The occupant of the Oval Office repeatedly said when he was running for re-election “Osama bin Laden is dead and Al Q’ieda is on the run.”   Al Q’ieda was not on the run then, and is not on the run now; in fact the Al Q’ieda terrorist organization is much stronger than it was when Obama was inaugurated in 2008.  The Republic is in a less secure position from an Al Q’ieda terrorist attack than it has been in for over 12 years.   Gregory D. Johnson, a Princeton Scholar and author of “The Last Refuge,” a book on Al Q’ieda said the numbers of Al Q’ieda terrorists have increased.  The numbers of Al Q’ieda’s terrorists are increasing in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, and Afghanistan.  The reason Al Q’ieda is much stronger today than it was in 2008, is because there has been no national comprehensive policy being executed to defeat and dismantle Al Q’ieda overseas (Tactical drone strikes to kill Al Q’ieda leaders is not a strategic and comprehensive approach to defeating Al Q’ieda: the leaders who are taken out are simply replaced by the next leader in line).

 After 9/11, the Bush Administration initiated an aggressive policy to attack Al Q’ieda in their Afghanistan safe haven, elsewhere in the Middle East, and in the world; that aggressive policy drove Al Q’ieda and their Taliban supporters out of Afghanistan.   That US policy was coupled with a close working relationship with friendly Muslims leaders and their intelligence services in 19 Middle East countries, they cooperated in prosecuting aggressive anti-terrorist operations to root out Al Q’ieda for 8 years; that policy was decimating the ranks of Al Q’ieda when Obama came into office.  It had been determined that the best defense for US security at home had been to prosecute an aggressive offensive campaign in many Middle Eastern and European countries to keep the terrorists off balance and away from the US homeland.   Al Q’ieda terrorists were captured in many Middle Eastern and European countries, were sent to Guantanamo, and interrogated to obtain current intelligence to help prosecute continued anti-terrorist operations.   When the last US troops left Iraq Al Q’ieda had been decimated, and 800 Al Q’ieda terrorist were imprisoned.  For the 8 years the Bush administration was in charge, there were no terrorist attacks in the United States.

The Obama Administration has not pursued the same aggressive policy against Jihadists for the last 4 years; that has resulted in a regeneration and resurrection of a new and more committed brand of Al Q’ieda fanatics.  As soon as Obama took control in the Oval Office he sanitized all training programs at DHS, the FBI, and in the US military that mentioned the threat from Jihadists, removed many of research & reference books on the threat from Jihadists from the US Military, FBI, & DHS offices and libraries, and he censored instructors at the National Defense University who were teaching students about the real threat posed by extremists Jihadists led by Al Q’ieda.  Over the last 4 years, unlike the previous 8 years of the Bush Administration, the US has come under the attack of terrorists.  The American people watched as US security personnel dealt with a terrorist who planted a bomb in his vehicle parked it in Times Square and set it off (it would have gone off if the arming device had not been defective), next came the Fort Hood terrorist attack that killed 13 US Army personnel and wounded 31 others, then the two Boston Marathon terrorist attacked killing 3 and wounded 264, and the fourth attack on US territory was an attack by 125-150 Al Q’ieda terrorists on the US Mission and CIA Annex in Benghazi that killed 4 and wounded an undetermined number whose numbers are being concealed from the American people.  The US failure 11 months ago to respond for over 8 hours to oppose the Al Q’ieda commando attack with available US military forces has been a key factor shaping what Al Q’ieda terrorists now believe they can do with impunity and get away with.  Because the Obama administration failed to execute a Status of Forces Agreement providing security for Iraq when the US exited Iraq in 2011, security in Iraq is unraveling at an alarming rate, the 800 Al Q’ieda terrorist the US Forces jailed have escaped from prison & have swelled the ranks of Al Q’ieda in Iraq, 1000 Iraqis were killed last month making it the deadliest month since 2006, and Iraq is rapidly sliding toward chaos instigated by Al Q’ieda.  Al Q’ieda in Iraq has joined with the Jabat Al Nurra Front in Syria, and the Obama administration is arming them along with other rebels fighting Assad.  Isn’t it interesting that the Obama administration armed Mexican drug cartels in Mexico during the Fast & Furious Operation, armed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt until then were removed by the military (now Obama has cut off all military aide to the free forces in Egypt), armed Al Q’ieda terrorist in Libya who killed 4 Americans at the US Mission in Benghazi, and is now arming Al Q’ieda terrorists in Syria.

When Al Q’ieda let the US know it was planning to attack 19 US Diplomatic Missions, instead of reinforcing all 19 US Missions with US Marines and threatening massive retaliation in Al Q’ieda’s safe havens in Pakistan, the Obama Administration cowered and closed all 19 US Diplomatic Missions.  One asks why the Obama Administration would broadcast to the world that they intercepted electronic communications between the #1 Al Q’ieda leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, and #2 Al Q’ieda leader, Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi; that revelation just drove the two Al Q’ieda leaders back underground and eliminated the valuable source of intelligence that should never had been revealed. Why would the Obama Administration make a worldwide abrupt weekend panicky announcement, that 19 US Diplomatic Missions would be closed because of the threat of an Al Q’ieda attack?  It was inept and the absolute wrong signal to send to Jihadists worldwide—for the first time in 238 years, threats against 19 US Diplomatic Missions by terrorists resulted in a perceived new foreign policy, one of “cowering from an Al Q’ieda threat”, further weakening the already weakened US image in the Middle East that has going steadily downhill over the past 4 years.  That announcement emboldened Al Q’ieda terrorist recruits in many Middle East countries.  No other western or NATO ally closed 19 Diplomatic Missions in the Middle East.  Unfortunately, it was a tactical victory for Al Q’ieda, and made the US seem as if it was “on the run”; Al Q’ieda is definitely not on the run, as we were repeatedly told by Obama when he was campaigning leading to the 2012 election. 

According to Michael Morell, CIA’s second in command, 6000 Jihadist terrorists are now pouring into Syria and carving out Islamic havens, many are affiliated with Al Q’ieda, and according to Morell, they pose the greatest threat to the US National Interest.  The Obama Administration is arming those terrorists. The Obama Administration’s misguided Middle East policies led by Hillary Clinton for the past 4 years has emboldened Al Q’ieda by, (1) pulling all US Forces out of Iraq after victory without negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement---allowing Iranian Mullahs and Al Q’ieda to fill the void, (2) changing the Rules of Engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan making it “very dangerous” for US Combatants to operate and easier for terrorists to ambush US Forces, and (3) restricting the execution of aggressive missions to capture terrorists in order to “incarcerate” them so we could gain necessary current operational intelligence, in favor of tactical drone strikes to kill terrorist leaders.  Unfortunately for 4 years, drone strikes have been eliminating Al Q’ieda terrorist leaders with extremely valuable intelligence; they should have been captured in operations designed to elicit current operational battlefield intelligence.   For four years the Obama Administration has been executing a policy to kill Al Q’ieda terrorist leaders, instead of capturing them; by killing them they wouldn’t have to deal with incarcerating them in Guantanamo—that short sighted policy helped Al Q’ieda grow and metastasized. 

By his action of closing 19 US Diplomatic Missions, Obama was miscommunicating to the rest of the world, that the United States is so weakened, that the US Armed Forces doesn’t have the capability to respond to simultaneous attacks on 19 US Diplomatic Missions at once, in order to protect them from terrorist attacks.  The US should have done just the opposite and reinforced all 19 US Diplomatic Missions daring Al Q’ieda to attack; Embassies can’t be closed every time terrorists threaten to attack.  The Obama administration previously sent the same signal when, for over 8 hours, it didn’t send military forces to protect the US Mission in Benghazi.  Obama and Hillary did not respond to repeated requests for additional security, for many weeks, to protect the Special Mission and the CIA annex in Benghazi, and did not send in military reinforcements to relieve US personnel under attack for over an 8 hour period; now by closing 19 US Diplomatic Missions because of a threat from Al Q’ieda, the Obama Administration is confirming its policy is to retreat from Al Q’ieda attacks and threats to attack, instead of facing down Al Q’ieda with a show of military strength. 

If 19 US Diplomatic Missions were threatened what would President Harry Truman have done; he employed US military forces against serious communist threats in Greece, against the Berlin Blockade, against Communists in Korea, and against threats from Stalin along the Iron Curtain?  What would Presidents Ronald Reagan have done; he brought down the wall in East Germany, employed US Military forces against Cuban Communists in Grenada, employed air strikes against Khadafy in the Bay of Sidra, built-up the US military in an arms race that brought down Communist Russia? What would President George H. W. Bush have done; he developed close working relationship with the leaders’ of 19 Arab coalition countries that contributed military forces to joined in evicting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm in November 1995?  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misguided Middle East foreign policy, over the last 4 years, effectively dismantled the stability and respect that resulted from the working relations the US had with 19 coalition countries during Operation Desert Storm.  The Obama Administration misguided Middle East foreign policy that resulted in the announcement to the world that it was closing the 19 US Diplomatic Missions, only served the interest of Al Q’ieda, made Al Q’ieda look much more powerful than they really are, made the United States look much weaker than it really is in the eyes of adversaries in the Middle East.  The Obama administration Middle East foreign policy ultimately damages the interest of rulers friendly to the US in those 19 Arab countries, has emboldened Al Q’ieda which is growing in strength, and has weaken the United States in the Middle East. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Obama administration is acting like 'a bunch of cowards' for closing 19 U.S. Embassies in response to terror threat, blasts Texas congressman

By David Martosko

PUBLISHED: 09:39 EST, 6 August 2013 | UPDATED: 13:23 EST, 7 August 2013

Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert is a conservative firebrand, and did not disappoint on Monday, saying the Obama administration's embassy closures made the U.S. look like 'cowards'

The Obama administration has been accused of behaving 'like a bunch of cowards' after 19 embassies were closed in the wake of the al-Qaeda terror alert.

Louie Gohmert, a Republican congressman from Texas, recalled the September 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Clinton famously suggested in a Senate hearing that it was largely irrelevant whether the attack was the result of a terrorist plot or - as the administration

initially claimed - an outgrowth of a spontaneous anti-U.S. protest.

'It brings us back to the question that Hillary Clinton asked: "What difference does it make at this point?"' Gohmert said.

'The difference it makes,' he said, 'is that If you will bother to find out exactly what went wrong, why you didn't have security where you needed it, where you need security to shore up, what you can do to make sure that doesn't happen again, you don't have to close your embassies like a bunch of cowards that go running away.'

Some observers fear that the embassy closures are an over-compensation for the lax security in Benghazi where inadequate protection was in place despite warnings about the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. 

Meanwhile, conservatives on Capitol Hill have speculated that responding to al-Qaeda by shuttering diplomatic facilities hands a tactical victory to the terror organization.

Texas Rep. Ted Poe, who chairs the House’s terrorism and nonproliferation subcommittee, told Foreign Policy magazine on Friday that the embassy closures are appear to be a post-Benghazi overreaction.

 'Terrorism works,' Poe said, 'because we’re closing all of our embassies and consulates on one day.'

'We’d rather be safe than have somebody hurt, but the long-term answer is every time someone gets information, we can’t shut them all down all over the world.'

His comments came during a three-hour radio appearance as guest host of the Sean Hannity Show, one of America's most popular political talk radio programs.

The Obama administration evacuated U.S. personnel from Yemen on Tuesdaymorning, following the temporary closure of 19 embassies throughout the Arab world.

The McClatchy News Service reported Monday that the intelligence which led to the unusual action was an order from al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for a terrorist attack in Yemen.