Friday, September 14, 2012

The Middle East on Fire - Some Observations

The deadly protests are spreading, and not just in the Muslim world.  They have now reached the shores of The United Kingdom.  Protesters have died in at least 3 countries, but it is still early yet.
We have seen verbal attacks on free speech, that should terrify every American.  Especially when they come for the press that is trying to carry water for the President.  Instead of focusing on the real issues, the press is attacking Governor Romney.  One can make the argument that the embassy in Cairo was trying to create calm by sending the message it did.  Fair enough.  But in President Obama's speech on the matter the next day, it seems the press missed this sentence:
While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,
The United States does no such thing; Urine JesusThe Da Vinci CodeThe Last Temptation of Christ, and let us not forget the lovely billboards that the rabid atheists display every year at Christmas.  Governor Romney's statement was not only accurate, it needed to be said.  The first, guttural, reaction of the Obama administration was to cower to the demands of lunatics that use any excuse to kill people, and then lecture us on what we should and should not say.

The really sad part is, that many of the people at these protests are useful idiots who can't see for themselves that they are being used by extremists. They gin up these people about how America hates them and is trying to destroy Islam. The vast majority of Americans could have cared less about Islam before 9/11. Many didn't even know who UBL even was, even though he already was involved in the deaths of Americans. The hatred they feel is something that the terrorists have brought upon them and they are too blind to see it.  But I am supposed to curtail my rights to free speech to make them feel better about themselves.  No such luck buddy, not happening.
Free speech does not mean that people can say what they want as long as it doesn't offend anyone else.  It means that people will be offended, because at some point an opinion that you don't agree with will be voiced.

The statements that have come from the leaders in The Middle East contain the same type of asterisk.  The Prime Minister of Egypt:
"We ask the American government to take a firm position toward this film's producers within the framework of international charters that criminalise acts that stir strife on the basis of race, colour or religion."
You can read my response to him here.

The reports are saying that there was advanced warning of these attacks (which only goes to show this has nothing to do with some stupid movie trailer) yet the embassy in Cairo had marines without bullets and Benghazi had virtually no security whatsoever.  Whomever is in charge of the security for the oversees bases at State should be fired for cause.  Immediately.  This was posted online before the attacks even took place, it is hard to deny that there was not some form of advanced warnings of the attacks.

We keep hearing from the media and those on the left that we should be understanding of the feelings of Muslims.  One must then ask the question why then is the killing of bin Laden a cornerstone of the President's re-election campaign?  Doesn't this "hurt" their feelings too?  Details, details....

Before any of the violence broke out we heard reports that President Obama doesn't meet with his security people to get his security briefing more than half the time since he became president.  I am not going to use that to base a false assumption that he isn't reading the briefings.  The chances are he is.  President Bush wasn't given this briefing face to face daily either.  But, where I will object is to the fact that the week leading up to the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks the President couldn't make time to meet face to face with these people at least once?  That I find almost unforgivable.  al Qaeda is very well-known for using symbolism in their attacks.  The probability for at least an attempt of an attack on that date was high.  He should be meeting with the security council face to face during that week.  The idea that you can gauge things the same way when you are talking to someone face to face as you do with the highly impersonal written report is simply stupid.  This should have been a priority.

Today the bodies of those who died were flown back to the U.S.  Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton were on hand to "greet" (a term that I hate) the bodies.  Both of which gave a speech that was directed at both the families in mourning as well as the entire country.  I am glad that he made time in his schedule for this duty.

To be fair, President Obama is in tough spot.  The campaign is 53 days (and counting) away.  He is behind Romney in the money race.  While the "polls" are showing Obama ahead in many of the swing states, anyone that knows how to read the internals of a poll, knows that isn't really accurate.  The media driven polls are slanted (a post to come to show you what I mean) to show that Obama is ahead.  The problem is no polling agency has better polling then a major campaign.  The fact that OFA is now spending resources in Wisconsin is very telling indeed.  I do believe that they are fully aware that they are in trouble.  Their polling may not show him losing the campaign, but it shows that he is going to have to work far harder for it then he did in 08.  But none of this is going to make the optics any less shocking.  The first tweet from the OFA campaign today was this:
The election is in 53 days Pitch in $10 now
This was sent hours AFTER the news broke that the German embassy in The Sudan had been breached, an Islamic flag raised, and set on fire.  This comes on the heals of him spending the evening in Las Vegas, an announcement of a very expensive per plate fundraiser in Hollywood, and Jay-Z and Beyonce.  The thing is this, had he cancelled his appearance at least the Vegas fundraiser he would be in far better shape.  They could have sent Joe or some other Obama lackey to fill in.   The media and the left would have eaten up as proof of how hard he was working to for the American (gag) people.  Instead he goes, while there he tells a bunch of campaign volunteers that they are just like the embassy workers.  Really?  Did one of them just get murdered too?  The optics are horrible, and like it or not optics matter.

I can't imagine all the above is helping in his effort to get re-elected.  But, we will have to wait and see.  53 days to go.


Sandy Salt said...

nothing will derail the O's bid in the media, they want more of the same

we need to keep pounding the keyboard and letting as many people as we can know that there is an alternative to the O

Opus #6 said...

Good rant, CG. Obama does not have an empathetic bone in his body. Pathetic, more like.

net observer said...

just, I continue to admire the way you pose thoughtful, direct, pull-no-punches conservative arguments, even though admittedly I probably don't agree with you more than half the time. Regardless, it remains quite clear that you're a serious, honest thinker. More importantly, you're consistent.

Having said all that, I have a question that I have been dying to ask you. And for the record I am not seeking a "back n forth" argument or anything like that. I simply want to know your perspective on this.

just, why do think we have seen, over the last decade, various GOP-ers and/or conservatives dropping their affiliation with the GOP and/or the conservative movement? The more visible examples obviously include people like Colin Powell to Michael Fumento. But there are many other nameless/faceless persons who fit this category. (I happen to be one of them)

But all that aside, and assuming that you agree with my premise, why do you think this is the case?

(For what it's worth, I honestly don't think Obama would have much of a chance in this election if the typical voice of conservatism/GOP sounded like you. There's obviously know way I can know that for sure, but it sure seems that way to me)

I would absolutely appreciate your indulgence in this regard.

Just a conservative girl said...

The list of democrats that have left the party is far longer than the republicans. Charlie Crist shouldn't even count as he became an independent two years ago when the voters from Florida kicked him to the curb for Rubio.

I think the country has become more polarized since Obama has taken office. Which is quite a feet considering how polarized we were during the Bush administration.

Colin Powell was always a moderate, he was never a conservative. The GOP is becoming more conservative (Thank heavens as far as I am concerned), but at the same time the dems are becoming more progressive.

The country is still center right; something I don't see changing anytime soon.

The Tea Party came into existence out of necessity, not vanity or racism as the left would like people to believe.

The gravy train is over and only the willfully blind don't see it. We can't keep spending money we don't have. Our credit rating has been downgraded yet again. We can't stay on this fiscal path. The republicans that are not ready to make the real commitment to cutting spending will leave the party. I am not sorry to see them go.

The election is Romney's to lose. He needs to stay focused, disciplined, and talk about his vision of what his administration can accomplish. The majority of the country understands the fiscal reality. He just needs to sell himself as the one to fix it. Otherwise they will dance with the devil they know.

Conservative bloggers will keep pounding away to dismiss the outright lies the media is allowing Obama to get away with. I do think that this whole Mid-East thing isn't going to help him in the least. People who are paying attention see what I have always believed to be true, a weak American president means an unstable world. Which is why I could never vote for Ron Paul, even though I agree with him almost 100% on fiscal issues. The world would go to hell in a hand basket with him at the helm. His weakness would be exploited, even more than Obama's has been.

net observer said...

"The list of democrats that have left the party is far longer than the republicans"

My initial instinct here was to agree with you. But maybe it depends on how we look at it.

If we're talking about the last 10-20 years, sure. But if we narrow it down to the last, say, three to five years, and then focus on private citizens (not politicians or pundits), we may find that today's new self-described "independents" (many of whom I like to call "hybrids"), don't lean so lopsidedly in either direction. Admittedly I don't have the stats/facts to confirm this. Just my anecdotal observations.

"The GOP is becoming more conservative (Thank heavens as far as I am concerned), but at the same time the dems are becoming more progressive."

That, too, appears to be the case, generally speaking. But I would posit other potential factors. For example, I'm not so sure the terms "conservative" and "liberal/progressive" mean what they meant decades ago. Such variations in definition alone could affect how we assess the purity of the parties today.

(Would Ronald Reagan be a Tea Party favorite today? I don't know)

Putting all that aside, and for whatever it's worth (not much, I'm sure), I think Obama, for better or worse, is about to win a second term. It just seems to me that Romney is going to need a lot more than what is probable.

I think Romney needs at LEAST one STELLAR debate performance (and/or a total implosion from Obama); possibly combined with a most shockingly disturbing jobs report next month; possibly combined with, sad to say, even MORE chaos in the already historically chaotic Middle East.

Considering how a weak jobs report followed by a 9/11-dated Libya tragedy hasn't rocked Obama much at all, I just can't envision a calm, paced, incremental march to the end-zone for Romney.

I guess I disagree with you. I don't think it's solely in Romney's hands.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Google Analytics Alternative