“We may soon find out whether we will take seriously our great moral and intellectual inheritance and so determine whether we indeed have the will, and the ability, to not only call this a war but to identify our enemy and to win it as well, or in the long run , will we be the authors of our own undoing?”

These words appear in the National Review Online of March 31, 2011, an account of an interview of William. J Bennett and Seth Liebsohn by Kathryn Jean Lopez. In answer to the first question on the depth of the fight, Bennett stated “Deep”, in consequence of The Obama’s thinking that Syria’s Assad is a reformer and the Muslim Brotherhood is a largely secular organization. Further, the Attorney General isn’t sure if radical Islam has anything to do with the Times square bomber or Abdulmutallab in Detroit.

Bennett continues, “Confusions abound.” He draws attention to the program of brutalization of women, minorities [including Jews, Christians and other Muslims], and children – all because of a toxic ideology operating under the guise of a religion. People by the thousands are being killed while their attackers shout “Allahu Akbar,” and many leaders are scratching their heads asking what this is all about. We know what this is all about. “It is about radical Islam and we are not bigots for saying so.”

Asked by Lopez if Obama’s kinder, gentler approach to the war is a complete failure, Leibsohn replies, “Mostly——-Our overtures to the Iranian leadership have led to less chance of a domestically inspired regime change there. Our refusal to call the enemy by its proper name has led to more terrorism.. And just now, the world at large – including allies and enemies – is confused about what America stands for and whom it stands with.” He also contended that there was a concerted effort to determine if softer language would bring about less violence. “There was the thought that a more appeasing tone would win a lot of wavering Muslim hearts and minds. Most experts on Islam that we have read, as well as the results of the that effort, show it didn’t work. It ended up coming across as what Bernard Lewis would call ‘anxious propitiation’.”

Asked by Lopez of his thoughts on diversity and tolerance, what he found to be interesting were the odd cultural turn on intellectual thinking about Islamism. “Support for religious orthodoxies used to be opposed – but Islamism became a different thing here. It became exceptional. Orthodox Islam, unlike orthodox Christianity or Judaism, has come to be considered the new badge of diversity and its presence and verbiage the new emblems of tolerance, worthy of the utmost respect and protected from almost any criticism.”

There was the thought that a more appeasing tone would win a lot of wavering Muslim hearts and minds. “Most experts on Islam that we have read, as well as the results of that effort, show that it did not work.” It ended coming across as what Bernard Lewis would call ‘anxious propitiation’ He remarked; “We’re afraid to criticize Islamic leaders who engage in doublespeak, have worrisome backgrounds, and cannot bring themselves to condemn terrorism outright.” He adds that we have a “political correctness” that turns a blind eye and deaf ear to actual and outrageous threats and acts of terrorism.

Bennett in answer to Lopez on whether patriotic American Muslims are being victimized by individuals like him, who advocate an American enemies list for radical Islam, answered absolutely not. He affixed a reminder that Muslims were freer in America than in any other country. He added that they needed to worry about people whose “violent actions are being committed in the name of their religion.”

Obama’s decision to eliminate Gaddafi while ignoring Assad has much to do with the chaos which reins in the Middle East today. Under Gaddafi’s rule, the following applied in Libya:
[1] A house was considered a basic family need.
[2] Education and medical treatment were free commodities.
[3] Carried out the world’s largest irrigation project.
[4] Starting a farming business was cost free.
[5] A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies.
[6] Electricity was free.
[7] Cheap gas [motor fuel].
[8] Raised the level of education.
[9] Libya had its own state bank, which provided loans to citizens at zero percent interest, while having no external debt.
[10] The gold dinar – Gaddafi was attempting to establish a single African currency linked to gold.

Assad , on the other hand has been responsible for at least 250,000 – 400,000 deaths. and has offered nothing of a positive nature. Obama’s failure to address this awful situation in a timely fashion instead of proclamations on “red lines” can never be exonerated.

Interestingly, politicians and the media seldom link the Benghazi fiasco and tragic deaths o4 Americans, including the Ambassador on September 11, 2012 with Gaddafi’s death on October 20, 2011. The interest is primarily confined to assessing the blame for this disgusting event. However, there is little doubt that had Gaddafi been in power, the massacre could not have occurred.

David Pryce-Jones, famed Middle East historian, writing in National Review, a day after this sickening attack, exclaimed, “Yet the best President Obama can find to say is that he strongly condemns the outrageous attack on the diplomatic facility – cliché and euphemism of that sort deaden the anger and sorrow that ought to be natural.” Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, initially set out to exonerate the Libyan ruling council. Pryce-Jones’ reaction, “Actually it happened because these ignorant barbarians think that killing Americans is a religious obligation, therefore right in itself, and wonderful to say, completely cost free.”

David Pryce-Jones summation speaks volumes; “Obama’s ‘strong condemnation’ and Clinton’s pitiful self-examination serve to confirm to them that they are proving the supremacy of Salafi Islam. This administration’s on-going policy of appeasement encourages a host of brutes to do their worst.”

CNN has provided a detailed commentary on the House Select Committee report on Benghazi. It argues that intelligence was available suggesting an attack was possible while Clinton and a top aide, Patrick Kennedy, should have realized the risks posed to the Benghazi mission by extremists groups. The report goes on to detail the mountain of evidence which proves the Clinton State Department knew full well that the annex in Benghazi was woefully unsecured and they did nothing to correct the problem.

Benghazi was the birthplace of the revolution that over-turned the Libyan government. It was a hot bed of radical activity. It should have been the most secure place for American diplomats in Libya. Instead, it was a security disaster. Alarmingly the report says, “It is not clear what additional intelligence would have satisfied either Kennedy or the Secretary in understanding the Benghazi mission compound was at risk – short of an attack.”

According to the Washington Post, Ambassador Stevens, US ambassador to Libya, had previously warned of Islamic extremism and displays of “the Al-Qaeda flag” over buildings outside the city of Benghazi where he and 3 other Americans would be killed. The Wall Street Journal has drawn attention to emails citing Hillary Clinton’s awareness to her being warned about lack of security in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Blaming this outrageous tragedy on a video besmirching Islam depicts the deviousness of Obama administration. The report can be summarized as follows:

[1] The Obama/ Clinton policy in Libya was a disaster but for political purposes warnings were ignored and political ends were prioritized over security needs in the months leading up to September 11 attacks.
[2] During the attacks, American lives could have been saved by the swift development of military assets, but political desires created bureaucratic paralysis preventing key decisions from being made.
[3] In the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks, the Obama/Clinton teams chose politics and deception rather than tell the American people the truth.

In the case of Egypt, Obama’s miscalculation in supporting Morsi was a case of replacing the existing regime, manifesting itself in a disastrous radical Muslim government. One that in an expression from Yeats would be viewed as “the beggar and the man on horseback may change places but the lashes continue.” Fortunately, the resultant rebellion has provided the country with a government aligned with western values and a willing partner in the war against radical Islam.

Cynthia Farahat has provided an interesting insight on the connectiveness between Egypt’s Dr. Morsi and Benghazi. Writing in Font Page Magazine on May 31, 2013. On the same day the US compound in Benghazi was attacked, so too was the US Embassy in Cairo under attack, resulting in al-Qaeda flags flying above the embassy in the place of American flags. Consider this; “Yet after El-Erian’s announcement of his support for Bin Laden, State Department officials welcomed him in December 2012 in the US.”
Farahat’s “The Muslim Brotherhood war is fueled and encouraged by the submissive and self-loathing suicidal foreign policy of the Obama administration, which elevates US enemies above US interests” – speaks volumes.

One of the most blatant example of ‘political correctness’ at work was Bennett’s reference to the US military. “People died because political leadership in the military sent signals that to speak out strongly against a man like Nidal Hasan would violate the ethos of diversity.” Hasan a man who advocated the murder of infidels. An American army psychiatrist convicted of fatally shooting 13 people and injuring more than 30 others at a Texas base on November 9, 2009. To think that this occurred at a military fort, manned by individuals in uniform. Should one not be safe at an army base? To make matters worse, by way of justification, the chief of staff of the Army suggested that the loss of diversity would be worse than the loss of human life, an indication of how bad the willed confusion has become.

While Hasan was sentenced to death by a military court, with the appeal process being what it is, one wonders whether the sentence will become a reality. In the interim, he has the audacity to request joining ISIS!!!!

When questioned by Lopez on how a Republican presidential candidate should lead his “call to arms” Bennett replied, “–he must—-the first responsibility of the president is the defense of our country and the war the Islamist’s have declared on us is the greatest threat we face.” On crisis of will, it proceeds through the chest, and enters the heart; today terms, realities and depth of thought all lack clarity.

“Muslim Rage and the Obama Retreat” by the brilliant academic, the late Fouad Ajami was published in The Wall Street, dated September 20, 2012. He commences the article with a definite assertion that the anti-American protests earlier in the week ‘must be reckoned a grand personal failure for Barack Obama , and a case of hubris undone.” His remarkable understanding of the world of Islam enabled him to regard Obama as a man of the status quo, with a superficial knowledge of lands beyond. In Cairo, he described himself as a “student of History”, declaring his intention to restore US relations with the Islamic world to “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 to 30 years ago.” That “golden age” he sought to restore covered he Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Beirut to the forces of terror, deadly attacks on US embassies, the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland and more. In fact, a trail of terror had shadowed the American presence.

Meanwhile , Syria burns and calls for help , but the call goes unanswered. The civil war there has become a great Sunni-Shiite schism. “Our foreign policy has been altered, as never before, to fit one man’s electoral needs.” It was only yesterday that our leader, we are told, had solved the riddle of our position in the world!! Despite the killing of Osama bin Laden, those attacking US embassies were heard a disturbing rebuttal, “Obama, we are Osama” while brandishing al Qaeda flags. Until the deadly attack on the Us Benghazi consulate, it was the fashion of Obama and his lieutenants to proclaim that the tide of war was receding.

Professor Alan M. Dershowitz was one of many who has voiced a strong opinion on the subject of Iran. His piece, “The Message Obama Should Have Sent” appeared in The Wall Street Journal of September 26, 20012. It has more than the usual importance given Dershowitz’s close relationship with the president. A statement in the Op-Ed, “Were Mr. Obama to affirm America’s dedication to blocking Iran’s nuclear ambitions through military force if necessary, he would maintain his flexibility to act while putting pressure on Iran’s mullahs.” He practically makes this point twice. Of far greater significance are the words, “Iran’s skepticism is understandable in light of some Obama administration rhetoric.”

On September 6, 2015, the professor became even more forceful on the issue of the Iran Deal. Writing in The Algemeiner, David Efune’s, “Alan Dershowitz on Iran Nuclear Deal: ‘I’m Furious with President Obama'” demonstrated an extremely unusual assertiveness for Dershowitz. He even implied that he had been betrayed by the president he had formerly championed. “Obama has now crossed many of his own red lines,” said Dershowitz, who backed him in two elections.

The former Harvard scholar said the deal was worse than Russian roulette, because there is “more than a one-in-six chance under this deal than Iran will develop nuclear weapons.”

Dennis Prager’s, “Given the Alternative – I’ll take Trump “was featured in the Jewish Press of July 31, 2016. Regarding the upcoming US elections he comments; “The choice this November is tragic. As often happens in life, the choice is between bad and worse, not bad and good.” Anti-Trump conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, Bret Stephens, and George Will, are not merely people he admires – they are friends and colleagues. Stressing that they are special to him not only as thinkers, but as people. At the end of the day, however. he does not finds their arguments compelling.

Prager is not interested in moral purity in the 2016 presidential race. His interest lies in defeating the left and its political arm, the Democratic Party. These are his basic nine reasons [there are more] why a conservative should prefer a Trump presidency to a Democratic presidency:

* Prevent a left wing supreme court.
* Increase the defense budget.
* Repeal, or at least modify, the Dodd-Frank act.
*Prevent Washington D.C. from becoming a state and giving the Democrats another two permanent senators.
* Repeal Obamacare.
*Curtail illegal immigration, a goal that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with xenophobia or natavism [just look at Western Europe.]
* Reduce job-killing regulations on large and small businesses.
* Lower the corporate income tax and bring back hundreds of billions of offshore dollars to the United States.
* Continue fracking, which the left, in its science – rejecting hysteria, opposes.

Donald Trump may be a bull in a China shop, However if elected, comes Mike Pence, Dr. Ben Carson, Rudy, Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie And Mike Huckabee plus a declared vision which embraces eradication of all the established US ills. On the other hand, with Hilary Clinton one can anticipate at least 4 more years of loser Obama policies.

There are two issues which have been given totally insufficient focus – how Obama was able to ignore the allowance for Iran to be regarded as a leader in terrorism by supporting Hamas & Hezbollah; and the ability to subcontract any non-permissible activity to Korea. No small matters. They are not even addressed in Aaron David Miller’s “Why Obama Failed in the Middle East” published on April, 2013 in Foreign Policy