What’s really behind Obama’s Benghazi bunkum
IBD: By ANDREW MALCOLM Posted 09/21/2012 08:44 AM ET
You know that act of terrorism in Benghazi last week that saw four Americans killed on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and the consulate shelled, burned and destroyed and fleeing Americans killed in a nearby safe house that turned out to be unsafe and the Obama administration, alone in the world, said it was all clearly a spontaneous reaction to an old anti-Islam YouTube video?
Remember that? They said it for days. Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, was sent out as sacrificial lamb on no less than five Sunday shows to peddle the same hooey about spontaneous Muslim anger.
Because if the attack wasn’t spontaneous, then it was by definition planned.
And if it was planned, why wasn’t Barack Obama, who’s skipped so many daily intelligence briefings to campaign for reelection, doing his real job?
Being, oh, say, forewarned and forearmed to protect these valiant Americans serving abroad whom he later lauded as so brave? But they couldn’t hear the presidential praise because they were dead far from home. Then, totally tone-deaf to tragedy, Obama dashed off to a Vegas fundraiser.
This administration was too clever by half. On Wednesday, when Obama was up in the Big Apple chatting with Dayyyy-vid Letterman and hobnobbing with Beyonce at $40K per head, the administration sent the director of the National Counterterrorism Center to Capitol Hill. There, Matthew Olsen testified that, yes, the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism.
Here’s the clever part of that. At first it appeared Olsen disagreed with the White House. But the next day Obama press secretary Jay Carney was able to consult his notes, agree with Olsen and baldly tell reporters: “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
Wait! What?! Now, it’s obvious and self-evident? After a week proclaiming clearly it was an organic video outrage? A week, by the way, spent by distracted media members castigating Gov. Romney for so hastily — and now, so self-evidently — criticizing the Obama responses. These guys don’t have the, uh, balloons to admit a bungle.
(And get this: Thursday the Obama administration spent $70,000 for ads on seven Pakistani TV networks showing the Democrat explaining the U.S. had nothing to do with the anti-Islam video, thus exposing millions more to the hated video.)
Here’s the strategic political context of the Carney maneuver: In a close-fought election campaign like this one the last thing an incumbent (or his mouthpiece) wants to do is say, well, yes, as a matter of fact, we blew it. We were wrong. We weren’t properly prepared and then afterward, we were in full CYA mode and thought you’d fall for the video line.
An incumbent president’s strong suit always is foreign affairs and national security. He’s supposed to know all kinds of secret stuff that we don’t, which is OK because it’s to keep us and our people safe, right? Except sadly not Amb. Chris Stevens and his colleagues because someone(s) were asleep at the switch. Who would ever anticipate violence against Americans in a lawless Muslim country jam-packed with weapons on 9/11?
Obama’s poll approval on handling foreign affairs has exceeded Romney’s, as expected for an incumbent. But, actually, it’s not all that great. Less than half of Americans (49%) now approve of Obama’s foreign affairs job performance, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll.
While nearly as many (46%) disapprove.
Obama’s foreign policy approval has plunged five points (or 10%) from 54% just in recent days. Americans may be inattentive much of the time, but they are not dumb. Further unraveling of Obama’s cockamamie Benghazi claim and cover-up with additional evidence of mishandling the lead-in seriously jeopardizes his reelection chances.
If all Obama can claim is he let the SEALs kill Osama bin Laden while he watched and his vaunted Muslim outreach got slapped away. Iran got the bomb anyway. Qaddafi and Mubarak are gone. But al Qaeda is moving into the Libya, Syria and Egyptian power vacuums to help ensure the Arab Spring becomes a democracy-free Arab Winter.
So, there goes the president’s foreign policy standing. And he’s sure got no economic accomplishments to vaunt, even with a teleprompter.
Already, the Journal reports from Libya that for months hopeful Americans ignored numerous warnings of trouble in that lawless land from government and militia sources and followed shoddy security procedures. The Brits had already pulled out of Benghazi. For days the State Dept. didn’t even know what its admired ambassador was doing in Benghazi.
After a classified Thursday briefing from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Susan Collins said security in Libya was “woefully inadequate, given the security threat environment.” Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, added, “The story now has been changed. There was a planned, premeditated attack.”
The State Dept. is launching an Accountability Review Board to investigate. What do you bet its findings and the FBI’s will be unavailable before Nov. 6?
The Obama crowd regularly seeks to reap credit for its boss by, for instance, leaking details of the Bin Laden hit and counter-espionage operations, even when they’re actually British or Saudi. Now, some apparently are seeking to discredit the ambassador’s dead security team, who were former SEALs and not armed with the mortars and rocket-propelled grenade launchers that the spontaneously attacking video-protesters spontaneously produced.
SEALs are well-known as seriously tough dudes. They are beyond bodyguards. They don’t get to play much golf. But here’s the sort of thing they do get to do:
Leap from airplanes over one country just after midnight at 40,000 feet, wearing oxygen masks and 120-pound packs. Using GPS screens on their chest, they silently steer their chutes a couple dozen miles into an adjacent country, land in the planned field and accomplish their mission.
By dawn that day or maybe several later, if all goes well, they’re hiking back out eating lizards and leaves and back at home base watching an NFL game via satellite on AFN.
On an ideal SEAL mission, no one ever knows they were there and their weapons go unused. “If I’m firing this a lot,” one SEAL told me last summer, tapping the M-16 clipped to his full gear and body armor, “then I’m having a very bad day.”
Those four lost Americans had a very bad day on 9/11. Maybe 11/6 will be a bad day politically for those responsible.
- RELATED: Gallup says the race is tied again
- Romney: ‘Something is wrong, terribly wrong with the direction of the country’
- Romney on security: ‘The surest path to danger is always weakness and indecision’
Stunning video exposing the most dangerous security risk in the United States – President Barack Obama. Thanks to Don.
Blaming a movie shifts the attention away from the fact that al-Qaeda is behind the violence and that Osama bin-Laden’s death hasn’t affected the global terrorist war against America. Indeed, as we have reported, the murders in Libya demonstrate that the Obama policy, backed by Senator John McCain, has emboldened al-Qaeda in an important Arab/Muslim country. Since the U.S. military intervention in Libya was illegal and unconstitutional, the shocking emergence of al-Qaeda in Libya is one scandal on top of another. It has been argued that the Libya intervention is an impeachable offense.
Politically, Obama has been beating his breasts about bin Laden’s death, in order to prove he can manage foreign policy. Since the economy is in the tank, this has been Obama’s only real hope of winning a second term. Polls have given him a significant edge over Romney in foreign policy expertise. All of this is now at risk.
The “shadowy character” behind the film apparently has legal problems and makes for a good villain. The propaganda that the film led to the “spontaneous” violence has also served to demonize Coptic Christians in Egypt, the U.S. and elsewhere, way beyond the few who may have had some role in producing the film. Some of them are going into hiding and facing death threats.
There are other explanations for the behavior of the Obama Administration as well.
Acknowledging the truth undermines the Obama policy of cooperating with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The truth that the Muslim Brotherhood is a violence-prone group that continues to sponsor or promote anti-American terrorism cannot be conceded by this administration because it has a policy of “engaging” with them and providing them foreign aid.
Acknowledging the truth also risks exposing the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has significant influence over the Obama Administration, and that Rep. Michele Bachmann and others were correct to ask for a probe into the extent and nature of this influence. In this context, we may be dealing with top officials who have sold out American interests in a case that could rival that of Alger Hiss, the State Department official who spied for the old Soviet Union.
Who else benefits from the false narrative about the violence in the Middle East?
The most immediate beneficiaries are Iran, Russia and al-Qaeda, which is dominating the “new” Libya and engineered the violent attack and murder of four Americans in Libya on 9/11. It is significant that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi was in Iran before the Middle East crisis unfolded. On Tuesday, Morsi held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and said, “There exists no problem between Iran and Egypt.”
Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian, is the current leader of al-Qaeda, and an identified former Soviet KGB agent. Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, has to have knowledge of this.
Al-Zawahiri’s KGB connection was documented by former KGB officers Alexander Litvinenko and Konstantin Preobrazhensky. Litvinenko was poisoned in London and killed after he wrote a book, Blowing up Russia, on how Russian agents are behind certain acts of alleged Islamic terrorism. Preobrazhensky has written about how the Russians, since the days of Lenin, have used Muslims as cannon fodder for the world revolution.
The Ayatollah of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was “educated” at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, along with the international terrorist “Carlos,” a convert to Islam and the cause of al-Qaeda who is now in in prison in France for terrorist crimes.
The fact that the Obama Administration is playing along with this strategy is shocking. It suggests that Obama wants America’s enemies to benefit from these developments. In addition to the obvious threat of terrorism, however, we also face the danger of losing our First Amendment rights in order to appease the terrorists determined to kill us.
In response to the orchestrated controversy over the film, the “Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission” of the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation has released a statement urging states “to fully implement the steps identified in the consensual Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 and United Nations General Assembly resolution 66/167.” These are U.N. attempts to silence criticism of Islam.
The OIC statement goes on, “There is a parallel necessity to reinvigorate the efforts to articulate an international code of conduct for media and social media to disallow the dissemination of incitement material…”
This is an obvious call for eliminating our First Amendment rights.
At the 9/11 conference sponsored by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center spoke about this international effort and how it has already been seen on U.S. soil in the physical attacks that included rocks, cans, and water bottles thrown against Christians in Dearborn, Michigan, during an Arab-American festival in June. The bloodied Christians were preaching and protesting on a public street and acting lawfully but were nevertheless threatened with being arrested by the police if they did not leave the area.
He told the conference that the OIC is attempting to impose “their version of free speech—you can talk freely, you just cannot insult Islam or Muhammad.” He added, “They are pushing that through the U.N. through treaties. If the U.S. were to adopt that, and the State Department is getting dangerously close, the next question for the U.S. Supreme Court is…does the First Amendment trump a treaty? Well, it says in the United States Constitution that a treaty has the force of supreme law of the land. And that question hasn’t been fully adjudicated in our jurisprudence…It will be the next great battle space in this area of free speech.”
When Mitt Romney objected to the Obama Administration going down this road, calling its statement about the attacks an apology, he himself came under savage attack.
Romney was concerned about a statement that came out of the Embassy of the United States in Cairo which said the U.S. “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
The embassy statement also said, “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.”
In fact, religious freedom and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of the American constitutional republic. There is no prohibition on “hurting the religious feelings of Muslims.” There is no “universal right of free speech” but rather an American First Amendment that is unique in the world but which is now under global assault by those who stormed the embassy and then killed four Americans in Libya.
Citing the Cairo embassy statement and what happened in Dearborn, Yerushalmi said freedom of speech will not be preserved “as long as Dearborn, Michigan can engage in that kind of behavior, as long as the State Department can issue statements of this sort.”
He is currently defending Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in their efforts to place anti-Jihad ads on public transportation vehicles or facilities in New York City and Washington, D.C. The ad says, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Law Center, a federal judge has ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York to display the advertisements. The MTA had initially rejected the ads as “demeaning” to Islam.
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
This Friday, September 21st, Accuracy in Media will be webcasting live a major conference in Washington, D.C. called, “ObamaNation: A Day of Truth.” It couldn’t be more timely, as American embassies throughout the Middle East are under attack, a U.S. ambassador was brutally murdered, and the American President is being burned in effigy in countries across the region, including Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the media can’t get enough of Mitt Romney’s secretly taped comments about how many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes and his unfortunate characterization of them, there is very little coverage of what has become increasing clear—that the Obama administration has been deliberately lying about what they knew, when they knew it and the actual causes of the hostile actions against American diplomats and embassies.Fox News obtained “a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited ‘sons of Egypt’ to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh ‘even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.’”
This statement had apparently been posted a couple of days before September 11, when the supposedly spontaneous protests over a crudely made anti-Islamic film began, which included a breach of the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo. According to Obama administration officials, the actions in Cairo sparked another protest demonstration in Benghazi, Libya, that got out of hand when radicals hijacked it and attacked and killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three Americans with him. According to Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt, “the State Department just allowed our guys to get killed. If you approve no bullets in guns for the mission security guards and an outhouse for a mission, you’re inviting it.” Hunt said that the security guards weren’t allowed to have bullets, based on rules of engagement that he called “ridiculous,” rules that had been approved and signed by Hillary Clinton.
Finally, on Wednesday, the Obama administration admitted that it was a terrorist attack in Benghazi, rather than a spontaneous demonstration, but it was still short of full disclosure.
Welcome to the Arab Spring. It has been nearly four years since President Obama said to the Muslim world at his inauguration, “we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest … but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist…” How’s that working out?
With the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya, and across the region, and demands upon the U.S. to release the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, the AIM conference brings together two leading experts on these matters. Andrew McCarthy, author of the new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993; and Frank Gaffney, founder and head of the Center for Security Policy. Mr. Gaffney is the publisher and associate author of Shariah: The Threat to America, and will talk about the Muslim Brotherhood in America.
It was only last Sunday, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, that UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the FBI was investigating the event in Libya that killed the four Americans, yet the administration had already repeatedly stated that according to their “best assessment” this was “a spontaneous—not a premeditated—response to what had transpired in Cairo.”
It was President Obama who had just days earlier during an interview on Telemundo, said that Mitt Romney “seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later,” which is exactly what his administration was doing. The reason was rather transparent. If he could blame it on a provocative YouTube video, then it must have had nothing to do with his failed Middle East policies.
Another breaking story is a new Inspector General’s report on Operation Fast & Furious, the notorious gun smuggling operation. The report found fault with several agencies, and referred to officials accused of a “disregard” for public safety. One Justice Department official resigned, another retired. But the report in essence cleared Attorney General Eric Holder, at least for the time being. Possible disciplinary action was recommended for 14 other department employees. The AIM conference will also feature the TownHall editor who literally wrote the book on Operation Fast & Furious, Katie Pavlich.
The full list of speakers at the conference includes: former Rep. Artur Davis, a co-chairman of the Obama campaign in 2008, who recently switched parties and spoke at the GOP convention last month; Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Pat Caddell, former Democratic pollster on “A Corrupt, Brazen Administration; an Abject Partisan Media;” John Fund on the issue of voter fraud; Edward Klein, author of The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House; Andy McCarthy on the Holder Justice Department, and later on the so-called Arab Spring; Cliff Kincaid will talk about Obama’s radical influences; Katie Pavlich will talk about Obama scandals virtually ignored by the media, such as Fast & Furious and Solyndra; Deneen Borelli on freeing Americans from the liberal plantation; Bishop E.W. Jackson, Sr., founder of Exodus Faith Ministries on Obama’s contempt for religious freedom; Richard Benedetto on how the media are impacting the election; Frank Gaffney will talk about the Muslim Brotherhood in America, and later on the question of whether the world is better off after four years of Obama; Betsy McCaughey, the former Lt. Governor of New York on Obamacare and Medicare; and John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily on Obamanomics. And yours truly will be talking about Obama’s Middle East Illusions. Jack Cashill on his book, Deconstructing Obama.
You can register to attend the free, all-day conference if you’re in the Washington, D.C. area. If not, you can watch it on a live webcast by visiting www.aim.org at 9 a.m. ET on Friday, September 21st.
Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at email@example.com.
Liz Cheney: Tumult in Mideast is a direct result of Obama administration’s policies, shows what happens when America isn’t in a position of strength
Published September 17, 2012 | On the Record | Special Guests: Liz Cheney
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer says White House needs to make it more clear on what they plan to do in Iran.
Greta: 4 Years of Obama Failure
Bolton: President’s foreign policy reverses American ‘peace through strength’
[FOR MORE ON THE MIDDLE EAST TURMOIL GO TO FOX VIDEOS, BOTTOM OF PAGE]
The Third Jihad (forget the other film, watch this one)
The Third Jihad Synopsis
You already know about terrorism. This documentary is about the war you don’t know existed. It is about an enemy the media and government are afraid to name.
After the FBI releases a radical Islamist manifesto describing how to weaken America from within, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim American and former physician to the US Congress, decides to investigate. The Third Jihad is about what he discovered.
How is radical Islam operating inside the West? Is a subversive “cultural jihad” underway? How does radical Islam plan to bring America to its knees? What is the endgame?
Obama Flag Redesign Shows His True Stripes On Muslim Innocence
Investor’s Business Daily Fri, Sep 21 2012 00:00:00 E00_WEB
I see the Obama campaign has redesigned the American flag, and very attractive it is too. Replacing the 50 stars of a federal republic is the single “O” logo symbolizing the great gaping maw of spendaholic centralization. And where the stripes used to be are a handful of red daubs, eerily mimicking the bloody finger streaks left on the pillars of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi as its staff were dragged out by a mob of savages to be tortured and killed.
What better symbol could one have of American foreign policy? Who says the slick hollow vapid marketing of the Obama campaign doesn’t occasionally intersect with reality?
On the latter point, after a week and a half of peddling an utterly false narrative of what happened in Libya, the United States government is apparently beginning to discern that there are limits to what even Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice can say with a straight face.
The official line — that the slaughter of American officials was some sort of improvised movie review that got a little out of hand — is now in the process of modification to something bearing a less patently absurd relationship to what actually happened. That should not make any more forgivable the grotesque damage that the administration has done to the bedrock principle of civilized society: freedom of speech.
The more that U.S. government officials talk about the so-called film “Innocence Of Muslims” (which is actually merely a YouTube trailer) the more they confirm the mob’s belief that works of “art” are the proper responsibility of government.
Obama and Clinton are currently starring as the Siskel & Ebert of Pakistani TV, giving two thumbs down to “Innocence Of Muslims” in hopes that it will dissuade local moviegoers from giving two heads off to consular officials.
“The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,” says Hillary Clinton. “We absolutely reject its content, and message.” “We reject the efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” adds Barack Obama. There follows the official State Department seal of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.
Fellow government-funded film critics call “Innocence Of Muslims” “hateful and offensive” (Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) and “reprehensible and disgusting” (Jay Carney, White House press secretary).
Gen. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior Pentagon advisor to Variety, has taken to telephoning personally those few movie fans who claim to enjoy the film. He called up Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who apparently thinks Innocence Of Muslims is the perfect date movie, to tell him the official position of the United States military is they’d be grateful if he could ease up on the five-star reviews.
Obama and Clinton’s two-on-the-aisle act cost $70,000 of taxpayers’ money. That may not sound like much in the 16 trillion-dollar sinkhole of Washington, but it’s a pretty big ad buy in Islamabad, and an improper use of public monies. If government functionaries want to do movie reviews, they should have a PBS fundraiser, offering a “Barack & Hill At The Movies” logo-ed burqa for pledges of over $100, and a complimentary clitoridectomy for pledges over $500.
I fought a long battle for freedom of expression north of the border when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing, and I’m proud to say I played a modest role in getting Parliament to strike down a shameful law and restore a semblance of free speech to a country that should never have lost it.
So I know a little about how the Western world is shuffling into a psychological bondage of its own making, and it’s no small thing when the First Amendment gets swallowed up by the vacuum of American foreign policy.
What other entertainments have senior US officials reviewed lately? Last year Hillary Clinton went to see the Broadway musical “Book of Mormon.” “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”? The Book of Mormon’s big showstopper is “Hasa Diga Eebowai,” which apparently translates as “F*** You, God.” The U.S. secretary of state stood and cheered.
Why does Secretary Clinton regard “F*** You, God” as a fun toetapper for all the family but “F***, You Allah” as “disgusting and reprehensible”? The obvious answer is that, if you sing the latter, you’ll find a far more motivated crowd waiting for you at the stage door.
So the “Leader of the Free World” and “the most powerful man in the world” (to revive two cobwebbed phrases nobody seems to apply to the president of the United States anymore) is telling the planet that the way to ensure your beliefs command his “respect” is to be willing to burn and bomb and kill. You Mormons need to get with the program.
Meanwhile, this last week has seen the publication of two controversial magazines in France: one, called Closer, showed Prince William’s lovely bride, the Duchess of Cambridge, without her bikini top on. The other, the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, showed some bloke who died in the 7th century without his bikini top on.
In response, a kosher grocery store was firebombed, injuring four people. Which group was responsible? Yes, frenzied Anglicans defending the honor of the wife of the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England rampaged through Jewish grocery stores yelling, “Behead the enemies of the House of Windsor!”
The embassy-burning mobs well understand the fraudulence of Obama and Clinton’s professions of generalized “respect” for “all faiths.” As a headline in the Karachi Express-Tribune puts it: “Ultimatum To US: Criminalize Blasphemy Or Lose Consulate.”
The assistant attorney general of the United States has said he does not rule out a law against blasphemy, so that’s good news, isn’t it? Once we’ve got government commissars regulating movies, and cartoons, and teddy bears and children’s piggy-banks and Burger King ice-cream tubs and inflatable sex-shop dolls and non-Sharia compliant mustaches (just to round up a few of the innumerable grievances of Islam), all the bad stuff will go away, right?
If you’ll forgive a book plug before Gen. Dempsey calls me up and asks me to withdraw it from publication, the paperback of my latest, “After America,” has just come out. On page 297, I speculate on how future generations will look back on our time from a decade or two hence:
“In the Middle East, Islam had always been beyond criticism. It was only natural that, as their numbers grew in Europe, North America and Australia, observant Muslims would seek the same protections in their new lands. But they could not have foreseen how eager Western leaders would be to serve as their enablers.
As the more cynical Islamic imperialists occasionally reflected, how quickly the supposed defenders of liberal, pluralist, Western values came to sound as if they were competing to be Islam’s lead prison bitch.”
Gee, that’d make a pretty funny number for “Koran: The Musical” next time Secretary Clinton wants a night out on Broadway, wouldn’t it?
In the meantime, spare a thought for Abdullah Ismail, one of ten thousand Pakistanis who participated in a protest in Lahore the other day. He died after “feeling unwell from the smoke from U.S. flags burnt at the rally.” But don’t worry: I’m sure the new Obama flag is far less toxic, and there’s no risk of keeling over in mid-chant of “Death to America!”
Published September 22, 2012 Associated Press
April 11, 2011: U.S. envoy Chris Stevens, center, speaks to Council member for Misrata Dr. Suleiman Fortia, right, at the Tibesty Hotel where an African Union delegation was meeting with opposition leaders in Benghazi, Libya. (AP)
LOS ANGELES – CNN reported on the personal journal of slain American ambassador Christopher Stevens over objections from his family, a State Department spokesman said Saturday.
The news channel, in a story posted online Saturday, said that it found a journal belonging to Stevens four days after he died in a Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Three other Americans also were killed.
CNN broke a pledge to the late ambassador’s family that it wouldn’t report on the diary, said State Department spokesman Philippe Reines, a senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In a blistering statement, Reines called CNN’s actions “indefensible.”
The channel said in the story online that it took “newsworthy tips” from Stevens’ diary and confirmed them with other sources. Citing an unidentified source “familiar with Stevens’ thinking,” CNN said that the ambassador was concerned about security threats in Benghazi and a “rise in Islamic extremism.”
In a statement Saturday, CNN defended its use of the journal’s contents and asked “why is the State Department now attacking the messenger.”
“CNN did not initially report on the existence of a journal out of respect for the family, but we felt there were issues raised in the journal which required full reporting, which we did,” the channel said.
The public has a right to know what CNN learned from “multiple sources” about fears and warnings of a terror threat before the Benghazi attack, the channel said, “which are now raising questions about why the State Department didn’t do more to protect Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel.”
Stevens’ family was informed within hours about the discovery of the journal, a hard-bound book that included seven handwritten pages. It was returned to them via a third party, according to CNN’s online story.
An Italian official took control of the diary from CNN in Benghazi at the State Department’s request, and it is en route back to Stevens’ family, the department said.
“Given the truth of how this was handled, CNN patting themselves on the back is disgusting,” Reines said in his statement.
“Whose first instinct is to remove from a crime scene the diary of a man killed along with three other Americans serving our country, read it, transcribe it, email it around your newsroom for others to read” and then call the family?” Reines asked.
In a phone call with the Stevens family, CNN “agreed to abide by the clear wishes of the Stevens family, and pledged not to use the diary or even allude to its existence until hearing back from the family,” Reines said.
But four days later, “they just went ahead and used it,” he said.
The diary was first mentioned on-air Friday by Anderson Cooper, following previous CNN reports that Stevens feared he was on an “al-Qaida hit list” but did not mention the journal.
Cooper said that some of the information in the reports was based on Stevens’ personal journal, which he said CNN came across in its reporting.
In its online story, CNN said it found the journal on the “floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where he was fatally wounded.”
Asked to comment on CNN’s report that Stevens was concerned about a “hit list,” Reines referred to a news conference last Thursday at which Clinton was asked about it.
“I have absolutely no information or reason to believe that there’s any basis for that,” Clinton had said.
EDL – Rioting Muslims now hit Sydney, Australia (15th Sept 2012)
A word to rioting Muslims
The people who booed the God of love, now rush to the defense of a hateful Allah. The people who pissed on the Christ of redemption, now bewail the hurt feelings of a damnable Islam. The people who denounced the death of civil liberties under the Patriot Act, now make rationalizations as brown-shirted cops drag a man from his home at midnight for the crime of posting a video on YouTube.
I’m sorrowful, but I confess I’m not surprised.
Over the course of time, I have seen many people ruin and waste their lives. Good people, smart people, talented people who sacrificed the gift of existence to drugs, alcohol, bitterness, self-abuse, fear, and anger. In every case, always, I felt the root cause was unacknowledged shame.
At some point, these people had come to confront — as we all must — their cowardice, their weakness, their dishonesty, or their foolishness. Unable to accept the pain of an honest assessment of their brokenness, they turned their eyes away and practiced denial instead. In an attempt to avoid the agony of their shame indefinitely, they created whole new philosophies of life. If, for instance, they had backed down when they should have stood up, they declared nothing was worth fighting for. If they lied when they should’ve spoken true, they declared truth was an illusion. If they succumbed to desire when they should have resisted, they decided continence was a game for puritans and fools.
The Fox FIVE ask?
Sep 17, 2012
The Premodern Middle East and Postmodern West Don’t Mix, Mr. President
September 17, 2012 – 12:00 am – by Victor Davis Hanson
Globalization certainly did not bring the premodern world of the Middle East closer together with the postmodern West — despite Barack Obama’s 2007 narcissistic vows that his own intellect and background could bridge such a gap. If anything, the more we know about each other, the more we sense we are back to Lepanto and the siege of Vienna. Since the 9/11 anniversary attacks, the Obama administration has seemed bewildered, petulant, and more or less shocked in Casablanca-style fashion about the hatred shown the United States — whether overt among the Arab Street, or implicit among Arab governments’ wink-and-nod inability to protect U.S. embassies. It apparently forgot some basic rules about how to deal with radical Islam, and instead regressed back to the old familiar appeasement that led to 9/11/2001.
Mr. President, do not obsess over the pretext of the day. Terry Jones is only as crude as Andres Serrano and his Piss Christ, which I don’t recall warranted a personal call from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the artist to cool it, much less a federal effort to detain a Coptic filmmaker. Sometimes Muslims will rage at a Rushdie novel, sometimes at a papal reference to a Byzantine letter, and at other times at a supposedly flushed or torched Koran. Or maybe a grainy amateurish video will be set them off to kill a nun, blow up a priest, burn down an embassy, or assassinate a Western ambassador. There are three-hundred-million-plus free-thinking Americans, and thus at least that many possible “slights” — if you choose to go down that road of blaming free expression rather than the primeval mind that objects to it.
The opportunities for Muslims in the Middle East to be outraged at the West in general and the U.S. in particular are legion. You, Mr. Obama, the most powerful of all Americans, must remember that these totems are mere tools of an al-Qaeda, a Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic Jihad — or whatever the particular aggrieved party calls itself this week. They are no more than crude pretexts to direct fury among their ignorant and impoverished masses at opportune times against the United States, and thereby gain power.
In that regard, each time we castigate a Rushdie, a Danish cartoonist, a U.S. soldier, or a nut like Terry Jones, we simply play into the hands of the Islamists. The latter are thrilled when American grandees look weak, desperate, and only too eager to fall over themselves in undermining their own singular Constitution and distancing themselves from their own values. Far better it would be to say, one time — and only one time: “We cherish and protect freedom of expression and abhor censorship and violence; if that bothers you, it bothers you.” End of story.
2. The Sources of Islamic Anger
Remember the source of premodern Islamic anger. Why did the Zawahiri brothers, or the late bin Laden, or the Islamist of the week hate the West, and in particular the United States?
It surely is not, as their apologists plead, because of our “foreign policy.” We are enlightened compared to what Putin did in Chechnya or how Chinese treated their Muslim minorities. You, readers, know the American record better than do I: we graciously accepted Muslim refugees, even ingrates like Mohamed Morsi or the 9/11 mass murderers. We fed Somalis; helped to remove Gaddafi; freed Kuwaitis; liberated Afghans (twice); birthed Iraqi democracy; bombed Christians to save Muslim Kosovars and Bosnians; fund Jordanians, Egyptians, and Palestinians; and so on.
Instead, the wrath of the Muslim Street is elemental and existential (read The Al Qaeda Readerto fathom all the twenty or so excuses given by bin Laden for his hatred of the U.S.). It can be explained in terms something like this: Islamists have convinced the Arab masses that their present mess (so easily fathomed in a globalized world in second-by-second, instantaneous comparisons with other cultures — via cell phones, the Internet, DVDs, and cable television) is not their own fault.
Discussions of the pernicious effects of endemic tribalism, misogyny, statism, anti-Semitism, fundamentalism, religious intolerance, xenophobia, and anti-modernism are taboo. So there is never serious reflection about self-induced pathologies that keep fostering a Saddam Hussein, Muslim Brotherhood, and Ba’ath Party, or the preconditions that throughout much of the 20th century made the Arab world so susceptible to Hitlerism, then Soviet communism, then Baathism, then Western authoritarianism, then authoritarianism, and, then, or rather always back to, Islamic radicalism. The Middle East is not fascist, communist, Baathist, pan-Arabist, or Islamist, so much as it is screwed-up-ist and blame-them-ist.
If all these -isms did not exist, we would have to invent them and others as well to find scapegoats for self-induced misery. The Islamist explains to the illiterate masses that they are poor and angry because, despite their renewed zealotry and supposed ancient majesty, the evil Westerners have, quite unfairly, all the power, wealth, and influence — and yet don’t deserve it, given their godlessness, decadence, and corruption. Westerners obtained their preeminence through “crimes” like Zionism, colonialism, imperialism, etc., at a stage of Islamic vulnerability, when Muslim sellouts betrayed the Prophet and joined the enemy. And thus true believers, by sheer force of religious fervor, can slap down these Westerners, as was true in the ancient past. Presto — go torch an embassy and empower me as you leader!
That exegesis for millions in Cairo is far more comforting advice than something a bit more mundane like “treat women equally” or “look at the world empirically” or “take apart your cell phone and see how it works.”
3. Blaming Us, Not Them
The worst response to radical Islam has unfortunately become the present administration’s postmodern, so-cool policy. The Cairo fable, the al Arabiya “Bush did it” interview, the euphemisms (e.g., “man-caused disasters”), the insanity that Maj. Hasan’s murdering threatens our diversity programs, trying KSM in New York, reading Mutallab his Miranda rights, serial trashing of Guantanamo, James Clapper’s laughable assurance that the Muslim Brotherhood is “secular,” NASA’s all-important Muslim outreach, etc., at best remind the Islamists that Westerners would hardly be so self-abasing if there were not something to be ashamed about.
Our hesitancy confirms their accusations and, at worst, suggests that we are also weak and without a sense of self — and so will do very little if a true believer were to kill a diplomat, storm an embassy, or shoot Marines. And when you add in fiscal insolvency, looming defense cuts, and presidential boasting about killing bin Laden and Predator assassinating, this administration had done just enough high-fiving and spiking the ball to incite the anger of an Islamist, but not nearly enough concrete action to remind him of the dangerous consequences of such primitive anger.
Worse, in some ways, are Obama’s feeble attempts to separate himself from the history and values of the United States — almost as if to say, “They did it, don’t blame me!” Remember, Obama objected that he was but a near-infant and so blameless when Daniel Ortega to his face enumerated all his fabricated hurts against America. (If the president of the United States will not defend America in front of a communist dictator, who will?)
The entire subtext of Obama’s outreach narratives (made explicitly in his al Arabiya interview) is that his own unique pedigree and worldview have exempted him from American pathologies and thus culpability for them. In the alternate brain chemistry of the Obamites, there is no contradiction between worldwide Islamist vows to kill our diplomats or burn embassies and Obama’s much-vaunted boasts of restoring American popularity abroad. The derangement goes like this: those who hate America are mistakenly still mad at the old Bush America and have not yet evolved to duly appreciate the new Obama America. In other words, the vestiges of right-wing extremism still confuses those abroad, who have not yet caught on that America is on their side.
In the present case, bewildered press secretary Tim Carney essentially said just that: that when protestors burn flags, kill Americans, and destroy icons of American power, they aren’t really mad at us, Obama, the White House, or American foreign policy. Instead, they are just confused over disgusting Terry Jones and a reprehensible handful of Copts:
We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.
“Not…directed at the United States” — perhaps tell that to Ambassador Stevens as he suffocated to death.
4. What Must Muslims Do?
It is not brain surgery to enter the modern world. Follow some South Koreans or Chileans around for a week with a video camera. Grow up and stop blaming those on whom you depend for everything from drilling bits to laptops. Adopt the now seemingly impossible: consensual government, a bill of rights, secular tolerance for religious diversity, gender equality, meritocracy, respect for science and empiricism, a free market, and a free press. In other words, join the 21st century.
Otherwise, Westerners must make themselves as immune from Middle East passions as is possible. In that context, not tapping vast new domestic finds of gas and oil on public lands is suicidal, given that such potential income and independence would soon make the Gulf irrelevant to our survival. Let the Kuwaitis or the Iranians deal with the Chinese. Of course, elites warn us not to “overreact.” But overreacting, compared to the present radical appeasement, is the moderate, rational course.
A good start, then, would be very quietly to start trimming aid at about $100 million every month, and quite coolly rejecting visas from the Middle East (putting thousands of future Mr. Morsis on hold). We can put travel restrictions on the Middle East, and ask the Egyptian ambassador to go home for a month or so to think things over and see whether he really wishes to protect our embassy. Elites shriek, “Oh, but you’ll only isolate Morsi and alienate the moderates.” Perhaps, but we might also remind them that American friendship is based on reciprocity and must be earned rather than assumed. How odd that the only good thing that either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton has said throughout this depressing spectacle was Obama’s flub that he didn’t quite know whether Egypt, the recipient of over $1 billion in annual U.S. cash, was an ally or enemy. So only by accident does he make the Muslim Brotherhood government a tiny bit unsure of exactly how we feel or what we might do.
5. Whom to Fear?
Finally we must examine the ubiquitous Westernized Middle Easterner who appears as pundit, talking head, and the authentic voice of the Arab Street. Quite dangerous are the Mohamed Morsis of the world — men like a Sayyid Qutb or Mohammed Atta, who had spent time in the West, fled here for its protection, enjoyed its affluence, indulged in its sins, and blossomed amid its hot-house universities. These men can often be quite dangerous.
Most are intelligent and understand the self-loathing that is endemic among their postmodern Western hosts. For the Westernized anti-Americanist, being educated, working, and living in California or New York reminds him of the contrast with his own Egypt or the West Bank. That disconnect evokes all sorts of contradictory emotions: why am I so blessed in the land of the infidels and so wretched at home? Or how much penance must I undertake for satisfying over here what would be seen as illicit appetites at home? Or how can these affluent atheists have so much more than my pious brothers in the Middle East?
The Westernized Middle Easterner, energized by Western self-loathing, steeped in post-colonial theory, nursed on deconstruction, and attuned to multicultural victimology, learns quickly. Whether a Khomeini returning from a generous France, a Mohammed Atta leaving Germany, or a Mohamed Morsi arriving in Cairo, they soon hate their prior Western benefactors for reminding them how their own self-induced pathologies have led to the miasma of the Middle East — but now with no longer a nodding professor to egg them on, but rather only a mute embassy, a flag, and a diplomat to incite their passions. Poor Hillary Clinton wonders out loud how can it be that the Libyans are unappreciative of our efforts, as if such ingratitude is new and surprising, rather than old and predictable.
With the implosion of the Middle East comes the end of the mythic foreign policy of Barack Obama. Just as Russia was not reset and our enemies did not become friends, so, too, the fantasy that Barack Obama’s name, race, and lineage, when coupled with leftist politics, would win over our Middle East never arrived. All that failed — failed not just for America, but for the Nobel laureate himself. In that regard, Obama’s entire four-year project has failed: $5 trillion of borrowed stimulus did not jump-start the economy; only more federal debt and bankruptcy followed “solar and wind and millions of green jobs,” as vast new finds of oil and gas on public lands were ignored, while gas hit $4 a gallon. The problem for supporters of Obamacare is not to implement, but how to junk, this boondoggle without loss of face. Government Motors and the Volt went nowhere, and appointees like Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius, Timothy Geithner, and Janet Napolitano proved embarrassments. Now we are left with the Federal Reserve desperately printing money before the election.
There was human frenzy in 2008 that entranced millions, and now we will be paying for the wages of that madness for quite some time.
By Paul Kengor Published September 18, 2012 FoxNews.com
Imagine this: The president of the United States is George W. Bush.
At his re-election celebration at his party’s national convention, his enthusiastic supporters flood the floor with placards touting his killing of Usama Bin Laden. His vice president makes that and foreign policy the focal point of his pitch for re-electing the president. In the president’s own re-election speech, on September 6, he makes fun of his opponent’s lack of foreign-policy experience, while boasting about his alleged successes in the Middle East, from Egypt and Libya to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Three days later, Israel and Iran heat up. And yet, the president has reportedly refused a request to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
All of this as the eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001 approaches.
Then, the kicker: the Middle East explodes on September 11. It starts at the US embassy in Cairo, with scenes looking eerily like a replay outside the U.S. embassy in Tehran 33 years ago under Jimmy Carter. Mere hours later in Libya, we learn of the murder of the first US ambassador killed since the Carter years. By the end of the 9/11 week, the Middle East is engulfed in chaos, with protests against America in over 20 countries, including Iraq, and with Afghanistan suddenly witnessing a surge in violence against U.S. troops, some of whom are killed.
In a remarkable display that makes those anti-Usama signs at the convention look haughty and overconfident, Middle East demonstrators hoist pro-Usama signs and chant “Obama, we are all Usama!”
It gets worse. The American public learns a truly amazing fact of presidential incompetence: the president didn’t attend a single daily intelligence briefing in the days up to the anniversary of 9/11. Worse, he has attended a minority of daily briefings (44% of them) since becoming president. While skipping intelligence briefings, the president campaigns and meets with TV personalities and celebrities. This from a man who in his re-election speech at the convention mocked his opponent’s foreign-policy credentials.
But there’s more.
In one of his campaign interviews amid the Middle East chaos, the president states that Egypt is not a U.S. ally, prompting a public correction by no less than Jimmy Carter. Even worse, the president and his administration seem unwilling to call the Middle East attacks premeditated or even terrorism, and want to blame an anti-Mohammed video for the whole sorry thing.
On the Sunday talk shows, the president’s UN ambassador claims the action in Libya was “not a premeditated” attack. Among other claims and counter-claims, she is immediately repudiated by the Libyan president, who states categorically that there is “no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined.” And CNN reports—on top of earlier reports, most notably from the London Independent—that U.S. diplomats in Libya had been warned about the rapidly deteriorating situation three days before it occurred.
The president, bear in mind, did not attend a single daily intelligence briefing during that period. And now, the international media braces for the news that “An armada of U.S. and British naval power is massing in the Persian Gulf in the belief that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program.” This comes just days after the president had reportedly rejected an Israeli request to meet with Netanyahu.
This, as everyone knows, is just a short list of what has happened over the last week-and-a-half. And still, the president keeps campaigning and talking to celebrities.
Can you imagine how the media would react if the president we’re talking about here was George W. Bush?
Now imagine that the president is Barack Obama, and all of this is real—which it is.
Where are the New York Times’ editorials? Where are the 24/7 calls for the president’s head by CBS, CNN, and NPR? Why isn’t the White House press corps demanding explanations? Never have I witnessed the media attack a president as it did George W. Bush and protect a president as it has Barack Obama. This is extraordinary.
Mitt Romney may not be the conservative ideal, but surely he would be an improvement over this. At the very least, he wouldn’t be skipping intelligence briefings to campaign and play with celebrities. The media wouldn’t let him.
Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of the new book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor”
By Daniel Pipes
Published September 21, 2012
When Salman Rushdie mocked Islamic sanctities in his magical 1989 realist novel “The Satanic Verses,” Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini did something shockingly original: He issued a death edict on Rushdie and all those connected to the production of his book. By doing this, Khomeini sought to impose Islamic mores and laws on the West. We don’t insult the prophet, he effectively said, and neither can you.
That started a trend of condemning those in the West deemed anti-Islamic that persists to this day. Again and again, when Westerners are perceived as denigrating Muhammad, the Koran, or Islam, Islamists demonstrate, riot or kill.
Khomeini’s edict also had the unexpected side effect of empowering individuals – Western and Islamist alike – to drive their countries’ policies.
Fleming Rose, a newspaper editor, created the greatest crisis for Denmark since World War II by publishing 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad. Florida pastor Terry Jones sowed panic among American commanders in Afghanistan by threatening to burn a Koran. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and friends prompted a crisis in U.S.-Egyptian relations with his amateurish “Innocence of Muslims” video. And the satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo caused the French government to temporarily shut down diplomatic missions in 20 countries. Plans by the German satirical magazine Titanicto publish attacks on Muhammad likewise led German missions to be closed.
On the Islamist side, an individual or group took one of these perceived offenses and turned it into a reason to riot. Khomeini did this with “The Satanic Verses.” Ahmad Abu Laban did likewise with the Danish cartoons. Afghan President Hamid Karzai goaded his people to riot over burned Korans by American soldiers, and Egyptian preacher Khaled Abdullah turned “Innocence of Muslims” into an international event.
Any Westerner can now buy a Koran for a dollar and burn it, while any Muslim with a platform can transform that act into a fighting offense. As passions rise on both sides of the divide, Western provocateurs and Islamist hotheads have found each other, as confrontations occur with increasing frequency.
Which prompts this question: What would happen if publishers and managers of major media outlets reached a consensus — “Enough of this intimidation, we will publish the most famous Danish Muhammad cartoon every day, until the Islamists tire out and no longer riot”? What would happen if Korans were recurrently burned?
Would repetition inspire institutionalization, generate ever-more outraged responses, and offer a vehicle for Islamists to ride to greater power? Or would it lead to routinization, to a wearing out of Islamists, and a realization that violence is counter-productive to their cause?
I predict the latter. A Muhammad cartoon published each day, or Koranic desecrations on a quasi-regular basis, would make it harder for Islamists to mobilize Muslim mobs. Westerners could then once again treat Islam as they do other religions – freely, to criticize without fear. That would demonstrate to Islamists that Westerners will not capitulate, that they reject Islamic law, that they are ready to stand up for their values.
So, this is my plea to all Western editors and producers: Display the Muhammad cartoon daily, until the Islamists become accustomed to the fact that we turn sacred cows into hamburger.
A FEW MORE THINGS:
Libyans seeking to take their country back from the militias September 22, 2012 The Islamists may be on the run in Benghazi, but they are gathering strength in other regions of the country. More
Newt Gingrich on the Islamist Challenge September 22, 2012 “Politically correct secularists cannot understand that we are participants in a global civil war between the modernizing and irreconcilable wings of Islam.” More
Predicting Genocide September 22, 2012 Genocide has happened often enough that it is a legitimate field of study, and a very important one at that. Like hurricanes, they can be predicted. Iran is following the pattern leading up to genocide. More
Sufyan Ben Qumu may have played a role
Sep 22, 2012
Sep 21, 2012
Sep 21, 2012
Sep 21, 2012
Sep 21, 2012
Sep 21, 2012
Sep 21, 2012
Sep 21, 2012
Sep 21, 2012
Sep 20, 2012
Sep 20, 2012
Sep 20, 2012
Sep 20, 2012
Sep 19, 2012
Sep 19, 2012
Sep 19, 2012
Sep 19, 2012
Sep 19, 2012
Sep 18, 2012
Sep 18, 2012
Sep 18, 2012