The 9/11 v. 2.0 excuse: Obama almost admits to reality, but it should be too late for that

MIAMI — President Barack Obama said Thursday that extremists used an anti-Islam video as an excuse to assault U.S. interests overseas, including an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The president’s comments came as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton faced questions from members of the House and Senate about the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi in a series of closed-door classified briefings on Capitol Hill.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of misreading the assault as the outgrowth of widespread demonstrations in the Middle East over the video. They insisted it was a terrorist attack, a term White House spokesman Jay Carney used on Thursday. Obama did not use the phrase.

Read more (via Wash Post, from AP):
Obama: Extremists used anti-Islam video as ‘excuse’ for attack against US interests

The White House, from Jay "mouthpiece" Carney to Barack Obama, have been avoiding one thing: admitting the obvious connection between September 11, 2012, deaths in Libya, the 9/11 attacks of 2001, and Obama's misguided foreign policy of pandering and appeasement toward the less civil parts of the Muslim world.

Whether a hawk or a dove, it mystifies me how anyone -- that is, those who actually follow world conflicts and understand bona fide repression of people -- couldn't see that an ambassador died because extremist Muslims hate America and wanted to jab at the open wound of 9/11 because they felt they could get away with it. (That they could get away with it because Obama is a limp leader on the world stage.) I don't see how anyone didn't connect the timing of the widespread American flag burnings and attacks and murders in the Middle East, the coming election, and the fallacy sold to us by the White House and left-wing media of the Arab Spring. But the mass media sure was confident about connecting some crappy film to the violence!

Worst of all, I don't see how the media could play along with the head-covering at the White House and not be cast down as the propaganda wing of the White House. I accept that Obama is a self-absorbed professorial cad with no need to be a real leader, but I expect -- DEMAND -- more from the people who are supposed to report the news, not be a PR firm for the Democratic (really driven by Progressive policy, not democracy) political machine.

It is simple: Obama's clumsy, pandering, unrealistic, classroom pontificating, weak stance on Muslim extremism is at fault for these actions, more than any match (an awful movie) that arsonists (blood-lusting, freedom-hating, hyped-up Muslim radicals) used to set them off.

I wish a relative soft-touch attitude and an occasional drone bombing were enough to help order to overtake chaos in the Middle East, but it cannot. The Obama Administration's relatively hands-off approach to the long-repressive states in which extremism exists, and has now flourished since the supposed Arab Spring, was the cause of 9/11 version 2.0, not the terrible movie (terrible in several ways) on YouTube.

When 9/11 2.0 happened, Obama went to raise money in Las Vegas, avoided a personal White House visit with Netanyahu (maybe only to keep the Israeli leader from also meeting publicly with Romney in the same visit?), and had time to sit and chat with a fake pirate. Oh yeah, and David Letterman. What did he say about the events happening in the Middle East? That a movie was to blame.


Heck, Obama even had his State Dept. produce and run ads in Pakistan asserting the obvious fact that the U.S. Government does not run Hollywood and all wack-jobs who make weird, bad, insulting, anti-Muslim movies. With Obama's deep financial and political connections to the left in Hollywood and all of entertainment, I guess he had to make it clear that Hollywood and the White House are not officially attached?

Anybody in Pakistan who isn't well-versed on America could reasonably assume that Obama and far left Hollywood, and thus all U.S. film making, was under his supervision.

Rather than sell, for $35, U.S. flags defaced by his campaign's "O" logo, Obama would be more sincere if he changed the "O" for Obama logo to a one-finger salute graphic for how he's approaching his job while he campaigns to keep that job. I don't know what the symbol for "abdication of responsibility" is, so that's the best I can come up with.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Post a Comment