Remember Libya? Intervention in a conflict that bore no rational relationship to US interests. In Iraq and Afghanistan, 7 out of 10 foreign fighters killed or captured were LIBYANS. They were passionately involved in killing Americans and willing to travel to Afghanistan and Iraq to do it. Why, then, would the US help those same Libyan fighters who had American blood on their hands wage a civil war in their own country? One reason might be President Obama’s preference for Islamists. In all instances where the Obama administration has chosen whether to side with an existing government of a middle-eastern nation, or its revolutionaries, he has almost always chosen the latter over the former. The notable exception was the Green Revolution in Iran, but that is not really an exception because in that event, the existing government was the radical Islamist body, and its citizens were actually pro-western, educated people who sought a democratic government instead of the existing Mullah theocracy. In Iran, protesting is punishable by death. Yet, tens of thousands of pro-freedom revolutionaries protested in the streets of Iran for nine days while President Obama remained vacant and silent. What if Obama’s preference is really dictated by which group embodies Islamic extremism?
Contrast President Obama’s conduct during the Iranian uprising with say . . . the “Arab Spring.” During that revolution, President Obama suffered from an acute bout of diarrhea of the mouth. At any moment, he was likely to break out his old ACORN bullhorn. During these daily cheerleading sessions, the President and his minions would not only cheer, they would continuously characterize the revolutionaries as Jefferson-like freedom lovers. Oddly enough, even the likes of Bill and Bernadine Ayers made their way to Egypt to echo the President’s cheers. Richard Trumka was also there throwing his union support behind the “Arab Spring.” At home in the US, Progressives crawled out of the woodwork demanding that we have our own Arab Spring here. That was a frequent cry by the Occupier Movement when they weren’t raping each other, blowing up bridges in Cleveland, or defecating on . . . the sidewalk, a nearby police cruiser, the street, a church, etc. Wouldn’t it be weird if some day, it is discovered that Occupiers really just suffer from porcelainaphobia? But I digress . . .
What can we learn from a President who cheers on revolutions by Islamic Extremists, yet offers only silence to revolutions by pro-western Iranians (who risk death to protest against an Islamist regime)? President Obama’s conduct provides the answer (and its record on veracity dwarfs that of his mouth). Every middle eastern uprising has two players. President Obama is consistently behind the Islamic Extremists. The President backed the Islamic Extremist, Muslim Brotherhood during the “Arab Spring,” and worked tirelessly to convince the world that it was a freedom movement. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded by devoted followers of Adolph Hitler during the period of the second World War (their charter expressly calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people; although, you will never hear that from NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN).
When the Muslim Brotherhood captured 62% of the Egypt’s new parliament, Obama cheered again and celebrated their victory. When Muhammed Morsi, himself a Muslim Brotherhood member (from the more radical Salafist wing), won the presidency, Obama broke out the pom poms once more. However, when he conferred dictatorial powers upon himself to oppress his own people — in a freedom loving way, of course — Obama disappeared again. If he really believed this was a freedom movement, it’s certainly odd that he would choose the dictatorship moment to shelve the bullhorn. Well, the Egyptian people took a different tact, and revolted against their new Islamist dictator. When the “anti Muslim Brotherhood” revolution broke out earlier this year, President Obama again traded his kaopectate for pom poms and threw his support behind Morsi, the soon-to-be-deposed Muslim Brotherhood dictator. Fortunately, the Egyptian people ignored him. Nonetheless, the Egyptian events are quite revealing on Obama’s middle east “policy.” Morsi, an Islamist dictator = good. Mubarrak, a non-Islamist dicator = bad. Islamist revolutionaries rising up against non-Islamist governments in Egypt and Libya = good. Non-Islamist revolutionaries rising up against the extreme Islamist government in Iran = bad. Worse yet, the Iranian government was kidnapping, torturing, and murdering its young, pro-western protesters who truly sought freedom.
In Syria, a potpourri of Islamic extremists are revolting against a non-Islamist dictator, Bashar Assad. Here’s the twist: both sides are Islamic Extremists! Assad is armed with his own forces, but when it looked as though he would fall, Iran sent in Hezbollah, a terrorist group of Islamic Extremists. For months, they have been battling the Muslim Brotherhood-backed revolutionaries in Syria. Uh oh. This is a tough one for Obama. On one hand, you have Assad, a non-Islamist dictator. But, he can’t be all bad, he’s being defended by Al Queda and Hezbollah fighters, all of whom are Islamic Extremists. On the other hand, the Muslim Brotherhood has always been Obama’s “home team.” My bet is that Obama has been looking to intervene publicly for a long time. I say, “publicly,” because he has been running guns and other weapons through the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria for years. That is the ugly truth behind the Benghazi attacks on our consulate almost one year ago. Obama has been desperate to intervene publicly in Syria before the good old mainstream media finds out that he has been covertly running weapons to the revolutionaries there. My theory is that he thinks it won’t look so bad that he was doing all of that illegal, covert gun-running, after the US intervenes on behalf of those to whom we were running guns. Of course this is dependent upon our making Assad look like a merciless murder of women, children, and civilian goats. Assad, of course, is an evil bastard, but so are the revolutionaries. Recall that this is the second time there has been an allegation of chemical weapons use. The first time, that was proved to be false. Darn it says Obama. This time, the chemical weapons just happen to have been deployed right down the road from where the United Nations chemical team had recently arrived. To quote Ms. Piggy, “What an unbelievable coincidence!”
The only thing saving Assad right now is that he’s a self-avowed socialist. Imagine that; another dictator who just happens to be a socialist. But, personal affinity didn’t stop Obama when he helped Libyan terrorists murder Muammar Khadafi, a man Obama had actually traveled to meet at least twice before he was even a US Senator. Likewise, this revolution differs slightly from the others in the sense that there are Islamist Extremists on both sides. At the end of the day, however, Obama is a politician first (the traitor and Marxist parts are close seconds). His need to cover his Benghazi tracks are critical. Also, by intervening, he can wag the dog with a war that will distract an already sycophant media away from his numerous — and serious — domestic scandals. As noted above, he has sided with the Muslim Brotherhood without exception, and probably intended this eventually anyway, but feared the political consequences. Thus, Obama will improve his Islamist record to 3-0, and intervene in Syria. Can you say, “Caliphate”? If not, you better look it up . . . fast!