Obama thinks his presence makes us safer
By SHERMAN FREDERICK
Take a stroll down memory lane to Nov. 21, 2007. Then obscure (but still self-absorbed) U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said he — and he alone — possessed the unique qualities needed to stabilize the Muslim world.
Here’s what he said on New Hampshire Public Radio:
“I truly believe that the day I am inaugurated not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view.
Interviewer: “Although you were a little kid.”
Obama: “No, no, no.”
Interviewer: “Right? Is that what you are talking about?”
Obama: “Well, it’s not just that. My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years, and so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and the perspective these folks have, and those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world. … I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer.”
And there you have it — the Obama foreign policy to the Muslim world. The mere grace of his presence makes us safer.
Now fast forward to current events, in which the mangled bodies of our ambassador to Libya and three others arrived home in caskets. Embassies burn. Diplomats to Muslim countries shred confidential information as fast as they can. Muslims in 33 countries “protest” the United States while some with fresh American blood on their hands dance and chant, “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama” before the TV cameras.
Yet Obama denies all this has anything to do with his policies. These are spontaneous protests over an obscure American film. A bump in the road. Not terrorism in any way.
Initially, Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney said: “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or at U.S. policy, but in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.” Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, doubled down on that meme, maintaining Obama and America remain “more popular” than ever in the Muslim world.
I’m sorry, but is this one gigantic weird outlook on current events, or what?
Diplomatic and intelligence experts around the globe flatly contradicted the Obama spin.
They don’t call the doers of violence “movie critics” or “protesters.” They call them terrorists.
Yet our government maintained it all stemmed from the movie “Innocence of Muslims.” To boot, our government downplayed the violence as only a Muslim response to a “very offensive video” that the Obama administration wished it could censor if it were not for that pesky First Amendment.
What’s with that? Aside from the point that movie critics generally don’t protest with rocket-propelled grenades, what do Obama toadies expect to accomplish with de facto apologies for American values?
We value freedom of expression in this country, even for bad films and films not approved by the government. If we’re going to pretend this filmmaker caused Muslim violence, then shall we not prosecute YouTube for putting up the video? Shall we gather the torches and pitchforks and round up Al Gore for inventing the Internet?
If placating extremist Muslim sensibilities is the goal, then maybe America ought to stop appointing women ambassadors and secretaries of state. Ban gays from diplomatic service. That would make the extremists very happy.
On Thursday, more than a week after the assault on the consulate in Benghazi, Carney finally fessed up that the raid was “a terrorist attack.
Obama should stop drinking his own bath water, cease whining about American values and learn that when it comes to dealing with terrorists, his presence means squat.
Sherman Frederick is former publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.