Obama “Lead from Behind” Strategy on Display in Egypt, Deliberately Enabling an Islamist Takeover

The thing people like the editorial board of the Washington Post, who today lament that the situation in Egypt demonstrates “the plummeting prestige and influence of the United States,” need to understand is that it is deliberate. It’s exactly what Obama wants.

Egypt-Obama Supports Facist

While they say the Obama administration is not entirely to blame, they also write:

But the administration has helped to foster the growing anti-Americanism — if not the growing chaos in Egypt — through its mishandling of the Islamist government of Mohamed Morsi. For months, as the Morsi government has taken steps to consolidate power, quash critics and marginalize independent civil society groups, President Obama and his top aides have been largely silent in public. No effort was made to use the leverage of U.S. aid to compel a change of policy. Instead, the government was lauded for its help in preserving peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and U.S. policy focused on helping Egypt win aid from the International Monetary Fund.

The original rationale for pouring over a billion dollars in foreign aid into Egypt was to stabilize the region, and to help secure the state of Israel. Now we are enabling a regime led by Morsi, who stated that his first priority was securing the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called “Blind Sheik,” responsible for the 1st World Trade Center bombing,  and who is described in an opinion piece in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune as follows:

“Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood is openly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and otherwise prolifically intolerant. Just three years ago, Morsi called on Egyptians to nurse their children and grandchildren on hatred for Jews, whom he has called “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

It was two years ago, during the Libya fiasco, that we first heard Barack Obama’s approach to America’s role in the world described by one of his advisers as “leading from behind,” a bizarre phrase that sounded then, and sounds now, like an oxymoron. Or some kind of moron, the kind that spent decades marinating in the anti-American ideology embraced by his grandfather, his grandfather’s notorious communist friend Frank Marshall Davis, political mentors, his pastor, and his repellent wife.

It was also two years ago, that Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant piece nailed the “lead from behind” strategy.

But underlying that style, assures this Obama adviser, there really are ideas. Indeed, “two unspoken beliefs,” explains Lizza. “That the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world.” …

Who truly reviles America the hegemon? The world that Obama lived in and shaped him intellectually: the elite universities; his Hyde Park milieu (including his not-to-be-mentioned friends, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn); the church he attended for two decades, ringing with sermons more virulently anti-American than anything heard in today’s full-throated uprising of the Arab Street.

It is the liberal elites who revile the American colossus and devoutly wish to see it cut down to size. Leading from behind — diminishing America’s global standing and assertiveness — is a reaction to their view of America, not the world’s.

Other presidents have taken anti-Americanism as a given, rather than evidence of American malignancy, believing — as do most Americans — in the rightness of our cause and the nobility of our intentions. Obama thinks anti-Americanism is a verdict on America’s fitness for leadership. I would suggest that “leading from behind” is a verdict on Obama’s fitness for leadership.

Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron. Yet a sympathetic journalist, channeling an Obama adviser, elevates it to a doctrine. The president is no doubt flattered. The rest of us are merely stunned.

The murder and mayhem in Egypt is not only being enabled by the Obama administration. It’s being enjoyed. It’s part of the “cut unfair, racist Amerika down to size” plan.

 

We Knew the Real Obama All Along, Didn’t We

As Charles Krauthammer points out in his column entitled “The Return of the Real Obama,”  he writes:

The rout was complete, the retreat disorderly. President Obama got his tax hikes — naked of spending cuts — passed by the ostensibly Republican House of Representatives. After which, you might expect him to pivot to his self-proclaimed “principle” of fiscal “balance” by taking the lead on reducing spending. “Why,” asked The Post on the eve of the final fiscal-cliff agreement, “is the nation’s leader not embracing and then explaining the balanced reforms the nation needs?”

Because he has no interest in them. He’s a visionary, not an accountant. Sure, he’ll pretend to care about deficits, especially while running for reelection. But now that he’s past the post, he’s free to be himself — a committed big-government social democrat.

Upon losing the House in 2010, the leveler took cover for the next two years. He wasn’t going to advance his real agenda through the Republican House anyway, and he needed to win reelection.

 

He concludes:

Now he’s won. The old Obama is back. He must not be underestimated. He has deftly leveraged his class-war-themed election victory (a) to secure a source of funding (albeit still small) for the bloated welfare state, (b) to carry out an admirably candid bit of income redistribution and (c) to fracture the one remaining institutional obstacle to the rest of his ideological agenda.

 

Not bad for two months’ work.

If you can call reading demagogic talking points before jetting off the Hawaii “work,” that is. Other than that questionable assertion, like most Krauthammer pieces this whole column is spot on and well worth your reading.