The Obama Doctrine Revealed

American Thinker

The basic foreign policy principles of various presidencies have been dubbed “doctrines.” In most cases such “doctrines” are gleaned from the practices of a given president’s foreign policy and pieced together from various official documents and even memos. One notable exception being  the Monroe Doctrine which was put forward as a public doctrine and a warning to European countries.

Introduced on December 2, 1823, in President Monroe’s state of the union speech, it basically warned European nations to butt out of  South America and the Americas generally. In return the US would butt out of European affairs. By contrast the Bush Doctrine was never put forward as a formal document but is a codification of Bush administration practices and the justification advanced defending those practices. Basically the Bush doctrine is that the US has the right to intervene  in foreign countries and depose regimes that pose a threat to the US and to advance the cause of democracy in such areas of conflict.

Similarly, The Obama administration has never put forward a Monroe-like doctrine of its approach to foreign policy. Rather the public is treated to sonorous pieties about mutual respect and bringing old adversaries together in the spirit of mutual cooperation with benefit to all.

But now an Obama doctrine has emerged. And the irony is that the basics of the Obama doctrine have been revealed in a New York Times article designed to remove the Benghazi stain from Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. It is a revisionist piece claiming that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack on the American consulate. Here is an account from The Weekly Standard:

Continue reading

The Benghazi Disaster reduced to Definitions of Affiliation

Family Security Matters

The controversy ignited by the latest story emanating from the decaying carcass that is the New York Times and it’s writer, David Kirkpatrick, playing the amateur philologist on NBC’s “Meet the Press“, magnifies the ludicrousness of political discourse in the second decade of this twenty first century. In one of the most nauseating displays of familial fawning to date, David Gregory all but kissed Kirkpatrick for the dubious conclusions drawn from his investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack.

The centerpiece of Kirkpatrick’s report is his conclusion about whether or not Ansar Al Sharia was in fact affiliated with or led by Al Qaida agents. He draws his conclusion, which conflicts with standing testimony and conclusions in DC, from “months of interviews conducted by the New York Times”. He also concluded that the attack itself, while conducted by a small disparate, unconnected militant group, was in fact launched in retaliation for the now famed YouTube video about Mohammed.

Continue reading

New Terrorist Threat From U.S. Citizens Is Big Worry

Family Security Matters

errorism: Senate Intelligence panel chief Dianne  Feinstein  contradicts President Obama’s claims of terrorist threats  diminishing. The FBI,  meanwhile, warns of Islamist U.S. citizens  attacking the homeland.

CNN’s Candy Crowley, who did so much during the second presidential  debate  last year to help President Obama get re-elected (defending his  false claim  that “I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American  people and the world  that” Benghazi “was an act of terror” the day  after), was shocked on Sunday  when Senate Intelligence Committee  Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,  didn’t act as fellow Obama  cheerleader.

“I expected to hear, ‘Oh, we’re safer!'” Crowley responded when  Feinstein  gave a negative answer to Crowley’s question whether the  nation is safer than a  year ago, or two years ago.

Feinstein pointed out that “terror is up worldwide; the statistics  indicate  that. The fatalities are way up … there are new bombs, very  big bombs, trucks  being reinforced for those bombs,” plus “more groups  than ever” and “huge  malevolence out there.”


That’s far removed from Obama’s boast to Jay Leno in August that “the  odds  of dying in a terrorist attack are a lot lower than they are of  dying in a car  accident”; or his claim the same month that al-Qaida “has  been broken apart and  is very weak and does not have a lot of  operational capacity”; or his  announcement in May that America will no  longer wage what he called “a  boundless ‘Global War on Terror.’ “

What Feinstein warns are “more groups than ever” the president  downplays as  “less capable al-Qaida affiliates” who threaten only  “diplomatic facilities and  businesses abroad,” plus “homegrown  extremists.”

Read more: Family Security Matters Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

News Flash from The Patriot Factor

The Patriot Factor

Fox News has a blockbuster report published tonight which sheds further light on why the Obama administration has been involved in a massive  cover up surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack.

New reports indicate that rebels allied with al-Qaida were being trained in  Benghazi and then sent up to fight in the Syrian civil war against the  regime of Bashar al-Assad.  These include terrorist networks involved in the September 11th terrorist attack on our U.S. compound in Benghazi.

The Obama administration knows that if the American people were to  learn that they were helping fund, train and transport al-Qaida  terrorists to fight in Syria – some of whom were behind the Benghazi  terrorist attack that killed 4 Americans and injured countless others,  there would be a severe backlash from the American people.

Here’s the headline from Fox News and an excerpt from their report:

U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this month uncovered new evidence  that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign  jihadists to fight with Syria’s Islamist rebels, according to U.S.  officials.

Ansar al-Sharia, the al Qaeda-affiliated militia  that U.S. officials say orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.  diplomatic compound and a CIA facility in Benghazi, is running several  training camps for jihadists in Benghazi and nearby Darnah, another port city further east, said officials who discussed some details of the  camps on condition of anonymity.

The officials said the terror training camps have been in operation since at least May and are part  of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups,  including the Al-Nusra Front, the most organized of the Islamist rebel  groups fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus.

The  Obama administration is demonstrating once again that it is the most  deceitful and manipulative presidential administrations in our nation’s  history.

Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?

The Independent

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Continue reading

New Pentagon effort will send Army teams to Africa as terror threat grows

Fox News

WASHINGTON –  A U.S. Army brigade will  begin sending small teams into as many as 35 African nations early next year,  part of an intensifying Pentagon effort to train countries to battle extremists  and give the U.S. a ready and trained force to dispatch to Africa if crises  requiring the U.S. military emerge.

The teams will be limited to training and equipping efforts, and will not be  permitted to conduct military operations without specific, additional approvals  from the secretary of defense.

Continue reading

If ‘The War On Terror Is Over,’ We Must’ve Lost

CNS News

A senior Obama administration official has reportedly declared that  “the war on terror is over.” Judging from recent news headlines, that  must mean that the U.S. has surrendered to the terrorists.

“The war on terror is over,” the senior State Dept. official tells the National Journal.

“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come  to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone  into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism,” he says.

But, a quick scan of recent news shows the threat of terrorism isn’t over – even according to some administration officials:

Continue reading