Contempt for Your Intelligence: The Administration's Benghazi Response

Did it occur to them that the chances of the entire Middle East watching that stupid movie at the same time, and getting "inflamed" at the same time -- coincidentally on 9/11, when the clip has been up for months -- are the same as the chances of throwing a coin in the air and it turning into a fluffy duck on the way down? Do they not expect us to think about that? They keep repeating that this is a very bad movie, as though the incantation means they have the right to be upset.

Please. This completely misses the point.

The point is not if they have a right to be upset, if the movie upset them, or if they are little barbarous monstrosities from another century, but whether American citizens have a right of free speech, and whether their government will protect them and defend them in the face of foreign threats.

No one is asking for chest-beating, but you know, armoring our embassies a day ahead of 9/11 would be a good idea. Warning against traveling to al-Qaeda-infested areas would be a good idea. And if all that fails, it would be a good idea to level with the American public and to tell them the truth.

For instance, Hillary should stop with the nonsense already: sure, they were carrying Ambassador Stevens’ body to the hospital. Please. We have seen dead bodies carried in celebration through Arab streets. We know what that looks like. People carrying bodies to the hospital don’t stop to take pictures. That’s the behavior of barbarians flaunting their crimes, sure that they just intimidated the Great Satan.

Since when do people taking the wounded to the hospital drag them so that the poor victims leave bloody scrapes on columns? Yes, there are pictures of this. Yes, you’ll have to look at British papers, because our unspeakable media thinks we’re infants.

And that’s the other part of it. Jay Carney, who would be much improved by a jester’s hat, has informed us that this is "obviously" not connected to the administration’s policies. Pleeease. How is that “obvious”? Whether or not you believe in the infantile notion that extending a hand in peace will get peace everlasting, the rest of the world -- not just diplomatically -- has never believed so. Ask Neville Chamberlain how well the extended hand to Hitler went.

The truth is that there will always be peoples, nations, and individuals who view it as right and just that they rule over and control the rest of us. This really shouldn’t be very hard for our government to understand if they’ve studied any history at all.

This is not kindergarten or an illustrated children’s book. There is no benevolent person smiling when cats and dogs lie down together. The Arab world in particular has a long history of striking out at those they think weak. Because they have a history of continuous inter-tribal warfare and because their religion is notably absent any admonition to respect enemies, they can’t understand someone being able to eradicate them and not doing so. When someone starts talking peace, they either assume we want a respite in order to destroy them later, or that we’re weaker and therefore safe to attack. This isn’t hard to find out if you study history. The culture of the region was like that before Islam. Look at what the Romans say about the Carthaginians.

But they want us to believe the ridiculous, patronizing speech in Cairo, bowing to the Saudi king, and distancing ourselves from Israel have made it impossible for the Arab countries to attack us?

Please! Can you mugs in the administration read some history now and then?

Ignore the movies and the documentaries. By and large they were made by twits like you. Go to the primary sources and read about what motivates nations to war. It might shock you to find out this was going on before colonialism and neo-colonialism, and that humans were fighting in areas of the world where no one could be considered white, for thousands of years before America was a glimmer in George Washington’s eye.