Ms Clinton Causes Islamic Radicals To Wet Their Trousers, From Laughter

@Ditto in one way, this really has nothing to do with Obama… except to us in the US during an election year. On the global front, it’s not all about him, tho he would love it to be.

Obama, in reality, is just the latest in the line of Great Satans, and this is just one more wave of protests in a long line of previous protests used by Islamists to stir up discontent and unrest towards all things Western… i.e. Danish cartoons, Abu Ghraib (more serious than ‘toons…), Qu’ran burning by soldiers or wacky anti-Semitic pastors, etc etc.

On the global stage, no one cares about a POTUS Obama on the campaign trail, or whatever tale he weaves. To the Muslims, and even much of Europe, Obama’s foreign policy is viewed as just another failure, following prior admin failed policies. But Obama, playing to an American audience in an election year? You bet he’s going to deflect this as another “Danish cartoon” rather than discuss repercussions of his foreign policy.

But in all honesty, it’s not like the GOP candidates can point to prior POTUS and their similar events, saying that Bush’s foreign policy had any more positive effect on curtailing Islamists… or even that similar events haven’t happened.

Islamists don’t give a crap about US leadership. Same infidel – different face and name.

But you have to figure the bulls*#t jig is up when even Tony Karon at Time Mag says that the WH, via Jay Carney, is “overreaching” when Obama claims this isn’t about foreign policy, but a cheesy flick of questionable origin and intent.

But White House press secretary Jay Carney may have been overreaching when he insisted on Friday that the protests arose “in response not to United States policy, not to the Administration, not the American people [but] in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is in no way a case of protests directed towards the United States writ large or at U.S. policies.”

It’s never that simple.

The reason a piece of “evidence” of American animus to Islam — the desecration of a Koran, say, or the dissemination of a video painting a grotesque caricature of the Prophet Muhammad — ignites rage toward U.S. institutions in so many Muslims is the way those Muslims have viewed and experienced U.S. policy. Direct insults of Islam such as those contained in the offending movie are such a powerful tool in the hands of those who would agitate against U.S. involvement in the Middle East — and against those in the Arab world who would work with Washington — because they function as a kind of narrative “gotcha!” motive that ties together all of the Arab world’s many grievances with the U.S.

Egregious insults like the Innocence of Muslims film would not be so easily translated into rage at U.S. power were it not for the simmering long-term rage at Washington over its invasions of Muslim countries, its support for Israeli governments and Arab despots, its drone strikes and more.

Deep anger at U.S. foreign policy is the extended preexisting condition that geopolitical Obamacare has failed to significantly alter; the outrage at an offensive film is the opportunistic virus that, when combined with the preexisting condition, creates a crisis. Instances of American Islam-bashing are used to prove that the policies and actions of the U.S. that most anger ordinary Arabs are not simply discrete foreign policy choices driven by self-interest and other agendas but rather expressions of a deeper animus toward Islam itself — a proof that functions as a chemical catalyst that can bring residual anger to a boil.

…snip…

So in that sense, President Obama’s Republican critics are not wrong in suggesting that this week’s upsurge in protests represents, at least in part, a response to the Administration’s handling of the Middle East or even to what vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Friday called ”mixed signals” from the White House.

But where Ryan and those echoing him are wrong — egregiously, spectacularly wrong — is in suggesting that the protests are a response to a retreat from “moral clarity and firmness of purpose,” watchwords of the Bush era.

On the contrary, the Muslim world was up in arms against the U.S. on a sustained basis for most of the Bush presidency, precisely because of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its unconditional backing of Israel as it pummeled Palestinians and the obvious hypocrisy of a policy of proclaiming democracy and freedom while coddling friendly despots.

If the Arab world is angry at the “mixed messages” coming from the Obama Administration, that’s because the President in Cairo in 2009 had promised a break from Bush-era policies yet failed on many fronts to deliver it. It’s not the changes Obama’s made since the Bush era that drive Arab anger; it’s his Administration’s many continuities with Bush-era policies in the Middle East.

Ryan demands that Obama show “American leadership” by marching even more closely in lockstep with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That’s going to calm the crowds gathered in front of U.S. embassies in the Arab world?

At least this liberal writer and media rag are honest enough to point out that Obama is just another POTUS who is experiencing the same thing any other POTUS as the Great Satan experienced – or will experience in the future – but with one difference. Obama predicted the waters would part and that relationships would improve with his more wussy, neutral approach. Of course it didn’t work… and won’t. Islamists just don’t work that way. Nor will it ever work because of any foreign policy to appease the Islamists would require complete surrender of our founding principles and embracing Islam as the one true religion.

Ain’t gonna happen. Nor is the US going to make 1st Amendment speech, with regards to Islam, illegal either. Not even the most liberal SCOTUS robed one would buy that argument… I suspect Islamists know this, but it’s just one more demand they like to pile on as a promise that if we just do that one thing, we’ll all get along just fine.

Yes, Obama has continued some of the same military options… drones, attempts to stay in Iraq, etc. But when comparing the Bush foreign policy to Obama’s, Karon misses a large difference between the two. Bush had made cooperative allies of former enemies – Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and some in Afghanistan – post Sept 11th. Obama has virtually destroyed all those allies by, oddly enough, attempting to mimic Bush’s “democracy is good” rhetoric. What he forgot to notice is that Bush went about that nation building “democracy” by having tight reins and influence and – most importantly – it was only attempted in countries that were enemies.

Obama, on the other hand, has decided to advocate for internal nation building in countries that were allies… and therein lies his foreign policy fatal flaw. He gave the US blessing to overthrow the very governments that Zawahiri and fellow Jihadi wanted overthrown. Whether this was done on purpose, or by sheer stupidity, it’s hard to say. Certainly if it was done on purpose, and Obama expected a welcoming Libya, Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt for his efforts, the drugs have to have worn off by now.

As Karon correctly points out, there’s nothing the West can do to subdue this year’s wave of protests, riding atop the cheesy flick. One just has to batten down the security hatches, and wait for the tide to again recede… that is until someone else decides to be the epicenter of another tsunami wave that opens the doors of opportunity. This wasn’t the first… and it sure won’t be the last either.

The more important question is what should the US do about the ME, and foreign aid overall? Tricky question. We could do as Canada did and withdraw all US diplomatic presence, and tell them that we’re not only withholding all foreign aid, but giving at least 50% of what they got to Israel to make sure they’ve got an endless arsenal at their disposal.

But then, withdrawal of all US presence is exactly what they want…. and my guess is any of these countries would be happy to give up their foreign aid in exchange for no US on their soil, or breathing down their necks asking for counterterrorism intel. That, however, is not in the best interests of the US.

Only one thing is certain. Bush left a much better ME foundation for Obama… yet he’s managed to turn both new and old allies into enemies. Unfortunately, these five steps backwards are going to cost a lot of lives, and are not easily reversible. If he stays for another four years, he will have a far more dangerous ME to manage than what was left to him. That would all be just fine if “what happens in the Middle East, stays in the Middle East”. Unfortunately, it never does.

That “steaming manure” is the only “shovel ready” anything the temporary occupant of the Oval Office ever had. LOL

Skook, not sure if it’s a “positive” effect (INRE this election), but Hillary’s head and perhaps more at the SOS office are likely to roll. According to a report by UK’s The Independent, “sensitive documents have gone missing…” from the Bengazi consulate, including names of Libyans working in concert with the US. OMG…

Via the Marine Corps official response about their presence… or would that be lack of presence… at either the Tripoli or Benghazi locations, the repercussions for not having even the Marine Security Guards present – who’s job it is first and foremost to protect documents like this from attacks – falls squarely on her shoulders. It was never a matter of whether they could be armed. It was a matter of why they weren’t set up at even an interim, remote consulate located in a hot bed of bad guys.

You know if has to be bad when even Larry Johnson at No Quarter, a staunch Hillary supporter back in 2008, former CIA and friends with Valeria Plame, is giving “no quarter” to her. Because of its dangerous location, and being an unlikely site for any official embassy, he thinks it’s more likely there as cover for intelligence. And in that case, why did the SOS not provide for security measures within their power, knowing what they would have present, and the high risk location.

It’s been a while since I’ve read No Quarter, but I’m absolutely astonished that the participants seem to have transformed from their original liberal status just a few years ago, then to disgruntled Hillary PUMAs, to now – where comments are almost indistinguishable from moderate conservative blogs.

This single incident may tank any future WH aspirations Ms. Clinton *may* have entertained with her supporters. For Obama to save his own tush, he may have to announce a diplomatic parting of the ways – cutting her loose but in a way that doesn’t damage the Clinton name – prior to the election to distance himself. I do not anticipate hearing any criticism of Hillary publicly from this WH, lest they bring the wrath of Teflon Bill unmercifully down on their heads.

In the long run, I think the only one who actually believed Obama could part waters and soothe the savage ME Islamic beast was Obama. I’m not giving most of the voting public the benefit they could clearly see Obama’s destruction of allies that Bush created, as well as long standing allies like Egypt. That will always be sold as “spreading democracy”, a concept they will blame on Bush without pointing out the differences. Most voters don’t have the time, nor inclination, to be that abreast of international issues.

But I will say this… I don’t see Hillary supporters standing behind the big Zero come November, nor hoping Hillary will take the Veep slot away from Biden. Whether or not that’s a large enough defection from the Dem Party to put Mitt over the top is questionable. But I get the feeling that Hillary’s days are numbered. So it’s a matter of how they handle it – whether she voluntarily exits citing personal fatigue or whatever, or Obama just announces a congenial parting of the ways for a new admin in the event of a win, attempting to help her save face.