Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf told CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Shieffer that the embassy attack was “preplanned.” He said: “It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival.”
An Israeli Foreign Ministry official, speaking in reference to the growing signs of “radicalization” in the Arab world, said: “We knew what was happening, but the Americans preferred to find excuses” (“Israeli Foreign Ministry: U.S. Ignored Arab Radicalization”; Haaretz.com; Barak Ravid/Jonathan Lis; Sept. 16, 2012).
Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations contradicted Libyan and Israeli intelligence about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, saying: “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what has transpired in Cairo.” My question is – how would the Obama administration know? Are we to believe that Obama’s “gang that couldn’t hit the ocean spitting over the side of a row-boat in the Pacific” is better informed than the Israelis? Or is the ambassador trying to cover-up for Obama’s abysmal foreign-policy record?
It is difficult to imagine a more stu...pid act by Obama than responding to Islamic barbarism by apologizing for a movie that accurately depicted Muhammad.
Having said that, his hasty apology must take a back seat to the stu...pid decision of his ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, who “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition” – the Obama administration trusting “Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security” rather than American Marines (“Report Says U.S. Marines In Cairo Not Allowed To Carry Live Ammunition”; Joe Newby; Examiner.com; Sept. 13, 2012).
America cannot be supportive of a commander in chief who is more like a paper-doll apologist than an iron-willed competent leader.
In 2007 Obama was feeling quite full of himself when he said that the very moment he was inaugurated the Muslim world would look at America differently, and that he was uniquely qualified to stabilize America’s relationships in the Muslim world because he had lived in a Muslim country (as a child) and his half-sister is Muslim.
It is the stupidity of a megalomaniac for Obama to believe he could simply call and talk to the rogue leaders of countries like Cuba and Iran and they would cease pernicious behavior. I submit it would be more prudent of him to call and talk to a good psychiatrist about his glaring narcissism and his emotional instability.
And it is the very portrait of stupidity for Obama and his minions (which apparently includes Republicans) to attack Mitt Romney for daring to condemn Obama for apologizing and making excuses for heathen Muslim behavior.
Publicado: 09-17-2012 10:22 PM
(CNN) — Mitt Romney dijo este lunes que sus polémicas declaraciones fueron capturadas en un video "espontáneo" y "no fue expresado con elegancia", pero defendió el mensaje principal de su discurso.
Romney tomó tres preguntas en una breve conferencia de prensa con los reporteros la noche del lunes en California, prevista de último minuto en respuesta a la publicación de un video grabado en secreto del candidato hablando en una reunión privada de recaudación de fondos en mayo.
El video rápidamente se convirtió en material potencialmente dañino para el candidato presidencial republicano.
En las imágenes, grabadas con una cámara oculta, Mitt Romney sostuvo que cerca de la mitad de los estadounidenses va votar por el presidente Barack Obama, ya que cuentan con el apoyo del gobierno y hacía bromas acerca de aparentes deseos de tener herencia latina.
"Hay un 47% de las personas que van a votar por el presidente, no importa", dice Romney en el video. "Hay un 47% que están con él, que dependen del gobierno, que creen que son víctimas, que creen que el gobierno tiene la responsabilidad de cuidar de ellos”.
Romney dijo que su "trabajo no es preocuparse por esas personas".
"Nunca voy a convencerlos de que deben asumir la responsabilidad personal y el cuidado de sus vidas", añadió. "Lo que tenemos que hacer es convencer al 5 y 10 por ciento en el centro que son independientes, que sean objetivos".
Los videos fueron publicados este lunes por la tarde en los sitios web de noticias de izquierda The Huffington Post y Mother Jones. La persona responsable de la filmación, dijo que él o ella desea permanecer en el anonimato por "razones profesionales y para evitar una demanda", según el Huffington Post.
David Corn, el autor del artículo en Mother Jones, dijo que el evento se llevó a cabo el 17 de mayo en Boca Raton, Florida, en la casa del ejecutivo de Sun Capital, Marc Leder.
Publicado: 09-18-2012 09:25 AM
Obama’s Foreign Policy Fraud Has Come Undone
By Daniel Greenfield On Sept18, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
The Islamist mobs shouted: “Obama, Obama, now you have 1,000 Osamas”. Was it Obama’s constant bragging that he killed Osama Bin Laden what provoked the riots on over 30 cities around the world and not the movie that nobody saw?
The mass riots and attacks on embassies do not mark the moment when Obama’s foreign policy imploded. That happened a long time ago. What these attacks actually represent is the moment when the compliant media were no longer able to continue hiding that failure in bottom drawers and back pages.
The media successfully covered for Obama’s retreat from Iraq, and the weekly Al Qaeda car bombings and rush to civil war no longer make the news. The media have also done their best to cover for Obama’s disaster in Afghanistan which has cost thousands of American lives while completely failing to defeat the Taliban.
Obama had hoped to cover up his defeat in Afghanistan by cutting a deal with the “moderate” Taliban, but the Taliban, moderate or extreme, refused to help him cover his pposition. Attacks in Afghanistan have escalated, but the media have avoided challenging the bizarre assertions from the Obama campaign that the mission has been accomplished and Karzai will be ready to take over security in a few years.
And then the Islamists did something that the media just couldn’t ignore. They staged a series of attacks on American embassies and foreign targets beginning on September 11. These attacks, the most devastating and public of which took place on September 11, were accompanied by Islamist black flags and chants of, “We Are All Osama” in countries across North Africa and the Middle East.
The media have done their best to avoid dealing with the implications of Islamists carrying out a coordinated series of attacks on everything from foreign embassies to peacekeeping forces in the Sinai, by focusing on a Mohammed movie which the Egyptian Salafists exploited for propaganda purposes, rather than on the tactical support and level of coordination required to launchh such a broad series of attacks and what the attacks and their scope say about the transformation of the conflict from stray attacks by terrorist groups to armed militias taking control of entire regions.
Rather than doing their job, the media seemed to be dividing their attention between reporting on the carnage without any context and putting out talking points to prevent Mitt Romney from taking political advantage of the disaster. The media’s accusations that Mitt Romney was politicizing the conflict were absurd, especially coming after the New York Times ran an editorial on September 11 attacking George W. Bush for not preventing the attacks of that day and after five years of Obama and his media allies politicizing every suicide bombing in Iraq.
Publicado: 09-18-2012 12:11 PM
US AMBASSADOR TORTURED, RAPE AND KILLED
While American embassies burned, the media were determined to go on doing what they had been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had covered for Obama in three disastrous wars, one of which he had begun and which had exploded in the faces of staffers at the Benghazi consulate. And they are still covering for him, but the conflict has moved beyond the point where it can be relegated to the back pages of the daily papers.
Obama had hoped that the Islamists would see the advantage of allowing him to save face and give them another term of the same inept appeasement disguised as diplomatic soft power. Instead the Islamists seized on his weakness and trumpeted it to the world to humiliate him and the country that he had been temporarily placed in charge of.
If Obama had really understood Muslims, the way that he claimed he did during the election, then he would have known that this was coming all along. The way of the desert raid is to catch the enemy at his weakest and most vulnerable, and to humiliate him for that weakness in the eyes of his peers. In the honor-shame culture of Islam, there is only room for honor or shame. Obama tried to cover his shame and retain his honor and his enemies tore that façade of honor away from him and left only shame.
As Churchill said to Chamberlain, “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.” Obama tried to have it both ways; he wanted the appearance of being a strong honorable leader who wins wars, while pursuing a cowardly and dishonorable policy. Obama chose dishonor in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now finds that he has a war to deal with anyway.
Perhaps it was the empty bragging of a weak man about killing Bin Laden that infuriated them, but most likely it was the weakness that he showed by relying on drone attacks while cutting the military that led the Islamists to launchh a series of global raids on American targets. What looked like smart strategy to the DC technocrats told the Islamists that the United States was no longer willing or able to send troops into combat. Drone strikes might take out Al Qaeda leaders with minimal collateral damage, but were useless when crowds of Islamist raiders in major cities were overrunning American embassies and consulates.
It would have been in the interests of the Islamists to let Obama save face, retreat from Afghanistan and give them another four years of a free ride. But the Salafis carrying out the raids are not the cunning variety that Obama bows to when meeting with the Gulf royals, nor are they even the businessmen of the Muslim Brotherhood. What they want are military victories in the old Mohammedan sstyle rather than winning elections or tricking the West into overthrowing regimes for them.
The Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis would not have chosen to humiliate Obama because they need him. The Salafis carrying out the raids, as opposed to the ones shaking hands with US officials in Cairo, don’t care about American elections; they care about blood in the streets and swords in the air. These are the sorts of people who fly planes into buildings without considering what this will do to the plans to use immigration to change the demographic balance of Europe and set off bombs near NATO bases without caring that this will slow down the withdrawal of the infidel troops. They are true believers and they believe that it is their unthinking commitment to Islam that will give them victory, rather than the calculations and manipulations of their more upscale Salafi brethren in Riyadh and Cairo.
The attacks have exposed the naked failure of Obama’s foreign policy. The sight of American embassies burning across the Muslim world has done what the deaths of thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and a near civil war in Iraq could not do.
Obama has lost the wars, he has lost the peace and now he has also lost the lies.
Publicado: 09-18-2012 12:12 PM
Suicide in slow motion: submission to Islamic threats will doom the American people
By Coach Collins, Sept18 2012
by Doug Book, staff writer
If the United States is to survive, Barack Obama MUST be removed from power.
Pamela Geller told Fox and Friends’ Tucker Carlson that Barack Obama was literally “…sanctioning the motives behind the murderous Muslim riots by trying to silence the Muhammad filmmakers.” (1) Geller is right. The clear and perpetual purpose of Muslim jihadists is the intimidation into silence and submission of all who dare express any view which operatives of the cult of Islam consider contrary to the will of Muhammed or the “divine” call-to-global-murder he manufactured 1400 years ago.
After the attacks on the American Embassy in Cairo, Barack Hussein Obama acted precisely according to the dictates of his Marxist-Islamist upbringing as his Administration issued a string of heartfelt apologies to Muslim terrorists for the inexcusable exercise of 1st Amendment rights by a Coptic Christian who made an obscure film in the United States. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” wrote Obama’s Cairo Embassy. (2)
Publicado: 09-18-2012 03:28 PM
A short time later, the president’s Ambassador doubled down on his Morning apology with the now deleted Tweet: “This morning’s condemnation still stands,” referring once again to the actions of those “misguided individuals” who injure Islamist sensibilities. (2)
Then, incredibly, on Thursday morning, after the murders of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 members of American Embassy staff in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the following statement: “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
Americans had been murdered and reportedly raped (in that order), their bodies paraded through the streets of Benghazi no doubt to the cheers of Muslim masses. Yet the primary concern of the Obama Administration was to apologize yet again for the insensitive treatment of Islam by the maker of a 15 minute home movie!
And to make an even more pointed display of regret for America’s insult to the Prophet and his murderous minions, the man responsible for the making of the film was picked up at midnight at his California home for a little chat with the FBI as his name and address were prominently displayed on television and throughout the media. (3)
Then, lest any foolish American still believe his 1st Amendment rights should actually rival the political ambitions of the Obama Regime as revealed during its 3 year world tour of apology, regret and contrition, no less than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, phoned Pastor Terry Jones asking that the preacher withdraw any support he may have lent the filmmaking project.
A President of the United States has directed federal law enforcement officials to harass a private individual for having the audacity to exercise his 1st Amendment right of free speech! The highest ranking military officer in the United States telephoned a private citizen asking that he “correct” thoroughly legal, constitutionally protected behavior because it had been deemed offensive to the Administration and the most brutally corrupt and murderous “religious” cult on the face of the earth!
Barack Obama has not simply sanctioned the motives of Jihad. He has willfully brought to bear the standards of blackmail and intimidation exhibited by fellow, America-hating, Islamic thugs in order to manipulate the sensibilities of the American people and undermine the basic, God given liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a treasonous and despicable course of action through which an American president seeks to forge an unbreakable suicide pact between the nation which bears his lifelong contempt and the Islamic killers he hopes will complete its destruction.
If the United States is to survive, Barack Obama MUST be removed from power.
Publicado: 09-18-2012 03:29 PM
In a just released video, taken behind closed doors, Mitt Romney revealed what he thinks of the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes: “My job is not to worry about those people.”
These comments are appalling. The President’s job is to represent 100% of the people. It’s to lift everyone up and unite us, not further divide us.
Stand behind President Obama and tell him you have his back as the President of 100% of Americans.
Thanks for standing with us,
Publicado: 09-19-2012 09:08 AM
Picture of Al Qaeda Assassination Plot Emerges
By Arnold Ahlert On September 18, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
The Obama administration’s continuing efforts to maintain the narrative that murder of our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and his three staff members was part of a “spontaneous” demonstration inspired by a “very offensive video” took another hit yesterday. The Debka File is reporting that the executions were part of a carefully orchestrated plan carried out by well-trained al-Qaeda operatives. The 20-man assassination team was given its orders by the terrorist organization’s leader, Ayman al Zawahiri. The assassins were all Libyans who had been serving sentences for terrorism under Muammar Qaddafi’s rule. They were freed when Qaddafi was overthrown.
The motive for the executions was revenge. On September 10th, Zawahiri released a 42-minute video confirming that his deputy, Abu Yahya al-Libi, was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal area on June 4, according to SITE and IntelCenter. Libi was a jihadst theologian who rose to prominence in 2005 after he escaped from U.S. custody in Afghanistan. Considered al-Qaeda’s best propagandist, his death reportedly dealt a major blow to the organization.
“With the martyrdom of Sheikh Abu Yahya, may Allah have mercy on him, people will flock even more to his writings and call, Allah willing,” Zawahiri said in Arabic, according to a SITE translation. In the video, titled “The Lion of Knowledge and Jihad: Martyrdom of al-Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi” the terror master also referenced President Obama, whom he characterized as a “liar” elected to “trick” Muslims, even as he is “being defeated in Afghanistan.” Zawahiri brought up Warren Weinstein as well. Weinstein is an elderly U.S. aid worker kidnapped by Al-Qaeda just over a year ago in Pakistan. Zawahiri vowed to hold Weinstein until the U.S. released al-Qaeda followers imprisoned in Afghanistan.
According to Debka, the release of that video was a “go” signal for the mission in Benghazi. To disguise the nature of that mission, the assassination team took advantage of the demonstrations allegedly incited by the video “Innocence of Muslims,” storming the consulate in conjunction with the protesters. The gunmen subsequently split into two groups of 10 men each, and carried out their attack in two separate stages.
The first stage involved one group firing rockets at the consulate under the assumption that ambassador Stevens’ armed guard detail would grab him, get him out of the building, and take him to a safe house where he would receive Secret Service protection. According to CBS News, that’s exactly what happened. A Libyan commander told them a convoy of 22 vehicles, two of them armored, fled the consulate, and headed down a road towards the safe house located a mile and a half away.
It was during that trip that al-Qaeda put the second phase of its plan into action. The second group of terrorists apparently knew which vehicles among the convoy contained the ambassador and his armed escort, and they set up an ambush to intercept them. As a result, Stevens and his three staff members were reportedly killed at point blank range. Debka further reports that the investigation by American counter-terror experts and other “clandestine services” is focusing on why no clues of the attack were picked up by any intelligence agency, as well as the failure of surveillance authorities to notice any preparations being made by the terrorist group.
Yet Mohammed Magarief, the president of Libya’s newly elected national congress, while agreeing with Debka’s contention that the attack was deliberate, has offered up a somewhat different take on the players involved. Magarief contends that the Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Sharia, was in communication with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) AQIM is a group whose origin goes back to the 1990s when it was involved in the fight to overthrow Algeria’s secular government. It became AQIM in 2007. Magarief believes it was Ansar al-Sharia that carried out the attack, noting a communication they had with AQIM last Tuesday, during which they discussed the assault on the consulate that night.
Publicado: 09-20-2012 11:56 AM
US EMBASSY IN PAKISTAN UNDER SIEGE
The attack was a “deliberate, calculated action by a group working in collaboration with non-Libyan elements,” he said in an interview. He warned that Libya remains locked in a battle with extremists who wish to turn that country into a hard-line Islamist state.Magarief conceded that Ansar al-Sharia’s leadership was divided, but insisted members of that militia had still taken part in the assassination. The group itself has disavowed any involvement, but an eyewitness claims he saw the group’s black flag being carried by some of the attackers. He also claims he saw one man fire a rocket-propelled grenade into the consulate’s grounds, and another shooting an AK-47 at the gate of the compound.
Magarief’s assertion was buttressed by the fact that al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula celebrated the attacks over the weekend and called for more of them. ”What has happened is a great event and these efforts should come together in one goal, to expel the embassies of America from the lands of the Muslims,” AQAP said. And like Zawahiri, AQAP also linked the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi to the attack.
According to The Australian, the investigation of Stevens’ murder “appears woefully slow.” They note that American drones are circling over Benghazi, but the crime scene itself has yet to be secured. Magarief revealed that, as of yesterday, FBI investigators had yet to arrive and the only arrests made so far were of four “low-level” participants.
Late yesterday afternoon Fox News, citing an “intelligence source on the ground in Libya,” also poked a hole in the administration’s “spontaneous” demonstration narrative. “There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.” This story apparently corroborates an account published September 13th by McClatchy Newspapers. They interviewed a man who claimed to be a Libyan security guard posted at the American consulate when it came under attack. Hospitalized with shrapnel and a bullet wound arising from the conflict, the guard said the area was quiet–“there wasn’t a single ant outside” is how he put it–until about 9:30, at which point armed men stormed the compound. He further contended that there was no warning an attack was imminent.
Publicado: 09-20-2012 11:57 AM
Unfortunately, this seems to be the most accurate information garnered by American news organizations to date. The foreign media referenced above have seemingly done a far better job ferreting out the real story. Perhaps that is because last Friday, State Department spokeswoman Victorian Nuland made it clear no further information would be released by the Obama administration until the investigation is complete. “I’m going to frustrate all of you, infinitely, by telling you that now that we have an open FBI investigation on the death of these four Americans, we are not going to be in a **noallow** to talk at all about what the U.S. government may or may not be learning about how any of this this happened–not who they were, not how it happened, not what happened to Ambassador Stevens, not any of it–until the Justice Department is ready to talk about the investigation,” she told reporters. “So I’m going to send to the FBI for those kinds of questions and they’re probably not going to talk to you about it,” she added.
On the other hand, the usual media suspects can still be counted on to support the Obama administration’s effort to scapegoat a film and, by extension, filmmaker Nikoula Nikoula, for the failure of its Middle East policies. In that regard, CNN reached a new low yesterday. They not only published a picture of Nikoula, who has taken great pains to hide his identity due to death threats from Islamic terrorists, but personal information about him as well. In addition, CNN editorialized that the video itself would be “Oscar worthy, if HATEFUL were a category.”
It is within the context of this odious narrative, fostered by an administration with an almost pathological aversion to taking any responsibility whatsoever for its mistakes, that any “investigation” into the deaths of four Americans in Libya will proceed. And since there is nothing about this incident that remotely accrues to the interests of this president or his administration, Americans should expect that nothing in the way of relevant information will be disseminated before the election–if it is ever disseminated at all. On the other hand, the possibility of great irony arises: if any information reaches the public, it will likely be the result of leaks from inside the White House. An administration that has demonstrated a great appetite for “spiking the football” when it suits them deserves nothing less.
Publicado: 09-20-2012 11:58 AM