Obama administration attacks Egypt and UAE for ISIS raids

Where does one begin to parse the inane and irrational thinking that went into the Obama administration’s public rebuke of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates for attacking the Islamists who beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya? Pentagon Spokesperson Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby condemned Egypt’s airstrikes on ISIS stating

We discourage other nations from taking a part in Libya’s issues through violence.  We want the issues solved in Libya to be done peacefully and through good governance and politics and not violence.

So it’s okay for the U.S. to join forces with Iran (an enemy) to help fight ISIS in Iraq, a county that fell into chaos when the geniuses in the White House decided to lose a war that had been won - just for political expediency.  But it’s not okay for Egypt (an ally) to defend itself and its citizens against the maniacal terrorists in Libya, a country that fell into chaos when the geniuses in the White House decided to lead from behind - just for political expediency.

The U.S. may discourage nations from using violence in Libya but the Libyan terrorists (perhaps the same ones who killed four Americans in Benghazi two years ago) could care a less what we want.  Violence is all they know and while Obama may prefer to turn and run with his tail between his legs, it’s nice to see that the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Emiratis actually have some balls.

Does anyone even know what “good governance and politics” means in the context of Libya?  Obama led from behind and now the country is a mess just like Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.  Who exactly does he want to govern?  And which political parties does he want to peacefully solve issues? The one allied with the Islamists or the one allied with Egypt?  And were issues being peacefully solved when our embassy was attacked in Benghazi and four Americans were killed?  Were issues being peacefully solved when 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded in Tripoli?

Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising considering these are the same people who tried to position the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt and who, as recently as two weeks ago, hosted MB members at State Department meetings. (It was no coincidence that following these meetings, the MB in Egypt announced that its supporters should prepare for  “a long, uncompromising jihad.”) 

Kirby stated that the crisis in Libya should be solved without outside interference but what exactly do they think caused the civil war that is taking place within its borders?  We know they will never take responsibility for the disaster they created but they should at least remain silent when others attempt to fight the fight from which they shy away.

But the hypocrisy is astounding.  Claiming that Egypt and the UAE’s airstrikes against ISIS in Libya are different from the U.S.’s airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, Kirby contorted his reasoning with the haughty statement that ours are not “some unilateral decision” and are “very targeted” with the green light of the Iraqi government.  Kirby went on to explain that more violence is not the answer.  If only someone asked him why it’s okay to have Iran help add fuel to the fire in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Furthermore, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, the thirty-something coed who masquerades as a foreign policy expert, pronounced that the political situation in Libya is “very complicated” (kind of like “very targeted” strikes?) and “democracy, these processes of reform, take some time.”  Would that the administration have understood that point with Iraq and kept a residual force to help along that newly birthed democracy we would not even be discussing ISIS.  Now, all of the sudden, these people are experts on the fragile nature of a democracy in a region that they previously chided George W. Bush for pursuing. And anyone watching this administration over the past six years understands that the “very complicated” nature of foreign policy generally is way over any of these people’s pay grades.

Add to all of this the audacity of the administration dictating who is acceptable to fight ISIS (Iran, the bad guys) and who is not (Egypt, Jordan, UAE, the good guys) and the statements become even more appalling.  At least our allies in the region understand that as long as Obama is in the White House, America is not a reliable ally and they are on their own to fight the enemies in their midst. Obama and his minions should be condoning, not condemning the efforts of our regional allies who are striking back at these psychotic barbarians.

Could it be that the U.S. only condones attacks on ISIS when conducted by the Iranians, to whom he has basically handed the entire Mideast/North Africa region in his dangerous and naïve quest to replace the pax Americana with a hegemon governed by the West-hating Mullahs? After all, these are the brainiacs who think that Iran is a rational actor worthy of joining the international community of civilized nations and a possible trusted ally worthy of nuclear weapons.

But the most important take away from this disgusting position of the Obama administration will be the insights that the Israelis gain.  They understand that this is just a foreshadowing of things to come.  This administration will fight tooth and nail to sign a deal with Iran that will leave the Israelis with no choice but to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own.

And when they do, it will make this condemnation of Egypt and the UAE look like it came from the jayvee.  When Israel strikes Iran, Obama will bring out his A team that will travel to the UN to issue resolutions and sanctions that he will actually enforce.  And while Obama’s ego and venom will force us all to listen to his entourage of Psaki, Harf, Earnest, and the rest of the know-nothings condemning Israel, civilized nations across the globe will be breathing a sigh of relief knowing that the grown-ups actually had balls and saved the world from at least one evil threat to life as we know it.  In 2016, democracy will remove another.