Green Room

The Libyan embassy killings carry the same old unconscionable message

posted at 1:17 pm on September 12, 2012 by

The two campaigns are at each others’ throats this morning over their several responses to the senseless and brutal murders of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American members of his staff on Sept. 11. The Romney campaign released a statement expressing its outrage over the savage killings as well as over the Obama administration’s kneejerk reaction, which was to sympathize with the attackers before later condemning their acts. Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt returned fire, accusing Romney of politicizing the atrocities.

There is no question that the official administration position, articulated in a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, amounts to an apology to the attackers. The second sentence of the statement—“The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”—should shock and offend anyone who professes to love this country and the notion of freedom.

As for Romney’s reaction, the criticism of the administration, though entirely justified, should have been left to those who have his back in the blogosphere. It does seem petty and calculating for him to take Obama to task in a recorded reaction to an atrocity.

What is getting lost in the back-and-forth is the distressingly familiar nature of that atrocity. Once again, a film is made by an individual living in the West that is critical of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad. So what is the reaction of practitioners of the prophet’s teachings? They commit cold-blooded murder—and not of the filmmaker, mind you (who, n.b., is an Israeli living in California), but of whatever American happens to be handy. In this case they settled for U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who is shown in one disturbing photograph being dragged unconscious through the streets of Benghazi prior to his execution.

A video report on the attacks is here.

The whole unconscionable incident seems to suggest that maybe that prophet and his teachings are deserving of some criticism.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

You nailed it, Howard.

I’m surprised that our oh-so-politically-correct Liberals are not screaming about the “soft bigotry of low expectations”. Nobody expects Muslims to behave in appropriate fashion, so they continue to live down to that lack of expectation. Can you imagine the world’s shock and dismay had a group of Christians attacked a Muslim country’s embassy for Islam’s daily dissing of Christianity and Christians? Or maybe an attack by Buddhists in southern Thailand sick of the all too frequent attacks on Buddhists by Muslims?

But no, the world simply pats Islam on the head, murmurs, “There, there, don’t fret” and moves on.

catsandbooks on September 12, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Wasn’t there recently a theme that Dear Liar was going to run as the Foreign Policy President? If so, then he owns this debacle. Attending fundraisers rather than security briefings? Too busy appearing on Letterman to meet with Netanyahu? Losing Egypt? Utter disaster on foreign policy. At least as bad as Carter. Though Jimmy at least challenged the USSR on Afghanistan.

rbj on September 12, 2012 at 1:45 PM

An attack on an embassy used to be considered an act of war. Why is it not any longer – especially since Iran 1979.
What are the rules of engagement for the Marine guards at our embassies? If not to shoot to kill any armed intruders/invaders – why not?

dentarthurdent on September 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Wasn’t there recently a theme that Dear Liar was going to run as the Foreign Policy President?

Yes, quite right. In ’08 he said that because he lived from age 5 to age 10 in a foreign country, he had the correct sensibilities required to conduct foreign policy. One of his slogans was “Judgement To Lead”. That hasn’t worked out so well has it? We can certainly blame Obama, but what do we do about the millions of stupid voters who put him in office? He’ll soon be gone but those stupid Americans will still be here to commit more mayhem with their votes.

SpiderMike on September 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

There is no question that the official administration position, articulated in a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, amounts to an apology to the attackers. The second sentence of the statement—“The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”

LOL @ Hillary C……these ignoramuses didn’t issue that memo to the Catholic church regarding the introduction of contraception in Catholic hospitals and clinics or educational institutions …did they?

DevilsPrinciple on September 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM

That’s easy. Just re-task those FEMA camps they have been prepping for us…

/sarc

Joe Mama on September 12, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I menat to paste this in first:

We can certainly blame Obama, but what do we do about the millions of stupid voters who put him in office? He’ll soon be gone but those stupid Americans will still be here to commit more mayhem with their votes.

SpiderMike on September 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Joe Mama on September 12, 2012 at 4:37 PM

meant.

time to log off until I can type.

Joe Mama on September 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM

“The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”—should shock and offend anyone who professes to love this country and the notion of freedom.

So religious tolerance shocks and offends Americans?

lexhamfox on September 12, 2012 at 4:41 PM

—“The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

…unless those “others” are Catholic, Jewish, or any other religion that doesn’t kill people who ridicule them.

DrAllecon on September 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

So religious tolerance shocks and offends Americans?

In this context I would hope so.

Howard Portnoy on September 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM

“The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”

So all these people so shocked and horrified by the heretofore unheard of youtube video at issue were just as upset when Bill Maher’s Religulous came out in theaters, right?

(For the record, I don’t think the government should be “deploring” or “condemning” either one. And private citizens are, of course, free to deplore or condemn or love or celebrate either one. But there is some pretty amazing hypocrisy on display regarding which “denigrations of religious belief” are acceptable and which are not.)

butterflies and puppies on September 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM

An attack on an embassy used to be considered an act of war. Why is it not any longer – especially since Iran 1979.

dentarthurdent on September 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Presumably it still is thus considered but when your enemies offer you war, you don’t necessarily have to accept, or to accept on their terms.

In these two cases it would be futile to treat the attacks as acts of war, because it is not at all clear that the local governments or the population en masse supported the attacks and, more importantly, there is nothing to be won.

The politics of the western world is configured to cope with territorial conflicts — fights over land, or sea access or resources. This is an ideological conflict, and the “west”, with its diversity of ideologies, is not well equipped socially and politically to fight a shooting war about ideas. Hence the barbarians keep jabbing and the civilised world can’t work out how to effectively respond.

The USA could bomb something but blowing-up stuff wouldn’t achieve anything of value for the USA. On the contrary, it would just stir up greater animosity in other regions. No territory would be gained and there would be no ideological victory either … so not a good response at all, no matter how emotionally satisfying it might be.

YiZhangZhe on September 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Here’s the thing: for all that these attacks are on our embassy, we are not the intended audience. It isn’t us they are trying to intimidate, it is their fellow citizens. This is all about petty tyrants trying to stomp their boots in the faces of those threatening to slip out of their grasp by being to “western”.
Just as it was with the fascists, just as it was with the communists.

Count to 10 on September 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Ah, so the bullsh1t from BO this morning about how wonderful it was that the LIbyans “carried him to the hospital” was precisely that – bullsh1t.

Nuke that entire f-ing country once and for all. And accidentally drop one on Cairo while you’re at it.

Midas on September 12, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I’ve read from other sources that the pictures being distributed were of the ambassador being taken to the hospital by other Libyans, not dragged through the streets as with Somalian and Iraqi followers of that “religion of peace.” If so, good for them.

But it still doesn’t leave The One and his apologetic minions blameless for either leaving the consulate unprotected in such a dangerous place, or for offering apologies to the savages.

I agree with Ripley: “I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”

Al_H on September 12, 2012 at 9:28 PM

I disagree that Romney shouldn’t have condemned Obama’s response to the attack. Only libs will be dumb enough to buy that Romney was “exploiting” the attack, and anyway, he’s Obama’s opponent. This is what we expect, isn’t it? To criticize Obama for his failures and missteps, of which there are many? He hasn’t done enough of it but now we’re going to edge away from him when he condemns one of Obama’s biggest failure’s yet? No. No, we should not do that. We should support Romney’s condemnation 100% and hold it up as the ultimate refutation of Obama’s so-called foreign policy success.

R. Waher on September 13, 2012 at 4:11 AM

There is no question that the official administration position, articulated in a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, amounts to an apology to the attackers.

Absolutely no question. Especially since her televised statement today also included the phrase “the outer limits of free expression”.

Excuse me what? Please show me that subsection of the 1st amendment Hillary.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on September 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Presumably it still is thus considered but when your enemies offer you war, you don’t necessarily have to accept, or to accept on their terms.
YiZhangZhe on September 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM

True – you could just let the mob kill you in any way they please. If you want to be a pacifist and gladly die at the hands of a violent mob – go ahead.

But you missed my point – which is justifiable deadly force for self-defense in the face of deadly force and intent.
Upon being attacked by a mob of uncivilised animals intent on killing whoever is there – as the mob in Libya as well as most anti-American Muslim mobs have proven – I would prefer to defend myself and those around me – and everyone at all of our embassies and consulates should have the same option. We may actually hold them off and survive, but even if we don’t, I would rather go down fighting.

dentarthurdent on September 13, 2012 at 4:25 PM

In these two cases it would be futile to treat the attacks as acts of war, because it is not at all clear that the local governments or the population en masse supported the attacks and, more importantly, there is nothing to be won.
YiZhangZhe on September 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

If the local population cheered on the attackers and the governments did nothing to stop the attacks, then they do in fact implicitly support them.
THAT is the problem wordwide with the so-called religion of peace. As long as the majority of the supposed “moderate” Muslim population does nothing to stop the widespread murder and terrorism of the Islamists, then they are part of the problem, and by their inaction demonstrate support.

dentarthurdent on September 13, 2012 at 4:32 PM