- Why was the Obama Administration not prepared for potential attacks on the anniversary of 9/11? The British newspaper The Independent has reported that there were credible sources warning about foreign embassy attacks 48 hours prior to their occurrence, but no warnings were given to put foreign diplomats on high alert. Whether or not these allegations were true, shouldn't our government have anticipated the possibility of attacks on that day? It appears the interim embassy in Libya in particular was woefully unprotected, with Libyan security forces rather than U.S. military personnel defending it. And the Marines defending the Egyptian embassy had no ammunition. Why did President Obama skip his daily security briefing that morning -- and every other morning since September 5th? I realize that the president can digest the information from these briefings without having to be physically present at every one of them, but it seems like the one on the anniversary of 9/11 should have been especially important. Maybe he could have made time for it by cancelling his appearance on a radio show hosted by "The Pimp With a Limp" that same day. It seems that our government, from Obama on down, was napping on the job when it comes to our country's security.
- Why did the Obama Administration apologize as its first official response to the violent protests in the Middle East? The U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement apologizing for some obscure anti-Islam film produced in the U.S. and expressing sympathy for the angry protestors. Not surprisingly, the mob went on to attack the embassy, remove and destroy the U.S. flag hanging over the embassy, and replace it with the Al Qaeda flag. These people know weakness when they see it. This apology was reiterated after the attacks and remained the only official government response to the Middle East violence for 9 and 1/2 hours, even after the death of our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans. Not until after Romney came out and condemned the apology did the White House finally issue a statement distancing himself from it as well and saying it did not reflect the official policy of the Obama administration. Later, information came out that indicated the attacks had been carefully planned for the anniversary of 9/11 (the attackers were armed with mortars) and the protests over the American film (which had already been out for a few months) were only used as a pretext and a distraction anyway. But still, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement two days later with the same conciliatory, apologetic tone regarding the controversial American film. As Victor Davis Hanson points out, the statements from the U.S. embassy in Cairo and from Clinton played right into the hands of our enemies who want to lay the blame for the attacks at the feet of the U.S. government. But don't hold your breath waiting for President Apology Tour himself to hold anyone from his administration accountable for this.
- Perhaps to cover up its own weakness and lack of preparedness, the Obama Administration quickly tried to distract attention from the important issue -- the attacks on our embassy -- by attacking Romney for "politicizing" the attacks. As though it is inappropriate for a presidential candidate to offer a statement on an important foreign policy issue that has taken center stage during the campaign! I, for one, would like to know Romney's opinion on this issue and I think most Americans would as well. But of course, the lapdog press obediently followed their marching orders from Obama's campaign and launched blistering attacks on Romney as well. The next morning, Romney held a press conference in which he elaborated on his positions on the Middle East attacks and defended his previous statement that the U.S. should not be apologizing to terrorists. He then answered questions from the press. The press showed their true colors in response -- 5 of their 7 questions were all variations on the exact same question about whether Romney regretted "jumping the gun" and attacking the president so quickly after the attacks on our embassies. Our country had been attacked, and yet it was painfully obvious that American journalists had no substantive questions and were not interested in focusing on the important issues unfolding in the Middle East, but were only interested in trying to discredit Romney and score political points. Later, audio was released of a number of the journalists conspiring to attack Romney prior to the press conference and discussing what was the best language to use in the questioning! Clearly those questions at the press conference were no accident but were the result of careful coordination and collusion by the press.
- Obama also gave a statement to the press the morning following the attacks, but unlike Romney, Obama took no questions at all from the press. You tell me whether that makes Obama, the sitting president, look more or less presidential than Romney. Obama also cancelled his daily security briefing that day -- the day after an act of war against our country. Instead, he jetted off to a glitzy fundraiser in Las Vegas, where he barely managed to get the rowdy, adoring crowd to quiet down long enough to say a couple of sentences about the embassy attacks and the loss of four Americans before launching into full campaign mode. No big deal that our enemies knew the location of our ambassador's safe house, dragged his body through the streets (described by Hillary Clinton as "Libyans carry[ing] Chris's body to the hospital") and stole documents with the names of Libyans who cooperated with the U.S. It was left to Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, to assure Americans that these attacks were not an attack against America or the American people or the Obama Administration -- they were merely expressing anger against that evil filmmaker that the Obamites are so obsessed with! How pathetic for this administration to try to claim that attacks against our embassies and our people overseas are not attacks on America. Of course they are attacks on America, and they are attacks that deserve a strong and unapologetic response. That is certainly not happening, as the Administration doesn't even seem willing to admit the incident in Libya was a terrorist attack and an act of war against our country. The State Department has gone silent, citing an ongoing FBI investigation. This is not a liquor store holdup; it's a national security crisis and an act of war against America and the American people deserve answers and accountability. Good luck getting the press to help with that; they're too busy parsing Romney's press releases. Some members of the press even had the audacity to blame Mitt Romney and his press conference for their failure to cover the attacks effectively!
- These attacks show the fundamental weakness of U.S. foreign policy. Charles Krauthammer put it this way in an interview on Fox News: "Obama himself said we’re doing a pivot out of the Middle East to the Pacific. He has proclaimed the tide of war is over. He took us out of Iraq leaving no residual force. He announced withdrawal from Afghanistan on a timetable. When it came to Arab Spring, he was indecisive. In Iran he would not support protesters. Libya, half in and half out. Everybody in the region understands that America, which had been the dominant element, is now in withdrawal, is not interested. The Gulf Arabs are apoplectic about Iran going nuclear, it’s not just Israel. Now our friends are looking around saying, ‘Do we really have anybody who will support us?’ The extreme jihadists and the moderate jihadists in the region are now saying ‘This is our time.’ I’ll give you one example of the withdrawal of our influence: Syria. Does anybody in the region ask what is the American position? Everybody wants to know what Russia is doing and thinking and what supplies it’s sending. What’s Iran doing? What is Hezbollah doing? America is irrelevant." Krauthammer said in another interview: "What we’re seeing now is Al Qaedastan developing in Libya, a meltdown of our relations with Egypt… riots in Yemen, attacks on our embassy in Tunisia….These are the fruits of apology and retreat and lack of confidence in our own principles."
- Obama doesn't even seem to be able to make up his mind about what he thinks about the new Egyptian government. He said in an interview that he considers them neither an ally or an enemy, and the utter failure of their Muslim Brotherhood-led government to protect our embassy there doesn't seem to argue in favor of them being an ally. Yet, his administration continues to push for more than $1 billion in financial aid to that country.
The whole point of free speech is that you have the right to say what you believe without being silenced by the government. If you say idiotic things, you should expect to face criticism from other people who also have freedom of speech. If you tell lies, you should expect to have other people use their freedom of speech to expose your lies. But the notion that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect people’s right to criticize other people’s religious beliefs or their right to say things that offend other people is ludicrous and dangerous. I have freedom of speech to criticize your beliefs if I think they’re wrong. You have freedom of speech to respond and defend your beliefs. If you are offended by my free speech, you do not have the right to silence me. Precisely because we live in a free country, this filmmaker has every right to make a movie about Islam or Mohammed. It doesn’t matter if Muslims are offended or not – he still has the right to make the movie and express his opinion. If the filmmaker is telling lies or expressing hate, he should expect to be harshly criticized. If his speech is too offensive, then people will decide not to watch it and movie theatres will choose not to carry it. That’s how freedom works.
I read attacks on the Internet against evangelical Christianity all the time. I frequently read articles and comments that accuse all evangelical Christians of being bigoted and narrow-minded and of hating gays and science and that claim the Bible supports racism and slavery. Plays have run in this country that ridicule "Jesus and his band of queers" and art exhibits that show a crucifix immersed in urine have been funded with taxpayer dollars. I don’t like it when I hear people say those things about my beliefs, but I haven’t gone out and rioted or beheaded anyone. If those people hold important positions and their speech is offensive enough then I have the right to band with other like-minded people and try to get them fired or force them to apologize or keep them from getting taxpayer money. But I don’t deny they have the legal right under the 1st Amendment to say those hateful things. Why are Muslims special? Why do they have the right to demand that no one criticize them when that right is not extended to other religious groups like Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.
Freedom of speech, religion, and the press does not exist in Muslim countries (with maybe a couple of exceptions). If you go to almost any country in the Islamic world and start saying things that are not approved by the government, you will be imprisoned and possibly killed. Most Muslim countries are theocracies, which means that the religious leaders are also the political leaders. They do not allow any religion to be practiced other than Islam, which means that people who hold to other religious beliefs are persecuted, jailed, or killed. If I go to a Muslim country and talk to them about my faith or try to convert them, I will be deported, jailed, or killed, and if they convert to my religion, they will be killed. That is why Muslims are completely intolerant of any criticism of Islam or Mohammed. In the world they live in, there is no freedom. Everyone must bow to Mohammed or be silenced or killed. In many of their nations sharia law is enforced, which means that all residents of a country must obey the precepts of the Koran. Their religion teaches the concept of "jihad," which seeks to bring all the world under the control of Islam. And the spread of Islam has often been through conquest and forced conversion, following the example of Mohammed.
So tell me again: why are we the ones who need to apologize? We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They do not. Should we apologize for that? Our country gives Muslims the right to practice their religion and proselytize; their countries do not give Christians the right to practice their religion and proselytize. Should we apologize for that? Our country’s people, leaders, and laws are among the most tolerant of any country on earth; theirs are among the least tolerant. Should we apologize for that? We permit filmmakers to make films that offend Muslims, just as we permit filmmakers to make films that offend people from any other religion. We permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about Mohammed, just as we permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about any other religious or political figure. Should we apologize for that? I think we should celebrate all of these things. There are more than 300 million people who live in this country, all of whom are saying and doing all kinds of things in freedom. The government is not responsible for anything that any private citizen in this country says and does not need to apologize for any of it. That includes some obscure filmmaker in LA and some obscure preacher who wants to burn the Koran in FL. How dare our government apologize to those angry mobs on behalf of America!
The events transpiring this week show once again why Obama does not deserve another four years. His foreign policy has been just as disastrous as his domestic policy, in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment