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.
Advertisement-content continues below
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.
Advertisement-content continues below
In effect, our own federal government, supposedly committed to protecting our constitution, has sided with Sharia law, which prohibits insulting the prophet.
If Abedin is not a factor behind this policy, who is? The answer, of course, is the President himself, who knows exactly what he is doing. Whereas we have no access to Abedin’s security clearance form 86, which should have disclosed her foreign connections, Obama was never required to fill one out.
But this is more than a political ploy by the media to protect Obama. The coordinated attack on the First Amendment threatens the lives of Americans who dare to criticize Islam and organize to expose Muslim Brotherhood operations on U.S. soil. Coptic Christian Joseph Nassralla, who has been falsely linked in media reports to the content of the film, tells Pamela Geller: “There has been a campaign of disinformation and smears about the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ and my involvement in it. I have been forced to leave my home, and I have received numerous death threats. It grieves me that my intent was to call attention to the relentless, bloody persecution of the Copts, but that issue is of no interest to the media at all.”
Despite the media bias, it should be clear to anyone paying even casual attention that Obama has lost Egypt and is now in danger of losing Libya to the Islamists. The only legitimate debate is whether this outcome is accidental or planned. Such a debate, which will only be held if Republicans acquire some testosterone, could turn the presidential campaign in Romney’s favor in the same way that Jimmy Carter was unable to recover from the effects of a bad economy and a disastrous foreign policy, resulting in Ronald Reagan coasting to victory.
The hysterical media attacks on the filmmaker reflect such desperation by the media that voters may come to associate the anti-American violence with Obama’s policy of appeasing the Arab/Muslim world. The voters know very little about how Obama has deliberately and consciously assisted the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and that this is the group that has spawned anti-American terrorism around the world. Andrew McCarthy’s new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, documents how there never was an “Arab Spring” but a Pandora’s box that contains the seeds of the destruction of America and the West.
Egypt is lost, despite claims by Wolf Blitzer and others on CNN that Obama has somehow made the Muslim Brotherhood government see the light about the need to protect American interests. There is a “government” in place in Libya, and its officials have directly contradicted the Obama Administration’s claims about the “spontaneous” nature of the anti-American violence. This violence, however, demonstrates that the Libyan government either has no power or control over the country or is unwilling to confront the Islamists. Under these circumstances, it is only a matter of time before the terrorists are in complete control and eventually take power there officially, just as they have in Egypt.
In fact, there are reports that Libyan security forces have been infiltrated by the terrorists. Official Libyan statements about the preplanned nature of the assault on the U.S. consulate on 9/11 may be seen, therefore, as a cry for help. Instead, however, Hillary and Obama have decided to beat up a filmmaker. Again, this is a complete diversion from a policy that is delivering major governments of the Arab/Muslim world into the hands of those who gave us al-Qaeda and 9/11.
McCain himself has a lot to answer for. He said, at a press conference in Benghazi, Libya, on April 22: “I have met with these brave fighters, and they are not al-Qaeda. To the contrary: They are Libyan patriots who want to liberate their nation. We should help them do it.” This statement was made in the very place where the terrorists destroyed the U.S. Consulate and killed the Ambassador.
At the time of Obama’s intervention in Libya, which was both illegal and unconstitutional, there were numerous reports of al-Qaeda activity in the country. But Republicans in Congress, led by McCain in the Senate, did not want to hold Obama accountable.
Andrew Bostom, the author of the highly acclaimed The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, was interviewed on America’s Morning News on September 17 and expressed disgust that the media are letting McCain get away with escaping his own responsibility for what has happened there. “He was one of the evangelists for this utterly failed policy, particularly in Libya,” Bostom noted.
This bipartisan nature of the failure, in the sense that McCain’s fingerprints are all over it, is why some conservatives are fearful that the Republicans don’t have the willingness to go after Obama’s record of foreign policy failure.
One thing is certain: the demonstrations will continue, and more Americans will have to go into hiding because of death threats from adherents of the “religion of peace.”
Our media could help stop this catastrophe, but they would prefer to save Obama’s presidency.
Photo credit: terrellaftermath
This article originally appeared at Accuracy In Media.com.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.