Krauthammer: ‘The meltdown, the collapse of the Obama policy in the Muslim world’

September 14, 2012

Here’s Charles Krauthammer talking about the 9/11 attacks on the US embassy in Cairo and the US consulate in Benghazi.
Let’s go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Hyscience via Bad Blue). More after the video.

I think it’s important to point out here that this is the result that Obama wanted all along. From the beginning of his term in office, this President has gone out of his way to deny American exceptionalism, to degrade America’s military capabilities and to destroy America’s alliances. It’s the fruit of a misguided policy but also of a policy that was adopted with the specific intent of bringing about these results.
There are two things that make this scenario even scarier. First is the fact that so many Americans still don’t get it. And second, even among those who do get it, there seems to be an assumption that when and if Obama is replaced by someone stronger, all will suddenly be well, as was the case 31 years ago when as soon as Reagan came into office, the hostages at the US embassy in Tehran were released. That is far from certain, particularly if Obama leaves a nuclear Iran behind him.

It’s a money war and there isn’t one news channel (not even FOXNEWS) that is telling us the whole story about Islam. We will have victory when one news channel flips sides, but that won’t happen. Even with logic on the side of Western Civ, the reality is that most people watch television and even what is called right wing is merely a strawman channel partially owned by Saudis. Not even Krauthammer can really tell the whole story. Any attempt to do so will be attacked by the President of the U.S..


THE ABANDONMENT: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER ****

September 14, 2012

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316851/abandonment-charles-krauthammer
There are two positions one can take regarding the Iranian nuclear program: (a) it doesn’t matter, we can deter them, or (b) it does matter, we must stop them.
In my view, the first position — that we can contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union — is totally wrong, a product of wishful thinking and misread history. But at least it’s internally coherent.
What is incoherent is President Obama’s position. He declares the Iranian program intolerable — “I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” — yet stands by as Iran rapidly approaches nuclearization.
A policy so incoherent, so knowingly and obviously contradictory, is a declaration of weakness and passivity. And this, as Anthony Cordesman, James Phillips, and others have argued, can increase the chance of war. It creates, writes Cordesman, “the same conditions that helped trigger World War II — years of negotiations and threats, where the threats failed to be taken seriously until war became all too real.”
This has precipitated the current U.S.-Israeli crisis, sharpened by the president’s rebuff of the Israeli prime minister’s request for a meeting during his upcoming U.S. visit. Ominous new developments; no Obama response. Alarm bells going off everywhere; Obama plays deaf.
The old arguments, old excuses, old pretensions have become ridiculous:
1. Sanctions. The director of national intelligence testified to Congress at the beginning of the year that they had zero effect in slowing the nuclear program. Now the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports (August 30) that the Iranian nuclear program, far from slowing, is actually accelerating. Iran has doubled the number of high-speed centrifuges at Fordow, the facility outside Qom built into a mountain to make it impregnable to air attack.
This week, the IAEA reported Iranian advances in calculating the explosive power of an atomic warhead. It noted once again Iran’s refusal to allow inspection of its weapons-testing facility at Parchin, and cited satellite evidence of Iranian attempts to clean up and hide what’s gone on there.
The administration’s ritual response is that it has imposed the toughest sanctions ever. So what? They’re a means, not an end. And they’ve had no effect on the nuclear program.
2. Negotiations. The latest, supposedly last-ditch round of talks in Istanbul, Baghdad, then Moscow has completely collapsed. The West even conceded to Iran the right to enrich — shattering a decade-long consensus and six Security Council resolutions demanding it cease enrichment.
Iran’s response? Contemptuous rejection.
Why not? The mullahs have strung Obama along for more than three years and still see no credible threat emanating from the one country that could disarm them.
3. Diplomatic isolation. The administration boasts that Iran is becoming increasingly isolated. Really? Just two weeks ago, 120 nations showed up in Tehran for a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement — against U.S. entreaties not to attend. Even the U.N. secretary general attended — after the administration implored him not to.
Which shows you what American entreaties are worth today. And the farcical nature of Iran’s alleged isolation.
The Obama policy is in shambles. Which is why Cordesman argues that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran without war is to establish a credible military threat to make Iran recalculate and reconsider. That means U.S. red lines: deadlines beyond which Washington will not allow itself to be strung, as well as benchmark actions that would trigger a response, such as the further hardening of Iran’s nuclear facilities to the point of invulnerability and, therefore, irreversibility.
Which made all the more shocking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s dismissal last Sunday of the very notion of any U.S. red lines. No deadlines. No bright-line action beyond which Iran must not go. The sleeping giant continues to slumber. And to wait. As the administration likes to put it, “for Iran to live up to its international obligations.”
This is beyond feckless. The Obama policy is a double game: a rhetorical commitment to stopping Iran, yet real-life actions that everyone understands will allow Iran to go nuclear.
Yet at the same time that it does nothing, the administration warns Israel sternly, repeatedly, publicly, even threateningly not to strike the Iranian nuclear program. With zero prospect of his policy’s succeeding, Obama insists on Israeli inaction, even as Iran races to close the window of opportunity for any successful attack.
Not since its birth six decades ago has Israel been so cast adrift by its closest ally.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group