Friday, 9 August 2013

Jewish World Review August 9, 2013 / 3 Elul, 5773

Proud to be the Home of the . . . Weak?
By Caroline B. Glick

The media's collusion with the Obama administration's false portrayal of jihadist attacks on US targets gives foreign leaders concerned about the US's lackadaisical attitude towards jihadist threats no reason for confidence. 

In the absence of public pressure, the Obama administration has no reason to change course when its policies fail | 

This week, after a three and a half year delay, US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was finally placed on trial for massacring 13 and wounding 32 at Ft. Hood on November 5, 2009.
Hasan was a self-identified jihadist. His paper and electronic trail provided mountains of evidence that he committed the massacre to advance the cause of Islamic supremacy. Islamic supremacists like Hasan, and his early mentor al Qaeda operations chief Anwar al-Awlaki view as enemies all people who oppose totalitarian Islam's quest for global domination.
Before, during and following his assault, Hasan made his jihadist motives obvious to the point of caricature in his statements about the US, the
 US military and the duties of pious Muslims.
But rather than believe Hasan, and so do justice to his victims, the Obama administration, 
with the active collusion of senior US military commanders went to great lengths to
 cover up Hasan's ideological motivations and hence the nature of his crime. 
On the day of the attack, Lt. General Robert Cone, then commander of III Corps at
 Ft. Hood said preliminary evidence didn't
 suggest that the shooting was terrorism. Cone said this even though it was
 immediately known
 that before he began shooting Hasan called out "Allahu Akhbar." He called himself 
 "Soldier of Islam" on his business cards.
In an interview with CNN three after the attack, Army Chief of Staff George Casey said,
 "Our diversity,
 not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy 
was, if our 
diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
The intensity of the Obama administration's participation in this cover-up became 
clear in May 2012.
 At that time, Congress had placed a clause inside the Defense Appropriations Act
 requiring the 
Pentagon to award Purple Hearts to Ft. Hood's victims. Rather than accept this 
eminently reasonable
 demand, which simply required the administration to acknowledge reality, Obama's
announced he would veto the appropriations bill and so leave the Pentagon without a
 budget unless 
the clause was removed.
Rather than define Hasan's attack as an enemy attack or a terrorist act, the 
administration has defined
 it as a case of "workplace violence." Following this determination, those wounded in 
the attack, as 
well as the families of the murdered are denied the support conferred on soldiers killed
 or wounded by
 enemy fire.
At the first day of Hasan's trial this week, he admitted that he perpetrated the murderous
because he is a jihadist who "switched sides" in the war. That is, he told the court that
 he conducted
 the attack as an act of war against the United States to advance the goals of the
global jihad.
Hasan's statement made clear, once again, that in its efforts to describe his actions
 as "workplace 
violence," the administration is engaging in a cover-up. Its purpose is to deny the 
American people
 the truth about the nature of the jihadist threat to their country.
Outside the conservative media, and certain circles of the Republican Party, there has 
been no public
 outcry over the government's decision to cover up the nature of Hasan's actions. The
 public's passivity
in the face of the government's mendacious, unjust behavior owes to the fact that the 
media have not castigated the administration for its decision to hide that Hasan was
 not a garden variety
 disgruntled employee but a traitor who acted in the service of declared enemies of the 
United States.
In the absence of a media-induced public outcry, the administration has no reason to 
change its behavior.
 It has no impetus to acknowledge the truth and act accordingly.

The same is the case with regards to the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. 
Already on the day of the attack, it was apparent that the US mission and the CIA annex had been targeted
 in a premeditated, preplanned attack. Footage of the attack broadcast in real time showed armed men 
attacking the consulate with rocket propelled grenades. It was not an act of savage mob violence.
Mobs do not carry RPGs or act in a coordinated manner. That is, already at the time of the attack it was 
apparent that it was not a simultaneous protest in response to an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.
And yet, from the outset, the administration covered up what happened. And the media colluded. 
Fox News was the only major network that pursued the story. A US ambassador was raped and murdered
 on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks. US personnel were under multi-pronged attack for
 hours. Their desperate pleas for assistance were denied by the administration. And the US media went
 along with the fiction that the attack was a spontaneous outburst of rage over a YouTube video no one 
had ever seen.
The media's collusion was so great that CNN anchor Candy Crowley threw a US Presidential debate
she defended Obama's handling of the attack by inserting false information in the middle of the debate
 she was moderating.
The Benghazi story keeps getting more and more outrageous. Last week we learned that some two 
 CIA personnel were on the ground during the attack. The administration has reportedly scattered
 operatives throughout the US and forced them to adopt new identities. They have reportedly been
prohibited from speaking to the media or Congressional investigators, and subjected to monthly 
polygraph tests.

US personnel wounded in the attack have been hidden from investigators since the attack took 

  Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
This behavior is scandalous, and unprecedented. Yet, outside of the "usual suspects," in the conservative
media and the Republican Party, there is no outrage. The media coverage of this shocking revelation is
 nearly non-existent, and where it exists, the reportage is laconic, indifferent.
Here too, the administration feels comfortable perpetuating its cover-up. As in the case of Ft. Hood, why
 come clean if there is no price to pay for lying and covering up?
Speaking of the frequent US failures in understanding events in faraway lands, Winston Churchill famously
quipped, "We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the
 other possibilities."
But what if the other possibilities are never exhausted? The media's collusion with the Obama
administration's false portrayal of jihadist attacks on US targets gives foreign leaders concerned
about the US's lackadaisical attitude towards jihadist threats no reason for confidence. In the
absence of public pressure, the Obama administration has no reason to change course when its
policies fail.
In Israel's case, the first place where the lesson of this state of affairs needs to be internalized is
in in regards to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Since taking office, Obama has repeatedly claimed
 that he will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. But in practice, his actions have enabled Iran
 to vastly expand its nuclear weapons program. Due to his malfeasance, today Iran has arrived at the
 cusp of a nuclear arsenal.
More than his words, Obama's actions have made clear that he has no intention whatsoever of
conducting military strikes against Iran's nuclear installations to prevent the regime from developing
 nuclear weapons.
Obama's latest ploy for running the clock down is his embrace of the fiction that Iran's new President
 Hassan Rouhani is a moderate interested, (and perforce empowered), to cut a nuclear deal with the
 US that would see Iran voluntarily and credibly end its uranium enrichment activities.
Speaking of Rouhani this week Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu referred to him as "a wolf in
sheep's clothing," and warned US and European officials not to be taken in by his act. Netanyahu
also noted that Iran has expanded its nuclear activities since Rouhani was elected two months ago.
But he might as well save his breath. Rouhani's act - like that of his supposedly moderate predecessor
 Mohammad Khatami and Ahkbar Hasemi Rafsanjani - is so thin that it can only work on people who
 will be taken in by anyone. And indeed, the Obama administration was taken in by
 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For five years Obama insisted on conducting self-evidently futile
negotiations with Iran while Ahmadinejad - the anti-moderate - was serving as president.
The US and Europe are not taken in by Iran because Iran is good at hiding its true intentions.

They are taken in by Iran because they want to be taken in. They want to believe that they don't
have to attack Iran and overthrow the regime to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power. They
want to believe they can appease Iran by pretending it isn't a danger just as they believe they can
end the threat of terror by jihadists in the US military and Benghazi by pretending they don't exist.
They want to believe these threats can be ignored, or appeased away. And just as Obama and his
 followers are willing to pretend away Hasan's actions to protect "diversity," and pretend away the
September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi to protect the myth of the Arab Spring, so they are willing
to permit Iran to go nuclear to protect the sanctity of appeasement.
The only thing they are willing to put their foot down about is the prospect of an Israeli strike. And
 they have put their foot down on this issue for the past decade. It isn't that the US is deliberately
enabling Iran to acquire a nuclear arsenal. It is just that the US elite in government and the media
care more about protecting their faith in diversity and appeasement than they do about preventing
 Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
They have convinced themselves that the prospect of appeasing Iran will evaporate if Israel attacks
Iran's nuclear installations. And so we have seen a parade of senior US defense officials descending
 on Israel every time it appears that Israel is planning to attack Iran. We have seen a parade of former
 Israeli military and security chiefs with close ties to the US defense establishment declaring before
 every available microphone that Israel must not strike Iran and that we can count on Obama to
protect us.
But we mustn't believe their assurances or succumb to their pressure. Obama will not change course.
 He doesn't have to. So long as he maintains faith with the god of appeasement, the US media will
protect him. And so long as they protect him, he will pay no price for his failures. So he will repeat
Israel cannot countenance a nuclear Iran. So Israel needs to attack Iran's nuclear installations.
 No more needs to be said.
Sponsored From Around the Web