Tag: al Qaeda

Obama at the UN: It’s That Darned Video’s Fault!

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics8 Comments

Yesterday, the 44th President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), gave a conciliatory speech at the United Nations General Assembly, not designed to show the courage and conviction of the country he is supposed to be protecting, but, instead, designed to kiss the Muslim anarchists’ …ummm…errr…well…you know.

Here are some excerpts of that speech from cnn.com:

…At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

…The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shia pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies. That’s the vision we will support.

Not exactly awe-inspiring.  More like Awww-inspiring.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan believe that Obama has not exactly been forthcoming on how the Libya situation, including the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, transpired.

 Fox News Reports:

Mitt Romney, in a joint Fox News interview with running mate Paul Ryan, accused the Obama administration of failing “to level with the American people” about how the U.S. Consulate in Libya was attacked, leaving the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead.

“Look, we expect candor from the president and transparency, and he continues to refuse what is said by the other members of his administration: This was a terrorist attack. We were attacked apparently by Al Qaeda and it is a very troubling development,” Romney said during a campaign stop in Ohio.

Romney’s comments underscored complaints made by Republican lawmakers, who question the administration’s shifting explanation, starting with claims that the Sept. 11 strike was “spontaneous” violence tied to protests over an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S. Obama officials gradually walked back that description, and Obama acknowledged Monday that it clearly “wasn’t just a mob action” — though he did not go as far as to call it a terrorist attack.

One of Obama’s advisers, National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen, was more direct last week, testifying to Congress that the four Americans “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack.”

“When the director of the Counterterrorism Center comes to Congress and testifies and says that this is a terrorist attack … I think you would want to ask that question of the president, why he is not on the same page with his own administration officials?” Ryan said.

Obama devoted much of his address Tuesday to the United Nations General Assembly to the attack in Libya and unrest in the Mideast. He paid tribute to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died in the attack, recalling Stevens’ time serving in the Peace Corps as an English instructor in Morocco.

“Chris Stevens embodied the best of America,” Obama said.

The president went on to restate his administration’s support for the Arab Spring, calling it a “season of progress.” But he said the recent violence and unrest is indicative of the difficulties along the way. “True democracy — real freedom — is hard work,” he said.

The president, however, did not mention terrorism in his U.N. speech, and he has yet to elaborate on how extremists were able to launch what now appears to have been a coordinated attack on the consulate. Obama and others in his administration have been criticized by Republicans for not taking a more definitive stance on the attack.

Obama, in an interview taped Monday on ABC’s “The View,” condemned extremist elements in the Muslim world and vowed the U.S. is “not going to shrink back from the world because of this.”

“We are going to hunt down those who did this,” he said. “We will bring them to justice.”

He also said in the interview, which aired Tuesday, that there was “no doubt” that the assault “wasn’t just a mob action” but a sign of extremism in nations lacking stability. “What’s been interesting, just this past week, there were these massive protests against these extremists militias that are suspected, maybe, of having been involved in this attack.”

In interviews and at campaign events Monday, Romney assailed Obama’s leadership abroad, leading a chorus of Republicans in criticizing the president for what they said was minimizing the death of the Ambassador Stevens. Obama, in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” said recent violence in the Mideast was due to “bumps in the road” on the way to democracy. Romney on Monday also suggested Obama was leaving American foreign policy at the mercy of events instead of working to shape global politics in America’s interest.

In other words, Obama and the Mild Bunch (his administration) are not going out there and stopping things before they happen…they are waiting until horrible things, such as Ambassador Stevens’ murder, happen…and then apologizing to the murderers…as if America made them happen.

Because, Lord knows, it’s not the fault of those beheading Barbarians, known as the Muslim Brotherhood and/or al Qaeda…is it?

An unwatched video made them do it.

 

Pock-ee-stahn Problems: They Didn’t Accept Obama’s Apology

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Pock-ee-stahn (Official Obama Pronunciation) has seen a unique mixture of television apologies from the American President and Secretary of State (You heard me.) and Muslim Barbarian Violence in the last 24 hours.

Let’s get the story from the horse’s mouth, as it were. Aljazeera.com has the story:

Reports say more than 17 people have died as demonstrations against an anti-Islam video erupted across Pakistan, a day after protesters tried to storm the US embassy in the capital, Islamabad.

Tens of thousands of Pakistanis took to the streets across the country after the government called an impromptu public holiday to let people protest under the banner of “Love the Prophet Day”.

In Karachi, armed protesters among a group of 15,000 fired on police, killing two officers, as at least 10 protesters died in the violence. The crowd also burned six cinemas, two banks, a KFC and five police vehicles.

Crowds armed with clubs and bamboo poles converged on the Firdaus picture house, “smashing it up and setting furniture ablaze”, according to Gohar Ali, a police officer.

Witnesses said a separate rampaging crowd stormed the Shama cinema, notorious locally for showing films considered to be pornographic.

In the Pakistani city of Peshawar, police fired on rioters who were torching a cinema. Mohammad Amir, a driver for a Pakistani television station, was killed when police bullets hit his vehicle at the scene, said Kashif Mahmood, a reporter for ARY TV.

At least four protesters and one police officer were killed in the northwestern city, along with 40 injured and two cinemas and two shops torched.

In the capital Islamabad, some 19 protesters and eight police were injured. And in Lahore, at least five protesters were wounded.

“They do not want this anti-Islam video to be supported by the United States,” said Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad.

“Despite the fact that the American president has said that they have got nothing to do with it, the people here are very angry.”

“The people want the government to be able to launch a protest, and they are saying they will not go home unless they get to the US embassy.”

…US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met on Friday with Pakistan’s foreign minister, who avoided an invitation to explicitly condemn the violence.

Speaking to reporters ahead of the meeting, Clinton called on “leaders and responsible people everywhere to stand up and speak out against violence”.

Standing beside her, Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar focused her comments entirely on the film, which Muslims believe is blasphemous.

She thanked Clinton for speaking out against the video, saying it sent a “strong message” that should help end the violence.

“The last 18 months were very, very difficult,” Khar said at the start of the talks Clinton, adding the nations were doing “better than we could have expected to do in rebuilding the trust”.

Against this tense backdrop, the US bought time on Pakistani television stations to run a series of ads on Thursday in an effort to assuage Muslim feelings of hurt.

The US hopes the ad would show that the country had no involvement with the controversial internet video.

The US embassy in Islamabad spent about $70,000 to run the announcement, which features clips of US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and underscores US respect for religion, declaring the US government had nothing to do with the video.

Obama is shown saying: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Clinton then says: “Let me state very clearly, the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”

Addressing a media briefing on the ad campaign, Victoria Nuland, state department spokeswoman, said the aim was “to make sure that the Pakistani people hear the president’s messages and the secretary’s messages”.

What’s so mystifying and embarrassing about this whole thing, is one simple fact: That stupid movie clip , which no one watched on youtube.com. did not cause the Mid-east violence.

This whole bloody thing is the work of al Qaeda. They are testing the manhood and resolve of the President of the United States.

Even The Daily Beast, a Liberal website, is now having to admit it.

Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete. The administration’s story itself has recently begun to shift, with Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, telling Congress on Wednesday that the attackers may have had links to al Qaeda and Carney characterizing the incident as a “terrorist attack.” (Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.)

But other indications that the White House’s early narrative was faulty are also beginning to emerge. One current U.S. intelligence officer working on the investigation into the incident told The Daily Beast that the attackers had staked out and monitored the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack, a move that suggests pre-planning.

What’s more, two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance. (Plenty of Libyans, of course, did try to protect the consulate. “Many of those Libyans died in the gunfight fighting off the attackers,” one of the officials said. “But there were some bad apples there as well.”)

President Obama addresses the attacks in Libya.

“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in,” says one senior retired CIA official.

So now, it turns out that all of that sucking up and apologizing  to the Muslims in Pakistan, and the entire Muslim Brotherhood, for that matter,  that Obama and Hillary have been doing, has provided no safety for our nation, and hours of enjoyment for the Muslims, who are probably laughing themselves silly over our wussy and inept Administration.

I sure do miss that “crazy old American Cowboy”, who sent that missile into Khadafi’s house.

**Sigh.**

The Afghanistan Agreement…Thank You, Neville Chamberlain

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

Last night, at 6:30 p.m. Central, the 44th president of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, gave a 15 minute address concerning the “end of the war” in Afghanistan.

The speech was given at Bagram Air Force Base, in front of a phony backdrop consisting of the machines of war, while our Brightest and Best were barred from the area.

And, with good reason.  Their CIC sounded more like he was repeating “Peace in Our Time” than the end to a successful military campaign.

He announced a five-step plan to end our military involvement in Afghanistan:

First, we’ve begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half of the Afghan people live in places where Afghan security forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more and more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

Second, we are training Afghan security forces to get the job done. Those forces have surged, and will peak at 352,000 this year. The Afghans will sustain that level for three years, and then reduce the size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

Third, we’re building an enduring partnership. The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: As you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis for our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans — men and women, boys and girls.

Within this framework, we’ll work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014 — counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.

Fourth, we’re pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We’ve made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban — from foot soldiers to leaders — have indicated an interest in reconciliation. The path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan security forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

Fifth, we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. In Chicago, the international community will express support for this plan and for Afghanistan’s future. And I have made it clear to its neighbor — Pakistan — that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan’s sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions. In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe havens and respect for Afghan sovereignty.

“Peace in Our Time” was delivered by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, in defense of the Munich Agreement, which he made with those infamous barbarians, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party, or as the world came to call them, the Nazis, and Hitler’s good buddy, the Italian Fascist, Benito Mussolini.

The following is an excerpt:

…I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

We all know what happened next:  World War II.

That’s what happens when you negotiate with barbarians.