« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Liberal History: Over and Over Again

The barbarity of this last weeks international activity provides a stark and objective refutation of every liberal foreign policy idea ever uttered. As I watched this week the compounding absurdities of the Obama administration blossom into the full radiance of their ignominious splendor, I came upon a halting thought: Obama is either  incompetent or ideologically malevolent. There is very little maneuvering room between the two assertions. I will stand by them.

The idea that the United States can assuage the Muslim world by catering to their sensibilities should have been refuted by some stolid four eyed historian pointing to a few words in a book, a paragraph perhaps. Not only does catering to their sensibilities not work to arrest their miserable desire to kill, rape and destroy everything around them, more tangible and material catering, much like a weapons buffet, does nothing either.

Persons not wearing historical lenses are often near sighted; they have this mental structure that Islam as a political and martial force did not exist prior to 9/11, that the recent “uptick” in Islamic savagery is an aberration and something that can be blamed solely on foreign intervention. The term “colonialism” is often invoked here. In their ignorance, liberals wave it around like a magic wand, sprinkling pixie dust of incoherence on every historical event, glittering the entire moral landscape in mind numbing, seizure inducing slogans and inanity.

The name Alija Itzebegovich means almost nothing to most liberals because most liberals are ignorant of almost everything and what they think they know is almost never true. Alija Itzebegovich was the leader of the Bosnian Islamic separatist movement which emerged from the rubble of the crumbling Yugoslavia. In his tome the Islamic Declaration, which was republished and distributed in Bosnia before he came to power, he expressed his tolerant values writing, “There’s no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions.” This animated the Bosnian Muslim separatists to secede from the former Yugoslavia and wage a campaign of terror against the opposition Serb and Croats who wished to remain apart of Yugoslavia.

Into this delicate political dance came Bill Clinton. He urged for Itzebegovich’s Bosnia to declare independence. Acting in the same manner as bulls tend in china shops, Clinton’s meddling exasperated an already exasperating situation, causing the minority Serbs, who knew full well that an Islamic state was ascendant, to secede from the secession. Slick Willy granted legitimacy to the Islamic Bosnia, and ignored the Serbs. He and his ambassador literally refused to meet them.

For our purposes here, the massive injustice done to the Serbs in order to establish Islamic outposts in Eastern Europe is tangential. The point is to examine the policy of appeasement and aid that preceded the terror of 9/11.

Bill Clinton is a sophist; he speaks in duplicitous and often incoherent terms. Simplicitus would have applauded the conditional inquiry, “it depends on what the definition of is…is.” While entertaining extracurricular activities in the oval office, he allowed the Muslim world to attempt to blow up the Twin towers, succeed in destroying the U.S.S. Cole and Kill our sailors, and blow up our Embassy in Kenya with very little if any meaningful response. Instead, he financed and supported the butchery of the Serbs which was met with enthusiasm by the Sheiks and Sultans in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis and other terrorist elements hurried fast to Bosnia to join the Jihad against the Serbs, supplying whole terrorist death squads who rampaged across the Slavic countryside killing men, women, and children. In return, the United States was afforded cheap oil prices. He soothed the masses of liberal dimwits with his demagogic rhetoric. Over the dead bodies of the Serbs of Kosovo, a giant shiny statute of the man stands in Pristina. Muslim girls in Kosovo are named Madeline. I’ll let my enlightened liberal readers sort out why that is important.

Hudna is the concept in the Islamic warrior code that allows for a Muslim force to sign a peace treaty with the Infidels as a strategic means when they are outnumbered or in extremis, only to renege on the agreement when they are again capable of waging Jihad. To add to his international appeasement process, the peace process, which in actuality is a war of attrition, was reified under the reign of Willy. He installed a terrorist Palestinain Authority in the West Bank and proceeded to train their “police forces.” I have no doubt that Arafat walked away from the negotiating table in 2000 inspired by the fact that their terror has thus given them diplomatic legitimacy and a nascent state carved out of the Jewish Heartland, and he, therefore, saw no reason and a no entity that would stop or sanction them. Israel, however, a compassionate country, was repeatedly contained and restrained by a domineering multicultural Palestinian myth that Clinton’s State Department was all too happy to endorse.

For eight years under the reign of Willy, the Islamic world was coddled and aided. And for eight years Islamic terrorism incrementally increased in its bellicosity and its audacity. 9/11 was the culmination of this policy.

And then for eight years we went to war. Although the greatest blunder that Bush made was his refraining to declare a war on Islam as an ideology as we did Nazism in the Second World War, he nevertheless brought the war to their turf. The liberal media, once silent to the slaughter of Serbs, became increasingly hysterical about Guantanamo and a few incidents at Abu Grahib, neither of which involved be-headings, mutilations and ritual rape so ubiquitous in the Muslim warrior ethos.

The Muslims proceeded to take their angst out on the Israelis, sparking the second Lebanon war and firing 10,000 plus rockets from the Gaza strip, which the Israelis had withdrawn from under the new Roadmap, a continuity of Clinton’s appeasement program. But US embassies weren’t attacked, there was no “Arab Spring”, there were no significant terror attempts on US soil. The pattern is clear, where there is appeasement there is Muslim atrocities; where there is force and strength and moral conviction there is at the minimum a Hudna. An Israeli combat veteran once told me that the only meaningful interfaith dialogue with Islam involves bullets and artillery shells. “They only understand power. It (Islam) is a faith of conquest and power; this is all they know and all they do,” his accent intensified by that characteristic Israeli brusqueness, he made his point as clear as day. “Atah mevin?” he asked, “ Ken, ani mevin.” I replied.

Upon his election, Obama grandstanded around the world declaring American arrogance — the Serbs certainly think so — had caused all the woes of the world. His new reset foreign policy was met with animated avidity by the languid west Europeans, who seem more interested in sunbathing on nude beaches than being morally responsible, and by the incompetent media and aspiring Journalism, English, and Gender Studies majors at every university back in the states. The historians and foreign policy experts, however, were much more reserved. The new policy of every federal agency was to make Muslims feel good about there contribution to something. On the many occasions when nothing relevant was found, things were made up. Thus Obama made a speech in Cairo in the dawn of his reign of error that advanced every absurdity that could possibly be conceived of about the history of Islam. Islam, he found, is a very fine thing. Applause was swift and convincing. The world anticipated a new exchange of cultures lubricated by the intellectual syrup that is multiculturism. “Peace in our time” reigned. I will again leave it to my enlightened liberal readers to sort out the origin of that statement.

The problem with this policy is that it is identical to the policy of Bill Clinton. Nothing new here has been advanced. This, though, is only the minor problem. Given its temporal context, what Obama effectively conveyed to the Muslim world was that we were wrong in responding to their atrocity with even the restrained force that we used in Afghanistan and Iraq. What he said was not what Muslims heard. They heard the leader of the Western world declare that civilization is ready to accept Islam as is, in all its 7th century barbarity. They too belive that Islam is a very fine thing; therefore, within a year, Coptic Christians in Egypt were increasingly butchered, boko haram in Nigeria began a reign of terror and death against the Nigerian Christian community, and the Arab spring revolts ushered in Islamic regimes across the Sahara desert.

With the support of primarily U.S. forces, rebels in Libya, the identity and ideological fealty of whom Obama’s state department refused to vet, ousted Qaddafi from power, sodomized him and then killed him, and then sodomized his dead body. The Muslim brotherhood, who orchestrated the assassination of Anwar Sadat because he signed a peace treaty with Israel, was elected to the command Egypt after Mubarak abdicated under pressure from the white house. Terrorists then took over the Sinai and attacked Israel twice. Iran has sped up its nuclear enrichment program rather than slowed it. Hillary Clinton then declared that the United States will set no red line conditions on Iran. Netanyahu then declared, correctly, that those who don’t set red lines for Iran don’t have the moral right to put a red light in front of Israel. Netanyahu then requested a meeting with Obama when the Israeli Prime Minster comes to the U.N. Obama refused because he will be on the campaign trail catering to the hoards of idiots that still believe that he is “the smartest president ever”. The two men then talked on the phone after Obama’s rebuke was revealed. We have now arrived at this last week. And to the conclusion.

The timetable of the storming of our embassies in Cairo and Benghazi is irrelevant. Supposedly, the attack was precipitated by the dissemination of a movie whose offensive nature is about as malevolent as anything made by Monty Python. The fact that this took place on the anniversary of 9/11 leaves me suspicious that this is merely an excuse. And if it is an excuse, it is a bad one. When the State Department sent out a statement condemning the “abuse of free speech” by private U.S. citizens, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney rightly attacked its patent absurdity. Before Obama denounced the attackers, he denounced Romney for weighing in. The media followed suit. The State department then backtracked and informed us that the appeasement statement was not vetted or endorsed by anyone, which implies that we have rogue diplomats that are willing to opine on issues not in accordance with official policy. Whether it was a White House sanctioned statement or not, Obama still looks like, and is, a baffled moron.

We then learned that rioters in Libya had taken over the embassy there. Reports soon surfaced that our ambassador was dead, followed by pictures of Christopher Stevens being dragged by a man with a cell phone in his mouth to be raped and then killed.

After all this chaos, our president has still committed billions of more dollars to the Egyptians and Libyans. Though, the administration stated that they are going to have a “frank” discussion with Egyptian leaders. Considering that Muburak had to suppress the Islamic elements of his nation with brutal force, one wonders whether Obama will oblige the new Egyptian government to do the same. And if he does, why did we ever demand that Mubarak step down in the first place? Or Qaddifi? What has changed? These questions I suspect will never be answered.

I maintain that Obama is either an idiot with very little education about anything other than what he read in a book by Cornel West, or his ideological commitments allow for perverse policies that dance about the borders of evil. There is no middle. For now analysis should  error on the side of incompetence over evil. The man has feet of clay and a patina of intelligence and erudition. But when his intelligence becomes relevant, it is never immanent. The fact remains, Obama supported an Arab spring and our Ambassador was slaughtered by these very same revolutionaries.

Christopher Stevens should be forever remembered as a man who truly desired to bring reform to the region. At a young age he was involved in the Peace Corps, and decided that he wanted nothing but to truly help the people of the Arab world. Obama catered and fostered the very enemy that Christopher stood against, an Islamic death culture that can’t even feed its own people and build a cohesive society. No doubt Obama was informed by intellectual cronies like Cornel West and Edward Said. The misguided policy that this education has produced killed Christopher Stevens. And Bill Clinton is probably gleaming with pride.

Get Alerts