BILL SIEGEL: IF OSAMA BIN LADEN COULD TALK
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11096/pub_detail.asp
“Go ask Osama bin Laden” has become the latest rally call for part of Barack Obama’s re-invented self. During the 2008 election, campaigning on a tough national security footing was too inconsistent with the liberal, anti-war, anti-Bush themes of “change” and “working with the international community.” In 2012, however, with little record to stand upon, such toughness will constitute one of the cornerstones upon which David Axelrod attempts to hustle the public once again.
Axelrod, indeed, as he is the one in charge of the Obama propaganda machine. Axelrod recently went on television and stated “Go ask Osama bin Laden whether Barack Obama was prepared” to fight the “war on terror.” A few days later, Obama himself diligently echoed the device in suggesting the press corps ask bin Laden whether he, Obama, is an appeaser.
Good thing for Obama that bin Laden is dead. A less welcome answer might otherwise have emerged.
It has become abundantly clear that Obama is weak in fighting against the real threats we face from those who, under the banner of Islam, seek to destroy the U.S. as we know it. Rather, he is a flame attracting all who wish to join any part of his schemes to “fundamentally transform” our nation.
Killing bin Laden was a godsend for Obama. Since assuming office, Obama craftily redefined our enemy away from any larger Islamic base, narrowing it to al-Qaeda and the Taliban (until VP Joe Biden recently excluded even the Taliban). Defining the enemy is obviously a critical part of any fight but Obama did so not to credibly describe exactly who is against us but rather to set up for his eventual disengagement from any and all confrontation. Sounds like “smart” leadership but turns out to be foolish manipulation. Define down the mission, announce “mission accomplished,” and get out!
The bin Laden killing is illustrative. Reports suggest that we had a good idea that bin Laden was in the Pakistani house for six months to as much as year before the night of his death. There had been plenty of time to work the “situation” and arguably the date of the operation could easily have occurred much earlier than it did. Perhaps Axelrod was instead saving the operation for a time closer to the election when it would have a more meaningful impact.
The Axelrod team constructed a narrative that Obama had been “gutsy” in deciding to go forth with the operation; especially when he supposedly only had 50/50 confidence that bin Laden was there. This very word was spread ferociously across every newscast following the killing; the sign of a pre-planned public relations effort. And brilliant it was as even Obama’s greatest adversaries were forced to bite their lips and give him credit for a “gutsy” decision for fear of appearing so ridiculously anti-Obama as to be unable to give credit when credit was due. Consequently, within one day, much of the world bought into the notion that Obama was indeed “gutsy.”
Axelrod sold a premise along with the word: that Obama risked his own political career on an operation that could have equally failed. The model here was Jimmy Carter’s disastrous hostage rescue attempt in the Iranian desert which greatly contributed to his solo term as president. So selflessly “gutsy” of Obama, he put the future of the war on terror (whatever that means) above his own political future and reputation! That’s change!
The problem is that Carter is not the appropriate analogy. Bill Clinton is and Secretary of State Hillary knows this all too well. How could we have as much as a 50/50 chance that bin Laden was in our sights and not go after him? And how could we have known this for six to twelve months and let him slip away? Clinton had his own chances to nail bin Laden, failed to act, and his national security credibility suffered irreparably for it.
Rumors have emerged that bin Laden was getting ready to move out and some of those in charge of the bin Laden case threatened Obama with quitting if he did not proceed with the operation. Such resignation by key personnel would most likely result in the real story, the Clintonian failure to act, coming out publicly one way or another. Axelrod would have none of this. In this scenario, if there was any “gutsiness” to Obama’s decision, it lies in his decision to forego so much of what he is made of and proceed against every instinct he has.
It was always curious that the day originally chosen for the operation was the same day in which the White House Correspondents’ Dinner was being held. Imagine if the weather had cooperated and Obama was told at three p.m. that the operation was a success. He would have marched into a room where he could surprisingly announce the victory to a pre-assembled and adoring press. Now that’s Axelrod at his best!
Further evidence of Axelrod’s Alinsky-esque hand was seen in the immediate “flash mobs” that appeared that very night. College kids assembled with well distributed American flags to celebrate a patriotism that these kids would never honor. An Occupy White House party was more like it. While Obama’s preparedness for the “war on terror” should rightfully be questioned, Axelrod’s preparedness for fraudulent storylines should never be in doubt.
The emerging notion that Obama is a strong fighter for American interests in the Middle East is not born out by his results. Despite a line here and there about how much of a supporter of Israel he is, most Israelis laugh at the notion. More significantly, a simple look at exactly which revolutions Obama has supported forces the conclusion that he is readily available to assist the Muslim Brotherhood and related groups who look to develop Islamic states over time, whether in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, likely Syria or elsewhere. And the one revolution he resisted participating with occurred where there was already an Islamic state that risked being toppled- The Islamic Republic of Iran.
And how better to support the growth over the next few years of more Islamic states than to protect their number one, if not only, asset- oil production. Obama’s extreme and excessive hostility to U.S. domestic oil production (and most recently the Keystone Pipeline project) has one obvious consequence—to protect the asset best able to hold together the post-revolution states Obama appears to be assisting. Of course Axelrod can offer alternate explanations for Obama’s actions but they only really make sense to those who completely underestimate or ignore the threats we truly face.
The lesson to glean here is that the positioning of Obama as a national security warrior must be combated at every instance before it so deeply creeps into our national psyche. If we have any chance of protecting our nation for the future, stopping this Axelrodian onslaught is a national security emergency before one more misguided Obama loyalist declares him “gutsy” again.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Bill Siegel lives in New York and is the author of the forthcoming book, The Control Factor ©.
Comments are closed.
