Obama’s Apologies

by 1389 on October 24, 2012

in 1389 (blog admin), Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim Brotherhood, political correctness

Where is the apology for all of the evils committed by Islamic imperialists over the past fourteen hundred years?

Shut up, Obozo – you never suffered any real hardships in your life that were not of your own making. Your Muslim ancestors were slave-traders, and you yourself have worked hard to enslave millions of people under the yoke of the Muslim Brotherhood.

On YouTube:

Uploaded by YAFTV on Jan 22, 2010

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

1 Dr. Idel Dreimer October 28, 2012 at 10:30 am

The sub-optimal President (October 27, 2012)

…there was something wanting in him – some small matter which, when the pressing need arose, could not be found under his magnificent eloquence…he was hollow at the core…

( Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness)

We confess that when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, we feared that he would be insufficiently tough-minded with respect to the threat posed by Iran. It has long been our contention that the idealism associated with those on the left can be a significant disadvantage in the real world: good will is assumed where none exists; all difficulties are perceived as superficial – and thus all disputes are capable of resolution: all that is required is that the opposing parties sit down together over a few beers on a sunny afternoon.

Indeed, Mr. Obama’s Speech in Cairo in 2009, entitled “A New Beginning” put forth an olive branch, suggesting “a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” This, of course, is a reasonable suggestion if ‘mutual’ respect actually exists. No mention was made of “terror” or “terrorism”– both realities which call into question the validity of the assumption of mutual respect.

While it is true that Osama bin Laden was killed in May of 2011, it is claimed, by Richard Miniter in Leading from Behind, that the President had cancelled the operation on three earlier occasions at the urging of Valerie Jarrett, a Senior Advisor, who is often characterized as exerting an inordinate power at the White House.*

In the matter of the September 11th attacks on the Consulate in Benghazi in Libya, much troubling information is coming forward. Some time before the attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens had apparently asked for additional security, but it was denied. More alarming still, Jennifer Griffin, of Fox News has reported that during the attack, three separate requests were made by a CIA annex to provide assistance, but were told to “stand down.” Thus far, the President has refused to confirm or deny this accusation. (ABC News, October 26.)

It has also been claimed that the administration was well aware, almost immediately, that the attack was not the result of a spontaneous demonstration against the film Innocence of Muslims, but the responsibility of the group Ansar al-Sharia. (Larry Margasak, Associated Press; Politics in Polk, October 25.)

Yet it is well known to anyone who has watched the news since September 11th, that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Administration Officials have consistently claimed that the film Innocence of Muslims was the precipitating factor in the attack. Indeed Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods the Navy SEAL who was killed in the attack, has claimed that Hillary Clinton had told him: “We will make sure the person who made this film is arrested and prosecuted.” (Glen Beck Interview October 26, therightscoop.com ) He has also characterized the official explanations as “a pack of lies.” (Breitbart.com, October 26.)

We must add to this extraordinary story of conflicting explanations, a statement suggesting an odd detachment on the part of President Obama:

Here is what I will say, if four Americans get killed it is not optimal.

The statement was made to Jon Stewart, of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart; perhaps this underscores the dangers of taking “The President Act” to the world of late night television.

The final word on this matter has not, of course, been written. But, at this point, it would appear that the real story – that attack on Benghazi as a terrorist operation – conflicted with a preferable narrative. In that narrative — Osama bin Laden having been despatched — the new path – the new world order of rapprochement could proceed as hoped. Sub-optimal bumps in the road could be attributed, not to a persistent lack of mutual respect, but the failings of western society, which unaccountably and regrettably allowed for the freedom to make offensive films.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” said Mr. Obama in his speech to the United Nations on September 25.

On the contrary. The future should belong to those who have the freedom to offend, for only in such a society can good and bad ideas jostle in the marketplace, and have their true worth be assessed and proclaimed.

The future should not belong to sub-optimal politicians for whom truth and freedom of speech are strategic morsels to be cast, without stay of conscience or remorse, into the gaping maw of appeasement.

*It has been claimed that Ms. Jarrett was concerned about the damage to Mr. Obama’s reputation should the attack on Osama bin Laden fail, which suggests an interesting hierarchy of values. It is a hierarchy into which the rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline and presidency via television appearances may be seen to fit quite well: Ask not what you can do for your country, but consider rather what will gild, and what will burnish the reputational bubble.

(From Dr. Dreimer’s Drivel,

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: