Saturday, September 15, 2012

Fruits of a Policy of Appeasement

Before I get into the rant on the fecklessness of our so-called "President" and his administration, I want to ask everyone to send their prayers to the families of Ambassador Stevens and the others, including 2 former Seals working detail at the embassy, killed in the violence perpetrated by the followers of the "Religion of Peace".  I can only pray that some of the reports coming out of the Middle East concerning what happened to our Ambassador turn out to be nothing more than rumor.  From what we've seen from these animals in the past, however, I fear that the worst we've heard is the least of what occurred.  May God accept the victims into His care, and may He comfort those they leave behind.

Now, on to the matter at hand this week.  Namely, the actions--and inactions--of our President.  The man who many claimed would calm Middle East tensions simply by being who he is.  The man who began his term as President of the United States by going on a world tour of apologies for the very country he is supposed to protect and promote the interests of.  The man who said that his political opponent shouldn't have made any statement about the attacks on our Embassies and our people because he "shoots first and aims later" (hey, at least our guy is a straight shooter, doesn't need a teleprompter, actually takes and answers questions at a press conference and doesn't feel a need to poll test every remark).  The man who claims that his political opponent shouldn't be considered for President because of his assumed lack of foreign policy experience.  As if the policies of appeasement followed by Obama and his administration have been so effective in improving America's image and security in the world.  At least Gov. Romney's remarks were Presidential.  He defended America and condemned the attacks in no uncertain terms.  Obama, et al apologized.

During the primary season in 2008, Hillary Clinton ran one of her most effective ads, the "3am Phone Call", questioning Barack Obama's qualifications to handle just such a situation as this.  Well, now we know just what his reaction to such a call is:  He. Went. Back. To. Bed!

He apparently didn't consider the attacks serious enough to even lose a night's sleep monitoring the situation.  After all, he had to get his beauty sleep for his fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day.

His detractors have long said that his sympathies lie more with the Islamist's causes than with America's.  Behavior like this just gives more credence to such claims.

It has been reported that President Obama has attended less than half of his Daily Intelligence Briefing's (in contrast to former President George W. Bush, who held these briefings as the first order of business every day he was in office).  The last one Obama attended was back on the 6th of September.  The Intelligence Committee was briefed just the day before that such a protest/attack on our Embassies was likely.

There are further reports from reputable sources that the Obama administration had word of the pre-planned protests as much as 48 hours before they occurred.  And did nothing.  Ambassador Stevens was enroute back to his post in Libya and received no warning from the man responsible for his safety concerning the environment he was returning to.

It was the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, yet there were no plans in place to provide for increased security at our Embassies or other sensitive sites in the region.  One can only guess that Obama believed that because of the transformational nature of his Presidency and it's assumed effect on the people of the Middle East that nothing would happen (I guess he's never seen footage of just how this anniversary is celebrated by our "friends" in the Middle East).  When the attacks came, the first action taken by the administration was the release of a statement by the American Embassy in Cairo, Egypt apologizing for the content of a YouTube video (supposedly the cause of the unrest) that mocked the "Prophet" Mohammed in hopes of calming the crowd and convincing them not to riot.  We can see how well that worked out.

Now that the riots are spreading across the world, the appeasement continues.  The Feds are now questioning the supposed producer/director of the video.  Are we really on the verge of subsuming the Constitutional guarantee's of Freedom of Speech to geo-political concerns?  This video had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks other than to provide a convenient excuse for the Islamists to hide behind.  The online video was posted as a "trailer" for a movie.  The movie was screened (for an audience of less than 10) several months ago.  If a 17 minute video trailer is the cause of this much unrest, how much more the full length movie?  No, the attacks were an orchestrated event timed to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary, a fact being confirmed by our intelligence services.  Still, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and other administration officials are continuing to apologize for the video in a vain attempt to quell the uprisings, projecting weakness throughout the region not only to our enemies, but also to those who would be allies.  Every leader in the region conducts the business of their country from a position of strength.  The culture of that region is such that kindness and apologies are seen as signs of weakness and indicate a lack of fitness to rule.

Let me get this straight.  We are under assault and as a country our reaction is to apologize to those assaulting us?  Talk about looking weak!  Bullies and terrorists have at least one thing in common, they always attack where they see weakness.  Apologizing for the actions of the dimwit who posted the "trailer" only served to further inflame the mob.  Apologies confirm that you feel guilty, to these people.  Therefore, if you apologize, by definition, you are guilty.

We had no reason to apologize.  The film was not/is not a reflection of American beliefs.  However, one of the fundamental differences between our country and others is the existence of the 1st Amendment right to free speech.  Other countries, especially those in the Middle East, don't really understand this.  They live under totalitarian regimes where the governments are all-powerful and control virtually every aspect of their lives and nothing appears in media without the express approval of the government.  As a result, they are easily led to believe that the mere existence of such a video is proof that America supports those views.

Foreign Embassies are considered to be sovereign soil, as inviolate as the countries they represent.  As such, it is the host country's responsibility to ensure the security of the Embassies, as well as the safety of their employees.  Armed attacks on these Embassies, much less on our Ambassadors themselves, qualify as Acts of War by all international laws and treaties.  The assassination of an Ambassador by itself qualifies as an Act of War against his/her home country.  And Obama, et al apologize.

When the mob moved in on our Embassy in Cairo, Egyptian security was strangely absent and the mob was allowed to break the perimeter, climbing over the wall and gaining access to the Embassy itself (by order of our President and State Dept., the Marines guarding the compound were not allowed to carry loaded weapons.  The assault on the Embassy should have resulted in a live fire exercise but  our President and his administration don't want to offend anyone by allowing our people to defend themselves), while in Libya it has been reported that Libyan security forces initially moved the Ambassador and staff to the safe house, then their location was leaked to the mob by someone in the security force, resulting in the death's of our representative and his staff.  And Obama, et al apologize.

President Obama has only recently begun to denounce the attacks (although he prefaces his remarks with an apology for offending Muslims).  As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap".  We, as citizens, and the rest of the world need to see action.  Concrete consequences to the actions of the terrorists and the inaction of the governments that allowed and/or promoted the attacks (Pres. Morsi of Egypt is the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, long considered a terrorist organization and a promoter/organizer of these very protests).

The first of the consequences should be the suspension, or revocation, of any and all foreign aid to these countries until, and unless, they cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of these terrorists.  They should also be put on notice that America will be conducting it's own operations aimed at tracking down these murderous animals and that any interference from them will result in further penalties.  They should also be required to provide reparations to the U.S. for damages done.

Former President Bush was castigated by the left for his statement "If you're not with us, you're against us".  concerning the prosecution of the War on Terror.  Then they came up with soft-sounding phrases to replace War on Terror, which they considered too "provocative", with phrases like, "Overseas Contingency Operation", "Man Caused Disasters" and "Workplace Violence" in an attempt not to offend Muslims/Islamists.

Former President Bush, et al stood strong for America and it's culture of freedoms and individual rights.  President Obama, et al apologize.

No comments:

Post a Comment