Disconnected or an appeaser
posted Wednesday, September 26th, 2012 @ 4:44 pm
It is somewhat difficult to get a read on the Obama administration these days.
That's especially true in light of President Obama's conflicting remarks to the world following the al-Qaeda led terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Al-Qaeda carried out the cowardly stunt on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
Speaking to the United Nations Tuesday, Obama repeated the misleading statement that the attack in Benghazi and the unrest elsewhere in the Arab world over the past couple of weeks were sparked by an individual from California who posted an anti-Muslim video on the Internet. Never mind the video was uploaded to the Web in July, some two months before the attack in Benghazi.
The primary problem with Obama's insistence on blaming the loss of four American lives, including a U.S. ambassador, on some fool with a video camera is defies logic. That's the case because the U.S. intelligence community confirmed the attack in Benghazi was an al-Qaeda operation that was planned for months before it was carried out. Even worse, the intelligence community informed the Obama administration a terrorist attack would likely occur on the anniversary of 9/11.
Yet, the filmmaker in California was the Obama administration's fall guy for days following the attack in Benghazi, though it is worth noting that White House press secretary Jay Carney eventually acknowledge the incident was the work of terrorists. Obama briefly pointed the finger at terrorists, but his remarks taped Monday on the Leftist television program The View and again in his appearance before the United Nations Tuesday would have us believe the president is disconnected from reality. Or he has a soft place in his heart for radical Islam.
It is important to note Obama never used the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" in his speech to the United Nations. On The View, Obama described the attack in Benghazi as a "mob action." That should not come as a surprise since Obama called the massacre of U.S. soldiers by a Muslim extremist at Fort Hood in Texas an example of "workplace violence."
It is painfully clear Obama's statements of late on unrest in the Middle East are troublesome at best. They could be described as appeasement.
The World War II generation certainly knows a thing or two about appeasement. We suspect they are reminded of it anytime discussion about British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin surfaces.