Tag Archives: ethics

Censoring Appeasement

Posted on by
Reply

These tweets are from the US’ State Department via the embassy in Cairo just prior to and during the initial rioting and American flag desecration at the embassy, and on the same day that American diplomats and staff were murdered in Libya:

We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

and this:

U.S. Embassy condemns religious incitement ow.ly/dCxwY—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

Try that link.  The material on the other end is “File not found.”  Hmm….

And this:

This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy
—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

Which the Cairo Embassy deleted from its Twitter account.  Except that tweets last a while, as Twitchy notes.

And this carefully deleted tweet:

@BrianGriffiths we did not apologize to anyone because we did nothing—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

Follow this Twitchy link to see more that the Obama administration has deleted.

And this Cairo Embassy statement—oddly, no longer found, also; try the link:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.  Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy.  Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.  We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

But not a word of condemnation for those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt us.

What else is the Obama administration covering up?  What else have they tried to censor from the public’s eye concerning these despicable attacks and their timid response to them?

Can our nation afford four more years of this?

Still Equivocating

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama continues to soft pedal our government’s reaction to the atrocious attacks on our embassies and our personnel.

Fox News reports that in a call Tuesday to Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Obama had this to say:

…he rejects efforts to denigrate Islam…there is never any justification for violence against innocents.

Still caveating, still being squishy.  Still more concerned with the hurt feelings of thugs than with the safety, the honor of Americans and America.

And this, in a who-cares statement (indeed, throughout his entire prepared statement, Obama merely recited his lines, consulting his note cards more than the faces of his audience, with no emotion other than evident boredom, no outrage fueling his statement):

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

No.  No conditioned statement is necessary.  No caveats.  How do you “balance” the murders of innocents against anything?

There is never any justification for violence against innocents.

Period.

Addendum:  “We tragically learned that [Ambassador Stevens] had died.”  Tragically learned.  Not learned that [Ambassador Stevens] had tragically died.  Oh, no.  It’s Obama’s tragedy, not Stevens’ and his family’s.

Think I’m being too hard on Obama for a misspeak?  Watch the video.  He was reading from his prepared script.  He knew what he was saying.

Update: from Fox News this morning:

Secretary of State Clinton issued a statement strongly denouncing the anti-Islam video that is purportedly the cause of the violence as the administration sought to pre-empt further turmoil at its embassies and consulates.

“The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,” Clinton said before a meeting with the foreign minister of Morocco at the State Department. “We absolutely reject its content and message.”

Duck and cover.  Yeah, that’s the ticket.  Apologize for having interrupted their fists with our face.  Don’t even think of denouncing the riots, the desecrations of our flag, the murders of our citizens, unequivocally.  In an actual statement of condemnation (hopefully accompanied by concrete action) that pulls no punches and that contains no other comments at all.  No, just point the finger at someone else.  Anyone else.  Especially at those evil Americans exercising their right of free speech.

You Already Have, Ace

Posted on by
Reply

Egyptian Prime Minister Mohamed Morsi had this to say on the third day of rioting, vandalism, desecration, and protests in and around the American Embassy in Cairo:

We will not permit any such event, any such occurrence against the embassies present in our territories.  The Egyptian people reject any such unlawful act.

You already have permitted such events.  For days.  And apparently, for days, the Egyptian people reject no such thing.

Morsi added this, too, in all seriousness:

We count on the US administration and the US people to take serious steps to put an end to that [anti-Islamic movie], because this is considered a crime against humanity and a crime against Muslims[.]

No unutterable arrogance here.  Free speech is a crime against humanity?  Free speech is a crime against Muslims?  According to whom, exactly, and by what authority?

Speaking of crimes, where is Muslim respect for our beliefs, for our free speech?

Oh, and Morsi had some boilerplate, too:

But at the same time we firmly say that this cannot be taken as a justification to assault consulates or embassies and cannot be taken also as a justification for killing innocent people.

Sure.

Credit

Posted on by
1

It’s all about who gets the credit, who looks good in the showers.  Not at all about what’s good for the country.

The New York Times cites Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama as believing he deserves the credit, and that’s all that matters.

The president has told people he is determined to win because he believes the economy will bounce back and does not want Mr. Romney getting credit.

How very Progressive of him.  Can we afford four more years this?

Politics and Israeli Security

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Examiner‘s Philip Klein reported last Monday that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL) said to a training session for Jewish Democrats just before the Democratic Party Convention,

We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.  They’re undermining Israel’s security….

Wasserman Schultz denied this, saying her remarks were “deliberately” misrepresented.  She insisted, through an unnamed spokesman, that what she really said was this:

What jeopardizes Israel’s security is the suggestion, for partisan political gain, that the election of either political party would weaken the long-standing relationship of the United States and Israel….

(In response to her denial, Klein posted the audio of Wasserman Schultz’ remark.)

Then we have the 2012 Democratic Party Platform saying this about Israel: no mention of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which is a radical change from 2008 where the DNC acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.  And party’s 2012 platform says this about Iran:

President Obama believes that a diplomatic outcome remains the best and most enduring solution.

At the same time, he has also made clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options—including military force—remain on the table[.]

This is another radical walk-back from their 2008 platform, which said

The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

When questioned about these changes, Wasserman Schultz’ DNC said this in its responding statement:

This is just another attempt by the Romney campaign to turn our support for Israel—which has always been bipartisan—into a partisan wedge issue by playing politics. This is both cynical and counter-productive to Israel’s security.

Hmm….

The Progressives once again ask us to choose between them and our lying eyes.

Update:  On Wednesday, in response to an enormous public outcry over this abandonment of Israel by the Democratic Party, the Democrats altered their rules for their platform content, and they reinserted language averring Jerusalem to be the Israeli capital.  Language concerning a nuclear Iran remains missing.

This is naked vote pandering.  The Democrats told the truth about themselves the first time.