The Only Thing the State Department Should Condemn

I suppose we all remember September 11^th, 2001 in our own way. Here is how it was celebrated in two faraway places. From the WaPo:

U.S. diplomatic compounds came under attack in two Muslim countries on Tuesday, with a State Department employee killed in the assault on a consulate in Libya…

The violence in Benghazi followed protests in neighboring Egypt, where a group of protesters scaled the wall of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday evening and entered its outer grounds, pulled down an American flag, then tried to burn it outside the embassy walls, according to witnesses.

In both Cairo and Benghazi, protesters said they were demonstrating against a U.S.-released film that insulted the Prophet Muhammad.

Oddly enough, I couldn't find the trailer on iTunes. The folks running the Embassy in Cairo did not acquit themselves well. First, they did what U.S. embassy staffs are best at: ignoring warnings.

The security breach in Cairo appeared to catch both the United States and Egyptian security forces by surprise even though the protest was announced in advance. Shortly before the protesters went over the wall, witnesses said few Egyptian police or military officers were nearby.

If you want to take American diplomats by surprise, the best plan is to tell them in advance exactly what you intend to do.

It is one thing to be inept, however, and another to be morally craven. From The Politico:

The U.S. embassy in Cairo put out a statement early Tuesday that apologized for an anti-Muslim film being circulated by an Israeli-American real estate developer.

"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," the embassy said in a statement published online.

Is this really the position of the US State Departmentto "condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions"? Did the Cairo Embassy issue a condemnation of Christopher Hitchens' book God Is Not Great? The State Department should make every attempt to be respectful of the beliefs of all peoples and especially of peoples in close proximity to one of our embassies. It may be appropriate to announce that the work of a private film maker in America in no way represents the position of the United States Government. Film criticism, however, is outside the purview of the State Department. Taking sides even in a small way in an attack on freedom of speech in the hope that the militants will like us is craven. It is also useless. The Cairo Embassy's groveling did nothing to prevent the violence.

Secretary of State Clinton did better when she tried to walk back the Cairo position:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

There is a lot of backbone in that statement, but not enough to add up to a whole backbone. Muslim militants have their ancient principles which they are obligated to defend and so do we. They are prepared to defend them with force and not just forceful statements. Are we?

Again, there is that "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." Does the US officially deplore books by Darwinists that openly scoff at and denigrate creationist's views? No, and it should not even if, in the view of this committed Darwinist, such books are misguided and frequently offensive and counterproductive. It is the business of the American Republic to protect the rights of its citizens and to do what it can to promote the rights of all people abroad. It is not its business to make sure that no one's feelings are ever hurt.

Militant Islamists understand very well that they can silence speech they disapprove of by fire and murder. Writers and editors and filmmakers who never have to fear their own governments have to worry a lot about offending a Mufti. When the government takes the side of the offended fire eater in the name of sensitivity, all that tells him is that his strategy is working.

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

Seem you may be coming dangerously close to blaming the victims here KB. The protesters in Libya and Egypt were lied to by their media. It was a failure of the 4th Estate who misled their audience and blew up a nothing YouTube home video into what seemed like a cultural statement of the American people to be releases on the anniversary of 911. The stupid home video was nothing even close to that, and our State Department was right to make that clarification. I certainly wouldn't have expected them to defend it.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: who are the victims I am blaming? The state department made no clarification in what is above. A producer of a home video, no matter how stupid, as the same rights as Michael Moore.

[larry kurtz]

Horrified at his party's struggling nominee, Willard Romney, Sen. McCain said, "Just watched an excellent and moving stmt by Sec. Clinton- just the right message and tone."

[Bill Fleming]

The person who made the remark, KB was a US Ambassador. One of them was killed last night, the other was attacked in Ciaro. It's the second one you are blaming. And of course you have every constitional right to do so just I and others have every right to tell you you are being a moron for doing it.

The violence in Libya is the outrage, not what our ambassador said. Don't be an idiot.

[Bill Fleming]

Cairo.

[Donald Pay]

KB, Your hate America screeds border on treason.

You stand up for the small group of extremist, violence-prone cuckoos in the Muslim world who did this, saying they are defending their values, and you actually urge us to emulate them!!!! Unbelievable.

This is the key statement in your complete misunderstanding of this event: "Muslim militants have their ancient principles which they are obligated to defend and so do we. They are prepared to defend them with force and not just forceful statements. Are we?" Well, welcome to KB's new dark ages.

The people who practiced this violence aren't standing up for any "ancient principles." They are a classic bunch of losers, who were whipped up by another bunch of losers who can't get beyond the fact that another classic bunch of losers, these ones Christian, are saying bad things about their religious and cultural beliefs.

You, KB, are a classic loser. You are so willing to be led by the nose by other classic losers that you come right up to the edge of saying we must answer this violence with violence. But you are too gutless to say it so you fudge: You ask the question, "Are we?" So, if we answer in the Christian way, that violence isn't the right way to address this issue, you would say we aren't standing up in the loser way for the "principles" we have.

You're an evil person, KB.

[Donald Pay]

Just did a fact check. Actually, it turns out that the losers who made the movie in question were backed by Jewish donors, not Christian donors.

[Jon S]

Donald, every time you post here I get an image of Yosimite Sam yelling "Great Horny Toads!!!"

[Donald Pay]

Four Americans are dead, KB is advocating holy war and Jon is hallucinating about Yosimite Sam. The wacky wing of the Republican Party has no shame or dignity.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: you shouldn't tell me I'm evil, even if it's true. After all, I don't tell you that you are stupid. Well, maybe I have done that. It's inescapable now. Only an idiot could read my post and conclude that I was defending the terrorists. I wrote "Muslim militants have their ancient principles which they are obligated to defend and so do we." Their principles demand murder and mayhem. Ours demand protection for freedom of speech. These are simple facts.

I am not surprised that my post went over your head. Frankly, it doesn't require much altitude to do that. I was criticizing the Cairo embassy's mealy-mouthed apology for the offensive film. Such attempts at sensitivity do nothing at all to dampen the hatred of the terrorists because their principles don't allow for it. The only thing that the State Department should have condemned was the violence.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I don't buy your argument that the protestors were victims of the local press. They crave excuses to do things like this and it is no accident that it happened on September 11th. In the case of the Benghazi attack, it seems pretty clear that the protest was a distraction.

The language to which I object above was not, according to the Administration, issued either by the State Department or by the Cairo Ambassador but by some lower official. In the Obama Regime, the buck doesn't stop; it drops like a stone.

I think the apologetic language was at best useless and more likely counterproductive. It encouraged the militant's sense of privilege and power. I think that the Embassy would have been better advised to concentrate on beefing up security rather than try to appease the militants. You may quarrel with these views, but they are hardly idiotic.

The President's stronger statement today and the Administrations firm disavowal of the Cairo language suggests that they don't think my view is idiotic either.

[Donald Pay]

Your post didn't go over anyone's head, KB. It was anti-American, and evil. It's a pattern with you, and Romney by the way. It follows on several other similar anti-American screeds (your anti-American stance on the Chinese dissident Chen, for example).

Your pathetic doubling down on what you call an"apology" is just sickening. There was no apology. There was an attempt to provide perspective on American values to calm what was likely to be some vigorous demonstrations in Cairo. This statement was issued before the demonstrations turned violent in Libya. Get it, Libya. Maybe the statement helped keep the Cairo demonstrations peaceful. I realize that peace, of course, is not something you value.

Here is the Cairo statement which you quote above and condemn: ""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."

Here is Sec. of State Clinton's statement, which you support: "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation."

Essentially it's the same statement. There is something seriously wrong with you.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: to criticize the administration is not anti-American. You are a blithering idiot.

[john davidson]

Ken,

Why on earth do you bother with Donald, Bill and Larry? What a waste of your time. You have way too much to offer the world.

John D.

[Ivan]

I like Yosemite Sam, the Donald is not Yosemite Sam. Yosemite is clean and articulate.

[Bill Fleming]

You would have been great at the Alamo, KB. ;-)
I won't argue this point with you any more.
It's time for us to come together like good Americans.
Neither of us is the enemy here.
Let's focus on what to do about the guys who want to beat us both up.
You can even bring Davidson along if you like.
I'm sure we'll find something for him to do.

[Donald Pay]

I disagree, Bill. People who "think" like KB may be the enemy. The origin of the movie that touched off these incidents is very hazy, to say the least, but what we can count on in this world are two things: extremist Muslims will react with anti-American rants and violence, and KB and the rest of the Republican Party will follow in lock step advocating violence and calling anything less than that an insufficient response. I think it is at least possible that whoever put this movie together knew exactly the response they were going to get from both of these anti-American factions. I don't have any desire to come together with either the extremist Muslims who do these terrorist actions or the Taliban wing of the Republican Party. Both are dangerous and evil.

[Bill Fleming]

     
“No matter what side of an argument you're on, you always find some people on your side that wish you were on the other side.” - Jascha Heifetz (Russian born American Violinist )

[john davidson]

Hi Bill (yawn),

Yes, the world needs conservatives and libs, probably in that order. While I have not agreed with him on every issue (oh well) Ken can at least articulate a point beyond one sentence.

Still waiting for you to do the same.

jd

[Bill Fleming]

Go back to sleep John.

[larry kurtz]

The GOP is dying.

Earth hater pollster, Rasmussen sez only 6% of GOP voters think foreign policy is important: that's telling in itself even as the barricades constructed around their lives are coming down. Regardless, their polling has all but given up on the electoral board:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard

[Ken Blanchard]

John: I have long since stopped bothering with Larry and I am about through with Donald, now that he has gone full throttle Archie Bunker on us. I still have hopes for Bill.

Bill: Like the Democrats refrained from criticizing Bush when Iraq heated up?

[john davidson]

Donald, Bill and Larry remind me of Larry, Moe and Curly, not necessarily in that order. Let's get real, people, let's please put the grown-ups back in charge.