The constant refrain from the media that the “anti-Islam” film somehow “triggered” or “sparked” the violence in Libya, Egypt, and other countries is a transparent lie that follows the Obama Administration’s attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the “Arab Spring” promoted by Obama has been a complete failure for U.S. interests. Media bias is to be expected, especially during a foreign policy debacle that threatens Obama’s perceived expertise in foreign policy.
Our media understand that, in the same way that Jimmy Carter lost Iran and America was humiliated during the Iranian hostage crisis, there is a danger that Obama will be perceived to have lost Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood, as violent demonstrations continue in the Middle East and other Arab/Muslim areas of the world. Hence, attention is being directed to a film that has been on the Internet since July. It is a diversion intended to save Obama’s presidency.
What is particularly interesting is how Senator John McCain is now disputing the claim that the attack in Libya that killed four Americans was spontaneous. McCain endorsed Obama’s policy of military intervention in Libya, without the consent of Congress, but now seems to be backing away from it, at least in terms of what happened in Libya on 9/11. He said, in the wake of the murders of the Americans, that “most people don’t bring rocket propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration,” and that it was a preplanned terrorist attack. It was another good McCain sound bite but begs the question of what these terrorists are doing in Libya in the first place, and why McCain backed Obama’s policy of military intervention there.
McCain should be asked by the media if he also intends to review his criticism of the conservative members of the House of Representatives who raised concern about Muslim Brotherhood influence in the Obama Administration. McCain had defended Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, against charges that she was too close to the Muslim Brotherhood. McCain became a media hero for standing up for Abedin and against people like Rep. Michele Bachmann. Dana Milbank of The Washington Post actually said in print that Abedin helped her boss with suits and handbags and logistics and had no influence over policy. It was “McCarthyism” to suggest otherwise, he wrote.
Yet, it is significant that Hillary Clinton has been leading the charge against the film rather than take responsibility for the lack of security in Benghazi, Libya, where the murders of the Americans occurred. Clinton denounced the film, and federal authorities directed the apprehension of the filmmaker, using the pretext that he was wanted for questioning about unrelated legal matters. This unprecedented attack on the First Amendment right of free speech demonstrates the Muslim Brotherhood influence over the State Department that Bachmann and other members of the House had warned about. The Muslim Brotherhood regards any critical depiction of Islam’s prophet Muhammad as blasphemy that must be suppressed.
In effect, our own federal government, supposedly committed to protecting our constitution, has sided with Sharia law, which prohibits insulting the prophet.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.