| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Glick: NY Times rips Obama on Mideast policy |
| 2014-01-05 |
| Not sure how this dovetails in the apologia from the NT Times about the Benghazi fiasco, but the following is an excerpt from a Caroline Glick article about how Obama is losing the N Times on middle east counterterrorism strategy. Via Sipsey Street Irregulars 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 Obama's counterterrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #6 Whats good for Rising Iran is also good for Rising China as well as any other OWG "Co-Superpowers" the Globies + aligned have in mind. SEVEN OWG CO-SUPERPOWERS FOR SEVEN OWG GLOBAL FEDERAL UNIONS ON SEVEN KNOWN CONTINENTS, at least for starters??? Methinks Brazil + Argentina still have issues. D *** NG IT, DON'T FORCE ME TO SEND BRIC GIRL PAULA "DELILAH/BATHSHEBA" ABDUL DOWN THERE! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-01-05 21:38 |
| #5 This poses a huge problem for Hillary Clinton who was in charge of the Benghazi mission if she runs for Pres and wants their support? Or even more intriguing is Hillary already working with NYT behind the scenes to place all the blame on the Junior Senator from Illinois? |
| Posted by: Omavising Ebbemp9815 2014-01-05 21:29 |
| #4 Not sure how this dovetails in the apologia from the NT Times about the Benghazi fiasco Perhaps Mr. Obama wasn't the intended beneficiary of the apologia. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2014-01-05 13:17 |
| #3 I couldn't say if Steven's was taken in. As Garth said probably not in the last moments. A couple of impressions from the article. The NYTs seems to be schizophrenic in its reporting. It is hard to rip a foreign policy that appears to be non-existent. “O’s” interpretation of AQ ignores reality. Appeasement of Iran is and has been doubtful for nearly four decades. Things will not get better in this regard until we have a new President. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-01-05 09:08 |
| #2 I can believe Stevens was 'taken in' (although probably not to the 'last moment') Many smart people brainwash themselves (usually with help from friends) into believing what they want to believe (examples = obama, obamacare, Jihad is benign, women are protected in Sharia). |
| Posted by: lord garth 2014-01-05 08:15 |
| #1 Ambassador Stevens, who had served as the administration’s emissary to the rebels during the insurrection against Gaddafi, knew personally many of the terrorists who orchestrated the attack. And until the very end, he was taken in by the administration’s core belief that it was possible to appease al-Qaida-sympathizing Islamic jihadists who were not directly affiliated with Zawahiri. As Kirkpatrick noted, Stevens “helped shape the Obama administration’s conviction that it could work with the rebels, even those previously hostile to the West, to build a friendly, democratic government.” "Taken in"..... I doubt it. Stevens was no amateur and these people are certainly not that complex. He was more likely on a bold mission for the administration. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-01-05 04:18 |