In an effort to protect the delicate sensibilities of Egyptian rioters who invaded the American Embassy and tore down the American flag, Secretary of State Clinton accepted at face value the claim that the rioters were just so outraged and horrified by an anti-Muslim movie that they couldn't control themselves. While rejecting violence in a pro forma way ("There is never any justification..."), she went on to apologize for her nasty countrymen and to deplore them.... As a practical matter, Secretary Clinton's acceptance of the movie as instigator of the riots reeks of naiveté. Did it not occur to her that a purported offense against Islam might be a smoke screen for well-planned violence?.... Did it not occur to her that the anniversary of 9-11 would be a great time for Islamic enemies of the United States to launch another attack on a symbolic American target? They can't reach New York perhaps (thank you, NYPD and the Patriot Act), but an American Embassy is sovereign American soil... Ambassador Stevens' murder should infuriate Americans, who must at a minimum be wondering why U.S. Embassies in post-revolutionary Muslim countries were not better protected. The last time we were in that situation, 52 Americans spent more than a year imprisoned in the Embassy in Iran. What rules of engagement did the Marines guards have? Secretary Clinton has an unfortunate habit of trying to ingratiate herself with Muslims who can't seem to control themselves. In one of her earliest trips in 2009, she told an audience in Indonesia, "I am a Christian... Through the centuries we have had many people who have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. They have perverted the religion." It was a rookie mistake -- her religion and her opinion of its behavior are irrelevant. The government she represents is as deeply grounded in the separation of Church and State as it is in freedom of speech. Just as her religion is officially irrelevant, so is the religion of those with whom she interacts on behalf of the government. When mobs invade the sovereign territory of the U.S. abroad, when they tear down our flag and replace it with the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood, when they murder an American Ambassador and members of the Embassy staff, they are our enemies. If they are Muslim, so be it Mrs. Clinton.
The above are excerpts from Bryen's article at The American Thinker. Shoshana is director of The Jewish Policy Center.
I just have a different view. I just think it was a carefully crafted response to set up for a precison military strike in the future.Once they have determined who was responsible a show of force will soon follow.Makes sense that such a strike before election day will serve the administaion well.
ReplyDeleteguy, we certainly have shown weakness under this administration. it would be better to protect our people, rather than have to revenge them.
ReplyDeleteIf Bush were still in office, I have no doubt that one or more of the countries would be declared to have WMDs and the US would be invading regardless of the state of our military or reality.
ReplyDeleteHey, worked in Iraq.
Mike, can we really protect all our people abroad.For that matter can we expect protection on any street in this nation.
ReplyDeleteCan we protect everybody? Of course not.
DeleteCan we expect our leaders to take some obvious steps to do so? Yes.
The problem is that Obama doesn't understand the situation, and was/is arrogant enough to believe that his inauguration was enough to change the situation in the Middle East.
He continues to operate under such delusions in other areas, such as the economy.
Real problems are seldom solved with a speech read from a TelePrompTer. Obama has yet to realize this.
Der Spiegel says Obama's Middle East policy "is in flames".
ReplyDeleteEarlier this summer, der Spiegel declared the Obama Presidency "a failure".
Der Spiegel, for those who would not know, is hardly a "Conservative" or "right wing" publication.
It is, in fact, and has long been very well-known to be Liberal ...
RO
Yes we should have maintained max. presence in Iraq no matter what the cost in US treasure or blood. Agreed.
ReplyDeleteNo one said anything about maintaining maximum presence in Iraq no matter what the cost in US treasure or blood.
ReplyDeleteBut, as the November Election approaches, I am cleary stating that the smartest and greatest President in the history of the United States and his policies are a complete failure.
Enough with the pathetic apologies. Enough with the ultra-lame excuses. Enough with the goofball distractions.
RO
Ms Bryen clearly said the US should not have left Iraq.
ReplyDelete@2:04, there is no mention of iraq in this post. in her other post, she said that obama left iraq, but didn't say that he should have stayed. you misuse the word "clearly". you also misunderstood my purpose for printing ms. bryen's pieces; i did so because she articulated so well a point of view i share. it is not my intention to host a far reaching discussion on our middle east policy.
ReplyDelete