Who really made that anti-Muslim movie

It turns out that the man who made that reportedly salacious movie about Mohammed, The Innocence of Muslims,  that has set the Middle East on fire is NOT Sam Bacile, an Israeli-American with 200 Jewish investors, as he claimed.  That was a fake identity for a convicted scam artist named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian.  The Copts are already cruelly persecuted in Egypt, so this won’t help them.

via US Identifies Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Blamed for Attacks « CBS DC.

So do we blame this guy or defend his freedom of speech?

The new 9/11 attack in Libya

The U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed, along with three other Americans, when Islamists fired rocket grenadees at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.   Mobs were protesting an American-made movie ostensibly funded by Jewish militants entitled  Innocence of Muslims, which depicts Mohammad and portrays him (some say pornographically) as a sexual predator.  (All that had been released was a YouTube trailer, since taken down.  See this on questions about the filmmaker.)  Officials are saying, however, that the protests may have only been a cover for a planned attack designed to avenge the recent assassination by drone of a major al-Qaeda leader on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The killing of an Ambassador is traditionally considered an act of war.  American warships are taking positions off Libya and Marines have moved in to secure the Embassy.  Meanwhile, the protests over the film are spreading to other Muslim countries, with the U.S. Embassy in Cairo under siege.  With the alleged Jewish connection to the movie, Israel will be a sure target.

For details, see  U.S. officials: Attack on consulate in Libya may have been planned – The Washington Post.

Also this.

So now a major international crisis breaks out just before the election.  For the political fallout, see this.  Normally, when America is attacked, the country rallies together and partisan divisions are set aside.  But Mitt Romney has chosen to take the occasion to blast President Obama for his foreign policy weakness and his poor handling of this incident.  Now Romney is getting blowback for inappropriate and unpatriotic criticism at a time of crisis.  Who’s right here?

 

It’s September 11

Has September 11 become a de facto grassroots holiday?  Do we need a day to remember the terrorist attacks in 2001 and to commemorate their victims?  Should it be officially recognized, like Memorial Day?  Or should we stop thinking about that nightmarish day and just move on?

Liberal terrorism?

A pro-gay activist posing as an intern and reportedly carrying a Chick-fil-A bag as a disguise opened fire at the Washington headquarters of the Family Research Council.  A security guard for the conservative think tank was shot in the arm but still subdued the gunman, identified as Floyd Corkins II.

Liberal groups have been portraying the FRC as a “hate group” for opposing gay marriage.  Democratic activists have accused Romney of killing a man’s mother (reportedly because his company closed a company and she lost her health care, even though the account has been shown to be bogus) and of planning to restore slavery (Vice President Biden’s remark at a largely black city that if Republicans are elected “ya’ll gonna be put back in chains”).

Conservatives have been accused of sparking that Sikh Temple shooting and other acts of violence because of their harsh rhetoric, even though, as far as I have seen, none of the incidents in the recent spate of shootings has been connected to political or social conservatives.  The connection here to liberal ideology is much closer.

Should the left tone down its rhetoric?  What about both sides toning down their rhetoric?

News from The Associated Press.

Obama the assassin

A withering piece from Charles Krauthhammer on the way President Obama wages the Drone War:

A very strange story, that 6,000-word front-page New York Times piece on how, every Tuesday, Barack Obama shuffles “baseball cards” with the pictures and bios of suspected terrorists from around the world and chooses who shall die by drone strike. He even reserves for himself the decision of whether to proceed when the probability of killing family members or bystanders is significant.

The article could have been titled “Barack Obama: Drone Warrior.” Great detail on how Obama personally runs the assassination campaign. On-the-record quotes from the highest officials. This was no leak. This was a White House press release.

Why? To portray Obama as tough guy. And why now? Because in crisis after recent crisis, Obama has looked particularly weak: standing helplessly by as thousands are massacred in Syria; being played by Iran in nuclear negotiations, now reeling with the collapse of the latest round in Baghdad; being treated with contempt by Vladimir Putin, who blocks any action on Syria or Iran and adds personal insult by standing up Obama at the latter’s G-8 and NATO summits.

The Obama camp thought that any political problem with foreign policy would be cured by the Osama bin Laden operation. But the administration’s attempt to politically exploit the raid’s one-year anniversary backfired, earning ridicule and condemnation for its crude appropriation of the heroic acts of others. . . .

The Osama-slayer card having been vastly overplayed, what to do? A new card: Obama, drone warrior, steely and solitary, delivering death with cool dispatch to the rest of the al-Qaeda depth chart.

So the peacemaker, Nobel laureate, nuclear disarmer, apologizer to the world for America having lost its moral way when it harshly interrogated the very people Obama now kills, has become — just in time for the 2012 campaign — Zeus the Avenger, smiting by lightning strike.

A rather strange ethics. You go around the world preening about how America has turned a new moral page by electing a president profoundly offended by George W. Bush’s belligerence and prisoner maltreatment, and now you’re ostentatiously telling the world that you personally play judge, jury and executioner to unseen combatants of your choosing and whatever innocents happen to be in their company.

This is not to argue against drone attacks. In principle, they are fully justified. No quarter need be given to terrorists who wear civilian clothes, hide among civilians and target civilians indiscriminately. But it is to question the moral amnesia of those whose delicate sensibilities were offended by the Bush methods that kept America safe for a decade — and who now embrace Obama’s campaign of assassination by remote control.

Moreover, there is an acute military problem. Dead terrorists can’t talk.

Drone attacks are cheap — which is good. But the path of least resistance has a cost. It yields no intelligence about terror networks or terror plans.

One capture could potentially make us safer than 10 killings. But because of the moral incoherence of Obama’s war on terror, there are practically no captures anymore. What would be the point? There’s nowhere for the CIA to interrogate. And what would they learn even if they did, Obama having decreed a new regime of kid-gloves, name-rank-and-serial-number interrogation?

This administration came out opposing military tribunals, wanting to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights and trying mightily (and unsuccessfully, there being — surprise! — no plausible alternative) to close Guantanamo. Yet alongside this exquisite delicacy about the rights of terrorists is the campaign to kill them in their beds.

You festoon your prisoners with rights — but you take no prisoners. The morality is perverse. Which is why the results are so mixed. We do kill terror operatives, an important part of the war on terror, but we gratuitously forfeit potentially life-saving intelligence.

But that will cost us later. For now, we are to bask in the moral seriousness and cool purpose of our drone warrior president.

via Barack Obama: Drone Warrior – The Washington Post.

“The war on terror is over”

Michael Hirsh, writing in the National Journal, in the course of a discussion of the Obama administration’s new Middle East policy quotes an unnamed State Department official as declaring that “the war on terror is over.”

The Obama administration is taking a new view of Islamist radicalism. The president realizes he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively “moderate” Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. The Muslim Brotherhood officially renounced violence decades ago, leading then-dissident radicals such as Ayman al-Zawahiri to join al Qaida.

It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists. “The war on terror is over,” one senior State Department official who works on Mideast issues told me. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.” In a Tuesday night update to this post, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor clarified that while the “war on terror” concept has been dropped, “we absolutely have never said our war against al Qaida is over. We are prosecuting that war at an unprecedented pace.”

The new approach is made possible by the double impact of the Arab Spring, which supplies a new means of empowerment to young Arabs other than violent jihad, and Obama’s savagely successful military drone campaign against the worst of the violent jihadists, al Qaida.

Some of the smarter hardliners on the Right, like Reuel Marc Gerecht, are coming to realize that the Arab world may find another route to democracy–through Islamism. The question is, how will this play politically at a time when Obama’s GOP rival, Mitt Romney, is painting the president as a weak accommodationist?

via Can Obama Safely Embrace Islamists? – 2012 Decoded.

Thus, the end of the war on terrorism does not mean that we can have a big celebration in Times Square, much less that we can stop getting strip searched at airports.  It means that the administration wants to cozy up to at least some jihadists, without considering them our enemies.

Wise or unwise?

 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X