Obama Spokesman: “It’s Not Our Fault”
September 17, 2012
By Tom Barrett
Following the murder of the U.S. Ambassador and three others by Muslim terrorists on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11, White House spokesman Jay Carney stupidly blamed the violence on an amateur YouTube video. Carney claimed the terrorist attack was “…not in response to this administration or its policies. It was in response to a YouTube video that is offensive to Muslims.”
Really? The video was posted six months ago, and virtually no one in the United States was even aware of its existence until the riots began. Surely it was a coincidence that a Muslim cleric drew attention to it on the anniversary of 9-11. And the fact that a mob incited by the cleric just happened to provide cover for a sophisticated attack – an attack that involved days if not weeks of planning - must have been a coincidence as well.
And how about the other attacks on our embassies and citizens that required advanced weaponry and planning? And the fact that all these attacks were coordinated in multiple nations to take place on 9-11? More coincidence?
U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, his public information officer, and the two former Navy Seals protecting them did not die because of a simple-minded 13 minute YouTube video. They died because of U.S. weakness. So, yes, Mr. Carney, it would be fair to say that the violence in Libya and 20 other nations can be laid at the feet of the Obama administration, its cowardice, and its lack of any discernible foreign policy.
When do bullies attack? When they sense weakness. When they realize that there will be no consequences. When they recognize that those in authority will not protect the victims of their attacks.
I believe the catalyst for this latest round of violence was Obama’s petulant refusal to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (See LINK below.) Obama announced that he would be too busy campaigning to meet with the leader of our only ally in the Middle East; on that same day his staff announced that he would travel to New York to be on liberal “sicko” David Letterman’s show. He has also found time to be interviewed by a Miami talk show host who calls himself “The Pimp with a Limp,” not to mention making time for a meeting with the Egyptian head of the Muslim Brotherhood. But he has no time to meet with Israel, our most important ally in the Middle East, at a time when Iran is months away from wiping them off the map.
Snubbing Israel is like throwing gas on a fire for Islamic terrorists. If we turn on our strongest ally, we show weakness. And as Danny Danon, Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset says, “You cannot show weakness in this neighbourhood.” In a recent national interview he continued, “Appeasement will not bring stability. Our enemies are not afraid. And Israel is not sure it can rely on the U.S.”
“Appeasement will not bring stability.” Any serious student of world history knows that is true. But appeasement has been the essence of Obama’s “foreign policy” since he took office. In reality, today’s violence has its roots in Obama’s first speech in a Muslim nation, shortly after he took office.
He greeted the Egyptians with the traditional Muslim “As-Salamu Alaykum” (which is akin to Neville Chamberlain saying, “Heil Hitler” to an audience of Nazis). It wasn’t politeness. It was paying obsequious homage, much like his bowing to the Saudi king.
He then went on to tell a cheering crowd of Muslims exactly what they wanted to hear. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay within a year (one of the dozens of promises he has broken). He apologized for America’s supposed insensitivity to Islam. And he declared, “I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States.” This declaration was logically interpreted by his listeners to mean we HAD been torturing Muslims – which he knew to be a lie. But the Egyptians showed wild appreciation for his statement, cheering and clapping. They ate it up.
Since that speech in 2009 he has continued his “Obama Apology Tour,” in keeping with his ongoing policy of contrition and appeasement. I am not one of those who believe that he is a Muslim. He has shown no indication that he has any faith. I believe he is an opportunist who will use whatever he can to advance his radical agenda, no matter how much it endangers Americans and the American way of life.
For instance, he proved that he cares nothing about freedom of speech or the safety of individuals in his reaction to the anti-Muslim video on YouTube. While I consider the video mindless and needlessly antagonistic to Muslims, it was far less vile than some of those posted by Muslims – videos which include the beheading of Americans, and the enslavement and humiliation of Christians for no other reason except that they were Christians.
But Obama’s administration publicized the name of a man who (in their own words) is “suspected” of producing the video. (It was posted under a pseudonym.) By doing so, Obama endangered the man’s life and the lives of his children. Then, under pressure from U.S. Muslim groups, the White House tried to strong-arm YouTube into removing the video, completely throwing free speech out of the window.
Obama is a boot-licker and a coward who refuses to own up to his own culpability regarding the current violence toward our nation. By blaming a foolish amateur filmmaker and trashing the First Amendment he sends a clear signal to the terrorists that we are a weak nation which only invites more violence.
Speaking of weakness, terrorists look for any signs of U.S. weakness when planning their attacks. And they back down when faced with strength.
Remember Jimmy Carter, who until Obama was considered the weakest president on foreign policy? On his watch the Iranians took over our embassy and held its staff hostage for years. Then when Ronald Reagan was elected, they stumbled all over themselves releasing the hostages, knowing that Reagan would cut them off at the knees. They didn’t fear Carter, but they certainly feared Reagan.
Another weak sister in the White House was Bill Clinton. He was so busy seducing interns and having affairs with half the women in D.C. that he didn’t have time to deal with little things like the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the Marine barracks where hundreds of servicemen died, and the first World Trade Center bombing. His responses were weak and ineffective. And of course the worst rap on Clinton was that he turned down the opportunity offered to him by the government of Sudan to take custody of Osama bin Laden. He admitted to this in a speech in February, 2002, but retracted it when he testified before the 9-11 Commission in 2004.
Terrorists considered Clinton’s weakness as their “go” signal for the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The attacks, occurring only 9 months after President George W. Bush took office, took in excess of a year or more to plan according to counter-terrorism experts. Bin Laden and Company didn’t take into account that, while Bill Clinton was like Jimmy Carter, George Bush would be a whole lot more like Ronald Reagan when it came to standing up for America.
So Jimmy Carter’s weakness encouraged terrorists to storm our embassy in Iran, kill a number of Americans and take others hostage, and humiliate the United States before the entire world. Bill Clinton’s weakness in the face of multiple terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens and servicemen emboldened bin Laden (who should have long been in custody) to proceed with his plan to attack New York and the Pentagon.
And today Obama’s weakness is sending a message to Muslim terrorists all over the world: “Come and get us!” I’m not saying that he actually wants terrorists to kill more Americans – after all, he could be among those who are killed. What I am saying is that, just like Carter and Clinton, his weakness is encouraging terrorists. He mistakenly continues to think that appeasement is the way to calm things down. He has repeatedly told the Arab and Muslim communities that we like them and respect them. That is a mindset that might work with civilized people.
But these people are thugs. They don’t respond to reason, and they have no respect for weakness. They only understand superior strength. “Peace through strength” should be the U.S. motto.
How’s that concept working for the Obama administration? Well, as the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff once said, “Our greatest national security risk is the U.S. National Debt.” That makes sense because the higher the debt, the more interest we pay, resulting in less funding for national defense. Obama has increased the National Debt by nearly 50% since he took office, adding almost as much to the debt as all former presidents combined, in a period of less than 4 years.
One of Obama’s campaign promises was that he would slash the military budget by 50%. Sadly, this is one of the few promises he made that he will actually keep. As of January 2 of next year, due primarily to the Obama-orchestrated “sequestration,” automatic across-the-board military budget cuts will take effect. Domestic spending is also due to be slashed, but you can bet that if Obama is re-elected that will never happen.
So a weak economy is an invitation to terror attacks. A weak military means that we can’t defend ourselves against those attacks. A weak relationship with Israel means that they will have to go after Iran themselves to stop them from finishing their nuclear bombs. How about a weak commander-in-chief?
When Abraham Lincoln made his speech announcing the end of the Civil War, his aides wanted him to take the credit. Instead, Honest Abe gave all the credit to the military men. Other presidents throughout our history have followed that example of humility. But Barrack Hussein Obama is not among them.
Braggarts make lousy commanders-in-chief because bragging causes servicemen to lose respect for them. Having the president take personal credit for the work they do infuriates them. Obama made three major mistakes with regard to the raid that ended with the death of Osama bin Laden.
First, he used it to launch his re-election campaign. The heroes who executed the mission knew that we had the intel on bin Laden’s location long before we acted upon it. And they knew that they were being used as pawns in his political game by going in just before he launched his official campaign. “Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!” made a great (if dishonest) campaign slogan for Obama. But it earned him the undying contempt of the brave special services operators who actually performed the mission; and it should earn him the contempt of every patriot.
Second, he took credit for it, but had a fall guy ready to take the blame if the mission failed. Speaking of the political “risk” Obama took, Bill Clinton said, “think of the downside for the Obama campaign if those Seals had been captured or killed.” What about the “downside” for the guys who might have been killed? This wasn’t just “Slick Willie” running off at the mouth. This has been a recurring theme of the Obama administration – how “gutsy” it was for the president to make that “difficult call.” This is just one more reason why military people loathe him.
Finally, he and Joe Biden “outted” our Seals who performed the mission, putting every one of them and their wives and children in the crosshairs of Muslim fanatics. When the Obama administration revealed that Seal Team Six had taken out bin Laden, at first there was stunned silence. It is unheard-of for secret operatives to be made public in this way.
Remember Valerie Plame and the huge deal Democrats made of it when her name was made public? She was an operations officer, a low-level civilian employee of the CIA, not an undercover operative. She was not endangered when her name was revealed. (And, as it turned out, it was a Democrat who inadvertently outted her.)
But the members of Seal Team Six were infuriated – and scared – when they found out that the Obama administration had violated their secrecy for political gain. The family of Navy Seal Aaron Vaughn, who was killed in Afghanistan, revealed how frightened he was when he learned of it. Seals are tough men, not easily frightened. But Vaughn called his parents to warn them to immediately remove every reference to him and his fellow Seal Team Six buddies from their social media, because of the target that had been placed on him and his family by Obama’s actions. The Islamic fanatics now knew the identities of the men who had killed their hero, Osama bin Laden.
Just as Obama instructed his staff to stop using the term “War on Terror” when he took office, he has refused to call the murders of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Public Information Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Gene Dougherty and Tyrone Woods what they were – terrorism. Why is he so afraid to offend Muslims when they are murdering our citizens?
These acts of terrorism are not the result of an obscure movie clip that remained unknown on YouTube for six months before it was trotted out by an Egyptian Muslim “cleric” to provide cover for planned 9-11 anniversary attacks. Former FBI Agent and current Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers, calls the attacks “sophisticated” and says that early intel suggests serious planning. Other military and intelligence experts – including the former Army Vice-Chief of Staff General Jack Keane – have called the attacks “coordinated” and “well-researched.”
There have been FIVE previous terror attacks in Benghazi. A top Libyan government official has stated unequivocally that the latest Benghazi terrorist attack in which Ambassador Stevens was murdered was “pre-planned.” Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attack, stating that it was in response to the killing of one of their leaders by the United States.
So why is the Obama Administration frantically placing the blame on an unknown filmmaker? Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice says, “This is not an expression of hostility towards the United States or its policies.” She then went on to parrot the Obama idiom that the YouTube video was to blame.
If thousands of Muslims screaming “death to the USA,” invading our embassies and murdering our Ambassador is not “hostility towards the United States,” what would constitute hostility in her dim-witted view?
There is only one reason why Obama is using the full power of the U.S. government to blame a YouTube video, and why his press department (i.e., the entire liberal U.S. mainstream media) is willing to collaborate. That reason is to divert the blame from where it belongs. As long as Obama can maintain the myth that he understands foreign relations, he has a chance at re-election. If the American people were to learn the truth, they would vote for anyone but Obama.
Ambassador Susan Rice is urging Americans to wait for the results of the “investigation” into the recent coordinated terrorist activity in two dozen nations is a result of the YouTube video. I have two thoughts on this matter. First, the Obama administration will be investigating itself – not something that gives in confidence in the results. Second, if they are unable to cover up the real reason for the attacks, how much do you want to bet that the results won’t be released until after the election?
Obama makes time for Letterman, but not Israeli PM Netanyahu
White House Planned to shield Obama by Blaming Navy
Report: Marines in Egypt Had No Ammo