I can see why she’s “somewhat troubled.” If there’s one thing the Democratic Party stood for between 2003 and 2008, it’s the principle that the opposition party should tread lightly when criticizing the president lest it inflame opinion abroad.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended President Obama’s apology to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and warned that the GOP’s condemnation of the apology could further “inflame” the situation.
Last week, U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan accidentally burned some Qurans, which sparked deadly protests in the country. Obama apologized to Karzai for the “unintentionally mishandled” books – a move that has been criticized by some Republicans.
“I find it somewhat troubling that our politics would inflame such a dangerous situation in Afghanistan,” Clinton told CNN on Monday.
Which Republican soundbite, I wonder, does she think has “inflamed” a situation that’s already inspired Afghan lunatics to launch suicide attacks on NATO bases and shoot American troops point blank in the head? I haven’t heard of a single case of someone abroad grumbling about Newt Gingrich’s rhetoric; I have read a lot of quotes from Muslims venting their rage at infidels who would dare disrespect Islam by burning the Koran. A choice bit of opportunistic propaganda from the leader of Iran’s brownshirts:
“The US has committed such an ugly action and burnt Quran because of the heavy slap it has been given by Islam,” Commander of Iran’s Basij (volunteer) force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi said on Saturday.
He stressed Muslims’ sensitivity to the crimes underway in Afghanistan by the US forces, and said Muslims do not accept the US apology, because it makes numerous military mistakes and then just asks for the Afghans’ apology, and this is not acceptable.
“Nothing but burning the White House can relieve the wound of us, the Muslims, caused by the Burning of Quran in the US,” he underscored.
“Their apology can be accepted only by hanging their commanders; hanging their commanders means an apology,” he reiterated.
At best, the repeated apologies have been ineffective; at worst, they’re a pretext for cretins like this to further incite the masses. Although, in fairness to him, the apologies are insincere: As always when the world scrambles to condemn an affront to Islam, the urgency is driven not by “sensitivity” but by fear that innocents will start dying if proper respect isn’t quickly paid. The fact that there have been so many apologies this time — one from the president, one from the top NATO commander, and one from a Pentagon official to Muslims in Washington — is ironically proof of how insincere it all is, a frantic means to the end of getting people to calm down already. (Remember, while Obama was quick to apologize for burned books, he still hasn’t apologized yet for those NATO airstrikes that killed more than 25 Pakistani troops. Simple math: The death toll from the former is likely to exceed the latter, if it hasn’t already, so he’s forced to move fast.) If some Afghan mufti could give O a hard and fast number of apologies that would, guaranteed, get people out of the streets, I’m sure he’d comply in check-the-box fashion simply in order to save lives. Which is to say, there’s no real “respect” being paid with all this groveling. Respect for Muslim sensibilities shrinks worldwide with each new rampage. But arguably — arguably — it’s the best way to minimize the amount of bloodletting. See Krauthammer in the second clip below for a counterargument to that.
Anyway, don’t take Hillary’s nonsense personally. By now you should know that anytime an aggrieved lunatic runs amok, if Democrats can use it to scapegoat the right, they will. Just how they roll.
Update: A commenter reminds me of this golden oldie soundbite.