Pages: 1 2
The bankrupt instincts of an Obama administration determined to find moral equivalence between America’s enemies and friends have been thoroughly illuminated. Within a 48-hour period — beginning on the commemoration of the worst domestic attack in our nation’s history — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was snubbed, and President Obama, besotted by the notion that the Islamist-dominated uprisings in the Middle East constituted an “Arab Spring,” has has reaped a self-inflicted whirlwind for his myopia: our embassies in Egypt, Libya and Yemen have been attacked and an ambassador and three members of his staff have been murdered.
As always, Islamists have their “rationale” for perpetrating murderous violence. This time it is allegedly a film titled “Innocence of Muslims.” In truth, the film was not responsible for igniting the latest violence, especially the apparently well-coordinated and well-planned murder of Christopher Stevens and his staff members in Benghazi, which is looking more and more like a premeditated terrorist attack. The film was nothing more than a convenient diversion used to obscure the real Islamist agenda: re-inflaming anti-American passions beginning on the eleventh commemoration of 9/11.
Sadly, administration officials equally attuned to the siren song of moral and cultural equivalency were only too willing to assist that agenda. Such assistance began early, when the American embassy in Cairo issued an apology for the film prior to the attack there:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims–as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Even if one could find some kind of justification for that misguided statement, such as an effort to defuse a potential attack, one is hard-pressed to comprehend a tweet sent by the embassy during that attack. “Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry,” it read. And then there was this tweet. “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initially jumped on the appeasement bandwagon was well. “We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” she said in response to the storming of America’s embassy in Egypt. Yet the murders in Libya were a bridge too far–sort of. While condemning ”in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi,” Mrs. Clinton still felt compelled to note the that the “United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” before finally concluding that there “is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
Yes there is. It is the attempt to elevate the actions of an Israeli-American property developer and an incendiary preacher operating on the margins of American society into something that requires an official government apology, in order to placate Islamic mobs who will never be placated.
Apparently someone in the White House recognized the political downside of such appeasement. The embassy apology was disavowed by the Obama administration. ”The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government,” an administration official told Politico. Just as telling, several of the embassy’s tweets were subsequently deleted, perhaps in the hope that a mainstream media with its own agenda of aiding and abetting this president whenever possible, would focus its energies somewhere else.
The administration needn’t have worried. Despite a timeline published by Breitbart.com revealing when the tweets occurred, the 16 hours it took the Obama administration to disavow them, and a statement made by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney condemning the attacks and the administration’s initial response–itself held for two hours before being released–the media was more than willing to carry the president’s water.
The New York Post’s John Podhoretz best describes their pathetic attempt to make Romney and his “intemperate” statement the focus of this foreign policy debacle. “Apparently, it is the view of much of the mainstream media and foreign-policy establishment that discussing these horrific events in the course of the presidential campaign is monstrous,” writes Podhoretz. He then explains the motive. “This was an effort–not entirely conscious–to make it illegitimate for Romney to criticize the president’s foreign policy at a moment when foreign policy has suddenly taken center stage…That is not what The Most High (the media) want–a debate. What they want is for Obama to be re-elected. And they’ll use the tools at their disposal to achieve their aim.”
Apparently one of those tools was inadvertently discovered, courtesy of an open mic, at Romney’s press conference Wednesday morning. CBS’s Jan Crawford and NPR’s Ari Shapiro were caught on tape coordinating their line of questioning–specifically focusing on the “intemperate” nature of Romney’s statement. Reporters often work together in such fashion, but it is telling that their focus has nothing to do with what America’s policy responses to such attacks should be, but whether or not Romney’s statement was ill-timed and/or ill-advised. And lest anyone think those two were an anomaly, CNN’s Don Lemon continued focusing on the Romney “gaffe” theme Wednesday afternoon. Richard Williamson, the Romney campaign’s foreign policy adviser, got to the essence of the media’s agenda in response. ”[Y]ou want to talk about a process issue,” Williamson lectured Lemon. “Because the White House doesn’t want to talk about substance. It wants to talk about process.”
Here’s “process.” On September 10th, in an eerily prescient column when viewed retrospectively, Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen revealed that the “Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization,” examined the president’s schedule. They discovered that “during his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his [Presidential Daily Brief] just 536 times–or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent–falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.”
Pages: 1 2