I bet the State Department, Obama, and CIA never thought that the GOP would rather fight them than those responsible for what occurred in Benghazi. But perhaps this is due to the confusion that pervades the GOP consciousness regarding Muslims, extremists, and the worst enemy of the United States, the Democratic Party.
Who would have thought on September 12, 2012, that the most important person to attack would be Susan Rice instead of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Who would have thought that those 3 would have been more attacked than extremists in Libya who attacked and raided the mission and annex in Benghazi. Doesn’t surprise me to see the shift in attitude when opportunism strikes.
The GOP have hated that Barack Obama outclassed their GWOT tactics and kept up attacks despite not putting more troops in the countries in question: Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya. They hated that they couldn’t out hawk the hawkish Obama and his hawkish advisors, especially during an election. Instead, they sought to paint him as an apologist for American ways. While this rouse might work on the American voters, it didn’t, it doesn’t work on the broader international community who are not pinning their hopes on Mitt Romney. The beauty of America’s limits often shine when such a contrast is drawn between what American voters think the world should do and what the rest of the world is simply going to do.
However, that is the disconnect that is part of the consciousness of the GOP. They hate Muslims, lets call it like it is. They serve as the antipode of these extremists they wail about in their daily call to prayer. They validate to these extremists that this is indeed a War on Islam, not simply a war against violent criminals. No need for Bin Laden to do this work, Peter King is the best propagandist Bin Laden could have ever asked for. Imagine you’re a recruiter for extremist causes and your enemy has a putz like Peter King who not only condemns your very existence, but he is willing to try US citizens in the court of public opinion no different than Joseph McCarthy did with his anti-commie red scare. Peter King doesn’t get how he is part of this equation. He sees himself the noble warrior against the “terrorists”.
King isn’t alone in the Congress, of course. He is just one of the loudest in what has become a lockstep party of ignorance and indifference to cultural differences. If it isn’t Anglo Saxon Protestant, Fuck It. Those Heathens Will Be Tamed! He is joined at the hip by a very vocal caucus that should be called the anti-muslim caucus. They are equally anti-constitutionalist in that they run all over the 1st amendment in both free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious expression rights.
Look at how Bachmann, King, Golmert and others go on and on with Terror Baby garbage and then ask why they don’t notice how a movie like Innocence of Muslims is going to lead to what we saw occur for days in the Muslim world. To them Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is a hero, a modern day poet of honesty about the vile Muslims who must be destroyed so Jesus can come back and rid us of these Democrats. There is no real reason to believe these wingnuts in the GOP will ever deal with facts honestly. They spent 4 years trying to convince everyone that Barack Obama was secretly Muslim, that he was really born in Kenya, that your lightbulbs are at risk, and that the real reason the economy sucks is Barack Obama. People who deal with reality with such irreverence shouldn’t be quoted by Wolf Blitzer, Washington Post, and others without a big asterisk. At least the freaks like Allen West, a man so confused he actually lied to people in claiming as a Lt. Col, dismissed in disgrace, he had more clearance than POTUS? This went quite unchecked as he was allowed to come on and parade his goonery on TV. But he’s gone now. What about Mike Rogers, the seemingly dignified former FBI agent who has shown from the beginning he knows little of the Muslim world. He’s just another American institutionalist who has been over briefed and under informed.
Because these white arrogant males refuse to see how their repeatedly racist policies, actions, comments, and behaviors, have been viewed around the world….they refuse to understand how a simple trailer can create so much ruckus. They blindly chalk an event like Benghazi as “it was a terrorist event!” This means what?
Lets assume we can divine a few meanings of this phrasing…
A terrorist event by their definitions would be organized simply to attack, cause harm for no other purpose than to affect the politics, posture, or position of their authority. This very crude definition does nothing to stop ‘terrorism’ of course, it simply tags everything the same way. Is an event like Benghazi the same as the WTC attacks? Spain bombings? IRA v UK? Tamil Tigers? Is this the same sort of assassination as we saw with Bhutto or Sadat? They want you to believes so. The hyperventilation by these idiots has stomped all over the memory of the people killed Sept 11-12, 2012. They howled the outrage to the point they started revealing fairly obscure information. They have no revealed tactical decisions of in the protection of diplomats, they have revealed the names of the contract companies they use to protect their diplomats, you can learn about how many guards they are likely to employ to protect VIPS, and what the fall back measures are likely to be. Great Job, Issa!
These fools spent more time revealing the nature of securing VIPS that they spent zero time understanding the causation behind these events. Yes, there is a need to discuss the interconnection between Nakoula Basselly Nakoula, Terry Jones, Frank Gaffney, Pam Geller, and the targets of their scorn. They are not simply exercising their free speech rights. They are inciting riots from what they see as a safe haven in the first amendment. Is the film a first amendment violation? I think we can all agree SCOTUS would never agree. But that doesn’t matter because I can exercise my first amendment rights and say its utter garbage meant to piss off and offend people and that the schmuck behind it doesn’t deserve my support and shared portion of protection. I’d just as easily drop ship his ass to the middle of Derna and let them have him. He should have the courage of his convictions, right?
But politicians did this crazy dance about protecting our rights, and that in America we have the right to be offensive, racist, hateful of Islam, and nobody will do anything about it. Meanwhile, we send out ambassadors to poke the finger in the eye of anyone who dare object to this offense. If we had 50% of Americans call the Chinese an offensive racist term en masse, you’d still have the GOP step up and say, “we have freedom of speech here. We can’t do anything about it.” This is a chickenshit and very unenlightened view of the role of free speech on the part of the GOP and their DNC parrots. Freedom of speech doesn’t limit someone from barking right back at an idiot.
Why is it so important for the GOP and their typical apologists to remove any causation associated with the Cairo protests? We know the Cairo protests were called for as a reaction to the film and to Terry Jones and his “Judge Mohammed” day, Sept 11th. There is no dispute about this fact. The Grand Mufti of Cairo called for those protests on Sept 9th, so not really a hidden call to tell the US to get its act together. In the early morning hours of Sept 11th, the US news media was discussing the protests in Cairo. By midday the news chatter was showing the embassy in Cairo being breached. It showed journalists like Ben Weideman interviewing people who were yelling “why you insult the prophet” as he attempted to explain the US doesn’t arrest people for film making. We know that the embassy perimeter was breached, U.S. flag torn down and replaced with “al-Qaida” flag. For those who don’t know the “al-Qaida” flag, it is a black flag that has Shahada script saying there is “no God but Allah and Mohammed is Allah’s messenger.” Now, many groups use this flag besides al-Qaida, but you won’t hear much chatter on that unless you’re a good wonk.
Why would it matter if anyone was upset about this film? Well, aside from the lack of support from the local population, you have guards who are not going to stand by you in Libya, or elsewhere when you insult their prophet. They may look a blind eye at general U.S. policy, but their faith, even when light in many ways, is not going to be insulted by the contracting company, the government, or other. We have been told by AP and Reuters reporters that locals were indeed upset about the revelation of a film, they likely hadn’t seen, but who cares if they saw it, they were upset about it.
The GOP wants to beat up a strawman over and over. This strawman is the “there was no protest in Benghazi! This was a terrorist attack.” Part of this strawman is the idea that spontaneous events do not relate to armed militants. From the GOP view, they had to have planned this in advance (no evidence), that they knew the Ambassador was in residence (no evidence), that there were no demonstrations (despite reports from AP and Reuters reporters like Hadeel Al-Shalchi @hadeelalsh).
Then we have the rightwing rag, The Washington Times, a Moonie front, that typically panders rightwing talking points. But they say: “One of the consulate’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.” How did the “militant” know this?
Perhaps, we need a reminder of earlier events revolving around insulting Islam or Mohammed. It doesn’t take much work to do so, but we’ll start with the most significant one…one that happened in Benghazi.
11 People died as a result of this protest on February 18, 2006 as a result of the outrage over insulting Mohammed. Why would the GOP want us to believe this time they were the lone country that was not offended? This makes zero sense.
Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten newspaper and other publications can easily tell you about the fervor that can be caused by such events as publishing offensive anti-Muslim or anti-Mohammed materials. It doesn’t take long to look up the track record on this one.
Then we have the reaction to the presence of “Ansar Al-Sharia” and the ignorance that makes this presence seem, out of the ordinary. What is easy to see now for even the most common American, the law enforcement of Benghazi is a shared net of militias that include groups like Ansar Al-Sharia. Those militias were dissolved after the September attack, but anachronisms won’t be necessary. Typical American arrogance would make this a big deal. American policy yappers have no qualms about invading other countries with either armies or opinions. But what do the people of Benghazi feel? In one case, we have a quote from one of the members of Ansar al-Sharia who said, “we’ll just go back to the jobs we already have. This was always a volunteer effort.”
To the ignorant American, all people who join in groups that oppose U.S. policy are extremist. This sort of on-off processing is defied by the facts and leads to a bad set of analysis. If one thinks that a “terrorist’ cannot be reformed, then what policy do you write in accordance? If you think that some can be dissuaded from violence protests into more productive dialogue, then another policy is likely to be written. When you ignore the proclaimed list of offenses as silly and not worth your attention. This is common in WASPY America. Repeatedly WASPY Americans ignore the complaints of non-WASPs. They ignore the cultural differences until they laugh at anyone who claims they are racist, sexist, or other form of bigots. So how do you expect them to understand the offense of pissing on a prophet in another religion from another land that they already despise and mock.
The mockery of Islam is not helping the fight against terrorism. If you spend any time with a counter-terror specialist, they are working over time to separate the “I’m doing this for Islam” rhetoric from the actions themselves and demonstrating who is actually harming the most Muslims in the world are actually those who claim to be promoting it. If you spent any time talking about how they intend to end or subdue these groups, they point to programs that work to identify militants who will turn away from violence. This gets mocked by phony advocates of winning a war on terrorism. The louder the mock, the less field experience in their portfolio. In fact, the most consistent voices in the anti-muslim choir have zero military experience much less experience dealing with the Muslim world. Frank Gaffney, Pam Geller, Terry Jones, Bridgit Gabriel, Sean Hannity, and the like spend their days and nights trying to tell you about terrible Islam. They have big shows, hearings, and panels about it.
So long as you can’t find offense in the offensive, you can’t do the math that includes offensive behavior in the causation of events. The facts are clear about what happened in Cairo, Tunisia, and elsewhere, but the GOP wants Benghazi to remain a fog. They want to find something to put their foot on and go back to being the big daddy on defense. In doing so, they will lie about anything apparently, including whether a film can be a causation of a militant attack. And for Susan Rice, or others, to walk those comments back, is just as pathetic. I don’t set my moral compass by either party. I don’t set my fact finding on simply proving one right and one wrong. The facts often leave parties on the shoulder of the highway. This event is little different.
While the militants are responsible for their actions, while the State Dept didn’t do enough to protect its VIPS and CIA project, and while the administration should be fairly prone to knowing how to respond, it would be utterly ignorant to exclude the Innocence of Muslim film by Nakoula Bassely Nakoula from this set of events. I would have almost forgotten about his presence in all of this if not for the Herculean effort to ignore him, the film, and its role. They’re lying through their teeth.