The Video Didn’t Do It
Sep 24, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 02 • By LEE SMITH
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts
It was bad enough, two years ago, that Defense Secretary Robert Gates called fringe Florida pastor Terry Jones to ask him not to burn copies of the Koran, or last week, that chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey took his turn to call Jones to ask him to stop publicizing a YouTube video, The Innocence of Muslims. But then on Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney told the world that the violent protests in Cairo and Benghazi and elsewhere were a “response not to United States policy, and not obviously the administration or the American people,” but were “in response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” Carney repeated the point for emphasis: “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or at U.S. policy, but in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”
Carney’s comments lie outside the range of plausible spin, even by Obama administration standards, and if his bosses believe them—as we fear they do—are simply delusional. But they are not without consequence. Nor are Gates’s and Dempsey’s phone calls. They all send the message to America’s enemies that if you kill our diplomats and lay siege to the our embassies, the first move the American government will make is to denounce . . . Americans. Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up.
What’s next? Where does it go from here? There are more than 300 million ways in which Americans expressing themselves might give offense to those who make it their business to be offended. Maybe it’s some other film, maybe it’s a book or even just a tossed-off phrase that our enemies might seize on to galvanize support for their causes. Is the White House going to put every American crank on speed-dial so it can tell them to shut up whenever a mob gathers outside a U.S. embassy or consulate?
Obama Adopts the Freedom Agenda
Frenemies of Free Speech
The Doctrine that Failed
Living with Islam
State Dept. Can't Explain Difference Between Cairo ...
More by Lee Smith
A Continuation of the Revolution?
What Happened in Cairo
The Kurdish Factor
No Red Lines in Syria
Assad’s Ally Arrested
It’s worth noting that virtually every description in our media of the movie that is supposed to have touched off the protests was attended by various aesthetic qualifiers—laughable, crude, amateurish—as if the mobs and their organizers were motivated by considerations of artistic craft. Let’s recall that similar murderous campaigns of terror were waged to protest Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, at the direction of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Would the editorial boards and newsrooms of our leading media debate the merits of White House officials warning prestige novelists to keep their mouths shut lest they anger extremists?
The Constitution was not written on behalf of poets and philosophers and film producers but to enshrine the rights of all citizens. Since 9/11 and our ensuing engagements in the Middle East, there have been appropriate occasions during which the American people have debated how the so-called clash of civilizations might be ameliorated. This is not one of those occasions.
To debate the right of an American to criticize religion does not indicate sophisticated sensitivity to the feelings of others but a willingness to turn tail and abandon our principles at the first sign of a fight. And to take seriously the notion that all those riots and attacks are about a video, not about American principles and power and policy, is silly.
What we have seen unfold in the Middle East over the last week is what distinguishes the region’s societies from our own. The protests in Cairo and Benghazi were not really about the film, the preacher, or Muslim sensitivities. They were an exercise in raw power politics, partly aimed at intramural rivals in the Arab political sphere, but mainly against the United States.
If the reaction of U.S. officials in the face of such an assault is to “condemn . . . efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” (the initial response of the U.S. embassy in Cairo) and to try to silence individual citizens, there is good reason for the terrorists to believe that, with more acts of terror, they will also change American policies. The unpleasant fact is that the Obama administration has encouraged our adversaries to keep at it.
President Obama believed that to maintain “credibility with the Arab states,” as he once told a group of Jewish leaders, he had to put some daylight between ourselves and Israel. His administration sought desperately to “engage” Iran and Syria, two state sponsors of terror that have been killing Americans for decades. The same Joint Chiefs chairman who told journalists in London that he doesn’t want to be “complicit” in any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities now advises an American citizen to stop alienating Muslim mobs.
The horror is unimaginable. The world "radically transformed" by Obama.
And more gruesome then Obama's lethal delusions is the diversion he is attempting to create using Mitt Romney. Obama and his media jackals are attacking Romney for his much needed and proper criticism of Obama's epic failing in handling this unfolding crisis of war. The Obama administration apologized for "religious incitement" when the Egyptian embassy was attacked. It's all the enemedia jackals are talking about, not Obama's epic fail, but the timing of Romney's remarks.
Obama's sharia spring sacrificing soldiers, diplomats and ambassadors. Obama sanctioned the brutal sodomy of Gaddafi, something that would never have happened under Bush.
White House condemns ........ film.
Below is the rough (Google) translation.
Sources AFP that "the U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film is offensive to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)," The sources said that "Ambassador was killed and representation of his body in a manner similar to what happened with Gaddafi, such as murder. "
"Lebanese paper report - Murdered U.S. Ambassador to Libya reportedly raped" Washington Times
And GWB should have done something to protect the WTC - but I'm pretty sure you gave him a pass and voted for GWB after than failure anyway. So, you'll certainly vote for Obama now because the Benghazi attach was almost nothing compared to the WTC. And that's in addition to the fact that Obama increased the total number of jobs, the DOW, and the NASDAQ more in 3 1/2 years than Bush did in 8 years. So, you must support an additional Obama term, rather than a third Bush term. Based on your recent posts, there's no reason for you not to vote for Obama.
Which Presidential Polls are the Most Accurate and What are they Saying?
On a day when the national media is touting a rise in the national polls by President Obama the City County Observer decided to take some initiative and examine the past results of the polls that are being cited by the media. The best website to go to for examining the widest range of polls is a site called realclearpolitics. This site publishes daily and average of the last months polls from nine different polls. Today’s average of the nine included polls has President Obama leading Mitt Romney by 4.2% nationally. The polls used and their current results are as follows:
CNN: Obama +7
Fox News: Obama +9
Rasmussen Tracking: Romney +4
Gallup Tracking: Tied at 46% each
Reuters: Obama +7
Democracy Corps: Obama +4
Pew Research: Obama +10
NBC/Wall St. Journal: Obama +6
CBS/NYTimes: Ronmey +1
It is obvious that these polls are all over the map with some polls citing registered voters and others citing likely voters. Each poll also has a formula that they use to sample a given population. Historically speaking two of these polls have a solid track record for predicting presidential races to within less than 1% of the vote. These two polls are Rasmussen Tracking and Gallup Tracking both of which report results of the trailing week as opposed to the flavor of the day. Their algorithms for sampling are slightly different yet both converge well.
For the 2008 election in which Barack Obama defeated John McCain by a 52.9% to 45.6% margin Rasmussen predicted an Obama victory by 52% to 46% while Gallup predicted an Obama victory of 53% to 42%. An average of those polls would have predicted a result of Obama 52.5% (0.75% error to the low side) to McCain 44% (7.8% error to the low side).
Similarly in the 2004 election when George Bush defeated John Kerry by a margin of 50.7% to 48.3 %, these two polls were very accurate with the average of the two predicting a Bush victory by a margin of 49.6% to 47.8% once again missing the margin of victory by less than 1%. Both polls under estimated Bush’s total while Rasmussen over estimated Kerry’s total by a scant 0.2% of the actual tally.
So with so many polls predicting an Obama victory of as high as 10% what do the two polls that have been historically accurate from a presidential election perspective predict if the election were held today?
The current numbers for these two polls are as follows:
Rasmussen Tracking: Romney 47% Obama 43%
Gallup Tracking: Romney 46% Obama 46%
Averages: Romney 46.5% Obama 44.5%
The two polls agree exactly that the approval rate for President Obama is negative 8% meaning that 8% more of those polls disapprove of the job that President Obama has done that those who approve.
So the question is whether today’s snapshot by 9 polls that shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney a growing margin of 4.2% is accurate or if the average of two polls that have a historical accuracy of better than 1% are correct.
WSJ: Obama exploited WSJ in TV ad
By DYLAN BYERS |
9/14/12 10:14 AM EDT
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board is willing to take Mitt Romney to task over his vague policy proposals and poor campaign strategy, but they will not stand idly by as President Barack Obama's campaign uses their paper's reporting to discredit him.
In an editorial today, the Journal's board charges Obama with "taking our name in vain" and "citing a month-old blog post about what is a single and now discredited report" in order to suggest that Romney has a "secret plan to raise taxes on the middle class."
"[R]eaders who see our name exploited in a TV ad should take it as one more sign of the Obama campaign's serial dishonesty," the board writes.
Hillary had been sleeping on the switch for the past 4 years. It is why she was given a private boeing jet and #$%$ in resources to be head of SOS.
Sad day for America and vast majority of peaceful Islamic/Muslim folks as well. Recall we had one skinhead attacked and murdered 6 Sikhs outside a mosque about a month ago? Nuts everywhere.