftershocks of the Islamic revolution,” said Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, as reported by Iran’s Radio Zamaneh. “The fate of those who challenge [our] religion is destruction.”
Speaking of media and government leaders, Khatami added, “They want to highlight the labor, liberal and democratic issues, but the most important issue, which is the religious streak of these protests, [is] being denied.”
The leader of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, Hammam Saeed, warned that the unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast until Arabs succeed at toppling leaders allied with the United States.
“The Americans and Obama must be losing sleep over the popular revolt in Egypt,” Saeed said at a sympathy protest held outside the Egyptian Embassy in Amman. “Now, Obama must understand that the people have woken up and are ready to unseat the tyrant leaders who remained in power because of U.S. backing.”
And on the Internet, the Middle East Media Research Institute reports, prominent Salafi cleric Abu Mundhir Al-Shinqiti issued a fatwa on the website Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal Jihad encouraging the protests in Egypt, claiming Islamist jihadis are now on the verge of a historic moment, an “earthquake” he likened to the Sept. 11 attacks in New York City.
Obama pushes Egyptian ‘reform’
According to a senior Egyptian diplomat speaking to WND, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Frank Wisner, specifically told Mubarak on Tuesday the U.S. would not continue to support his rule and he must step down.
Hours later, Mubarak announced he would not seek another term in office.
The Obama administration dispatched Wisner to Egypt last weekend to report to the State Department and White House a general sense of the situation in the country.
WND broke the story yesterday that the Egyptian government has information Wisner secretly met earlier this week with a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Issam El-Erian.
The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to spread Islam around the world, in large part using nonviolent means. Hamas and al-Qaida are violent Brotherhood offshoots.
Muslim Brotherhood declares war on U.S.
Prominent U.S. commentators also have been claiming the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate organization and denying there is any Islamist plot to seize power.
Last Friday, President George W. Bush’s former press spokeswoman, Dana Perino, told Fox News, “Don’t be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This has nothing to do with religion.”
Bruce Reidel, a former CIA analyst and adviser to President Obama, wrote a Daily Beast article in which he claimed, “The Egyptian Brotherhood renounced violence years ago. … Its relative moderation has made it the target of extreme vilification by more radical Islamists.”
Reidel’s assertion the Brotherhood renounced violence, however, is contradicted by its own statements in recent months, including a call to arms against the West.
In November, the Brotherhood’s new supreme guide, Muhammad Badi, delivered a sermon entitled “How Islam Confronts the Oppression and Tyranny.”
“Resistance is the only solution,” stated Badi. “The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the power at its disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan because it has been defeated by Islamist warriors.”
Badi went on to declare the U.S. is easy to defeat through violence, since it is “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading toward its demise.”
Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center, noted Badi’s speech showed “the likelihood that more Brotherhood supporters in the West will turn to violence and fund-raising for terrorism.”
Frank Gaffney, president of the American Center for Security Policy, takes it a step further.
“In short, the Muslim Brotherhood – whether it is operating in Egypt, elsewhere in the world or here – is our enemy,” he wrote.
Obama quietly builds ties to Muslim Brotherhood
Klein reported for WND yesterday that Obama and top administration officials have troubling relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood and its worldwide allies.
Muslim Brotherhood members were reportedly invited to attend Obama’s 2009 address to the Muslim world from Cairo. Khaled Hamza, editor of the Muslim Brotherhood website, confirmed at the time that 10 members of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary bloc received official invitations to attend Obama’s historic speech.
Also in 2009, the Egyptian daily newspaper Almasry Alyoum ran a report claiming Obama had met with U.S. and European-based representatives of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood that year
According to the report, the Brotherhood members requested that news of the meeting not be publicized. They expressed to Obama their support for democracy and the war on terror.
The newspaper also reported Brotherhood members communicated to Obama their position that they would abide by all agreements Egypt has signed with foreign countries, implying that if they took power in Egypt they would continue that country’s peace treaty with Israel.
Besides contact with the Muslim Brotherhood itself, there have been reports the past two years of behind-the-scenes contact with Hamas, which was founded as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas maintains a close alliance with the Brotherhood; the Brotherhood’s new leader, Muhammad Badi, serves as a de facto lead spiritual guide for Hamas.
Top leaders of Hamas in Gaza claimed to WND several times they passed messages to Obama through dignitaries who visited the Gaza Strip, including Jimmy Carter and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., – both of whom have a close relationship with the White House.
Kerry, for example, reportedly accepted a letter for Obama from Hamas leaders in Gaza during a February 2009 visit to U.N. installations in the coastal territory.
U.N. relief agency chief in Gaza Karen Abu Zayd told the BBC the Hamas letter had been received by his agency and passed on to an unnamed American official.
In November, 2008, WND first quoted Hamas officials stating they would be sending a letter to Obama.
Immediately after that month’s elections, Ahmed Yousef , Hamas’ chief political adviser in Gaza, called Obama’s win a “historic victory” for the world and told WND that Hamas was sending a letter of congratulation to the president-elect.
Obama ties to Brotherhood’s U.S. allies
It is not just Obama’s reported contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and the group’s allies in the Middle East that are of concern.
The Obama administration also has evidenced a working relationship with several U.S.-based Islamist organizations that are listed by the Brotherhood as “likeminded” organizations.
One such group is the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, a radical Muslim group that was an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to raise money for Hamas.
ISNA was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document – “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” – as one of the Brotherhood’s likeminded “organizations of our friends” who shared the common goal of transforming countries into Muslim nations.
The White House relationship with ISNA began even before Obama took office. One week before the presidential inauguration, Sayyid Syeed, national director of the ISNA Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances, was part of a delegation that met with the directors of Obama’s transition team. The delegation discussed a request for an executive order ending “torture.”
ISNA President Ingrid Mattson represented American Muslims at Obama’s inauguration, where she offered a prayer during the televised event.
Mattson also has represented ISNA at Obama’s annual Ramadan dinners, including the last such event in which Obama announced support for the rights of Muslims to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks.
In June 2009, Obama’s top aide, Valerie Jarrett, invited Mattson to work on the White House Council on Women and Girls, which Jarrett leads.
That July, the Justice Department sponsored an information booth at an ISNA bazaar in Washington, D.C.
Also that month, Jarrett addressed ISNA’s 46th annual convention. According to the White House, Jarrett attended as part of Obama’s outreach to Muslims.
ISNA sponsored a February 2010 question-and-answer session in which Obama’s top adviser on counter-terrorism, John Brennan, came under fire for controversial remarks to Muslim law students.
Sponsored Link: Is this the End of America as we know it? Very few Americans are prepared for a day that will likely occur in the next 12 months, and will change our country forever. Eye-opening video explains the full story…
See also “Obama The Beautiful Frankenstein King” CK Hunter Essay from 2008
- Egypt now fears Obama a ‘Manchurian President’ (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Egypt, Obama, & The Muslim Brotherhood: Undermining Mubarak May Hasten Muslim Power & Middle East Catastrophe (frugal-cafe.com)
- “Egypt: Western Blindness on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Extremism is Beyond Ridiculous” and related posts (rubinreports.blogspot.com)
- Post Mubarak: Muslim Brotherhood Could Play Role (npr.org)
- “Shock Revelation: Evil Obama, Not Just ElBaradei And Muslim Brotherhood Behind Refusal To Accept Mubarakâ€™s Terms To Leave” and related posts (patdollard.com)
- Egypt: Secular protests or Muslim Brotherhood (rt.com)
- Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood (nybooks.com)
- Muslim Brotherhood (Hizb al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) ‘We are against Zionism’ (pumabydesign001.wordpress.com)