I was pretty busy all weekend with soccer, but I did catch Susan Rice’s appearance on Fox News Sunday.
That gal is a HOOT.
The Obama Administration dispatched Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice to the talk shows Sunday to explain the outbreak of anti-American protests in the Arab world. Her message: It’s all the fault of that 13-minute anti-Islamic video on YouTube. U.S. policies or foreign terrorists have little or nothing to do with it.
“What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world,” said Ms. Rice, a leading candidate to be Secretary of State in a second Obama term, on “Fox News Sunday.”
Yea, it wasn’t Obama’s foreign policy of appeasement. It was the dang video. Jay Carney agrees:
This followed White House spokesman Jay Carney’s remarks last week that the violent protests were a “response not to United States policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people” but were “in response to a video, a film, that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”
You know who doesn’t agree with Carney, Rice, the Obama administration, and everyone else not drinking their kool-aid? Libyan experts and officials. You know, experts who aren’t committed to getting Obama re-elected.
And then there’s this:
On Wednesday night in Tree Square in Benghazi, we witnessed crowds expressing heartfelt disappointment, shouting slogans like, “Free Libya, terrorists out!” On Saturday, Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf told “NBC Nightly News” that non-Libyans were among those involved. The assertion dovetails with educated opinion here that the attack on the mission must have been planned by an al Qaeda affiliate in revenge for the U.S. drone killing of the Libyan-born al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in Pakistan in June. Few demonstrators we talked to knew about the alleged justification for storming the consulate—the hateful 13-minute YouTube video “The Innocence of Muslims.” Among those who did, a minority incorrectly assumed that if the video was produced in the U.S., it must represent American public opinion or tacit government policy.
^That^ would be Obama’s drone-killing policy.
I’m not saying I disagree with it, but man-up,Obama. Stand by your policy. Obama is lying about what may have sparked the protests, since that would point to his own policy, which is wildly unpopular with his liberal base.
But the media doesn’t want to talk about any of these things. The causes of the unrest and the completely political response from the White House, which does nothing but triangulate toward November.
The media wants this election to be about personalities, which puts Obama ahead. The shitty unemployment. The dangers abroad. Doesn’t matter. Their man is ahead in the popularity contest – and it’s no wonder. The number of Obama puff pieces, and the soft interviews – they do everything they can to make Obama come across as nicer, cooler, and better. Obama doesn’t “flip-flop” for example, like Romney does:
Politicians can often be two-faced, and can voice opinions they don’t really believe in. No one believes that Barack Obama opposed gay marriage until this May when he suddenly decided to support it. Privately, we assume, he supported it all along. And for all we know, Mitt Romney might privately tell his wife Anne that he still backs a women’s right to choose. But that is not what appears to have happened. Instead, Romney appears to be a man who has no private self—who has actually embraced the views that he initially adopted for purely opportunistic reasons.
Romney makes cold, calculated political moves. Obama? He just waits for the proper time to vocally support what we knew he supported all along! Yea, unicorns and skittles all around!!