Errors by the party in power can get America into trouble; real catastrophes require consensus.
Rarely have both parties been as unanimous about a development overseas as they have in their shared enthusiasm for the so-called Arab Spring during the first months of 2011. Republicans vied with the Obama Administration in their zeal for the ouster of Egypt’s dictator Hosni Mubarak and in championing the subsequent NATO intervention against Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Both parties saw themselves as having been vindicated by events. The Obama Administration saw its actions as proof that soft power in pursuit of humanitarian goals offered a new paradigm for foreign-policy success. And the Republican establishment saw a vindication of the Bush freedom agenda.
“Revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s freedom agenda,” Charles Krauthammer observed in February 2011. “Now that revolution has spread from Tunisia to Oman,” Krauthammer added, “the [Obama] administration is rushing to keep up with the new dispensation, repeating the fundamental tenet of the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom.” And William Kristol exulted, “Helping the Arab Spring through to fruition might contribute to an American Spring, one of renewed pride in our country and confidence in the cause of liberty.”
They were all wrong. Just two years later, the foreign-policy establishment has fractured in the face of a Syrian civil war that threatens to metastasize into neighboring Iraq and Lebanon and an economic collapse in Egypt that has brought the largest Arab country to the brink of state failure. Some Republican leaders, including Sen. John McCain and Weekly Standard editor Kristol, demand American military intervention to support Syria’s Sunni rebels. But Daniel Pipes, the dean of conservative Middle East analysts, wrote on April 11 that “Western governments should support the malign dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad,” because “Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.” If Assad appears to be winning, he added later, we should support the rebels. The respected strategist Edward Luttwak contends that America should “leave bad enough alone” in Syria and turn its attention away from the Middle East—to Asia. The Obama Administration meanwhile is waffling about what might constitute a “red line” for intervention and what form such intervention might take.
The once-happy bipartisan consensus has now shrunk to the common observation that all the available choices are bad. It could get much worse. Western efforts have failed to foster a unified leadership among the Syrian rebels, and jihadi extremists appear to be in control of the Free Syrian Army inside Syria. Syria’s war is “creating the conditions for a renewed conflict, dangerous and complex, to explode in Iraq. If Iraq is not shielded rapidly and properly, it will definitely slip into the Syrian quagmire,” warns Arab League Ambassador Nassif Hitti. Iraq leaders are talking of civil war and eventual partition. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, meanwhile, warned on May 1, “Syria has real friends in the region, and the world will not let Syria fall into the hands of America, Israel or takfiri [radical islamist] groups,” threatening in effect to turn the civil war into a regional conflict that has the potential to destabilize Turkey. And the gravest risk to the region remains the likelihood that “inherent weaknesses of state and society in Egypt reach a point where the country’s political, social and economic systems no longer function,” as Gamal Abuel Hassan wrote on May 28. Libya is fracturing, and the terrorists responsible for the September 2012 Benghazi attack are operating freely.
Read More at meforum.org . By David P. Goldman .









Do We Have Another Woodward?
The House of Cards is beginning to crumble. All of a sudden, Uncle Joe is back in the closet. Valerie Jarrett is nowhere to be seen. To the task at hand:
CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson bucked the trend and was the only mainstream media reporter who dared to investigate Benghazi-gate, and now it is being reported that she may lose her job over it. And the fact that the president of CBS News is the brother of a top Obama Administration official is allegedly not helping matters.
The Daily Caller is reporting: “The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.” I wonder how a reporter covers a story “too aggressively.” I think if they had asked Bob Woodward if he was being too aggressive with Watergate, I think they would have gotten a different answer.
Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months. “We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.
But last Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported; and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack. That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012. There is speculation that the Obama administration is keeping the survivors away so that they can’t do damage. The White House advisors never expected Benghazi to develop legs. Recent developments, especially the emails that were released the other day, show that there are concrete links from the State Department to the White House concerning the wording in the revisions.
ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters degree in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012. That is three days after the airing of the event. “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
Mr. Rhodes, also a 35-year old New York City native and former Giuliani staffer who has worked for Obama since the president’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, has established himself as a hawkish force on the Obama foreign policy team, advocating for military intervention in Libya during the president’s first term and reportedly advocating for intervention in Syria as well. But despite his hawkish views, Rhodes identifies himself first and foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda. According to Rhodes: “My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues,”
David Rhodes has been the president of CBS News since February 2011.
So the plot thickens. Day by day, the Obama administration is sinking into the mud and mire that it created after the attack on Benghazi. One question we need answered is: Who decided on sending Susan Rice out to mislead the public the way she did? That was such a glaring breach of protocol that even an eighth grader would have questioned the choice. As far as the display that Hillary put on, I for one care very much why our Ambassador was tortured and murdered (and why three brave men who came to his defense were deserted by our government and sentenced to an ignominious death.)
It doesn’t matter whether you are Democratic, Republican, or Independent. If you care about America and the future of freedom, you have to demand that there is a complete revelation of the truth. There is something on display in the Truman Library that every American should take note of. Harry Truman was a man of his word who did not look for someone or something to blame for his shortcomings. The sign on his desk was simple and straightforward. It read: “The Buck Stops Here.” That simple statement should be applied to President Obama and the Nanny Media that did everything it could to get him elected and prevent anything or anyone from exposing his incompetence or dishonesty. Now I am sure they will circle the wagons around Hillary and her preparation for a presidential run in 2016.