Considering The Constant Threat From Radical Islam - How Was This Even Possible?

Since the attacks on the American Embassy in Cairo and its Consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, the mainstream and social media have been working overtime to accuse or defend, understand or spin, every comment made by politicians and government officials up to and including the President. For all that chatter, very few are willing to ask the hard questions starting with, how is it possible to be here again?

On Wednesday, the President ordered heightened security at all American embassies and deployed two warships to the region to give the Obama administration flexibility for any future action against Islamic extremists, as the Defense Department put it.

That’s all well and good but why was that even necessary?

How is it possible that with the anniversary of 9/11 this week the order for heightened security at embassies in the region had not already been given? 

How is it possible that this administration could be caught so off-guard by the eruption of violence against its diplomatic missions? How is it possible after providing upwards of $30 billion in annual foreign aid to countries in the Middle East and North Africa, the American government did not have stronger intelligence links with those very governments?

How is it possible that after spending billions every year for intelligence, the United States had no idea that these attacks and demonstrations were possible let alone going to happen? There have been allegations that the State Department had a 48 hour advance notice that something was going to happen but took no action and issued no warnings to its embassy staff. If that is true, how is it possible that the President wasn’t informed? How is it possible that the government was so inept at best and callous at worst that it didn’t move quickly to protect its various embassies and staff?

If it is not true, how is it possible to station diplomats in one of the most turbulent and unstable regions of the world and yet still be so unprepared?

How is it possible that there is no single, consistent and strong message coming out of what was once considered the most powerful and decisive nation on earth?

The first public statement was issued through the American Embassy in Cairo and amounted to an apology to Muslims for a film made by an Egyptian Coptic who was living in the United States. The Obama Administration had denied authorizing the statement but that stretches credulity. It’s simply not how government works.

No embassy, no government department ever releases a statement on administration policy without first running it by head office. To do otherwise is career suicide. At best, if the President was personally unaware of the statement before it was issued, the State Department certainly was and approved it. How is it possible for them to put the United States into a position of apologizing for something the government didn’t do and which resulted from the ugly side of freedom of speech?

Now, we are watching the spread of confrontation and violence even as the Administration trips and stumbles its way through this crisis.

First it apologizes and then retracts the apology. Egypt is not an ally and then is an ally. The attack in Libya was planned by al-Qaeda, and then it was not. The State Department was warned 48 hours in advance then there is a denial that a warning was received. It is a horrific amateur-hour show with terrible and tragic consequences and which have seen the expansion rather than the containment of the situation.

The violence has now spread to nine countries in the region and even the Swiss Embassy in Iran, which handles American diplomatic contact in that country, is now finding itself threatened.

This is not a political issue; it is an issue of national security and national defense. It is astounding that the intelligence community with all of its resources and as connected as it is to other intelligence services worldwide, had no inkling that something might happen or if it did then did nothing about it. It is even more astonishing that no one in the highest levels of government considered the possibility of a potential threat on the anniversary of 9/11 and took no action to prepare for any eventuality.

Think about that. It is the anniversary of September 11 the region is dangerously volatile. It is well established that Iran, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and countless other groups are constantly agitating and working to undermine their own governments or those of their neighbours while constantly looking for reasons and ways to attack the United States. How is it possible that the Administration didn’t at the very least, anticipate the possibility of a potentially serious threat and at a minimum take the necessary precautions to protect their embassies and staff?

It strains belief that the Defense Department hadn’t put its marines serving at embassies on heightened alert as a precaution of some demonstration or possible terrorist action against American diplomats and embassies. It's all well and good to state that protecting embassies is the responsibility of the host nation but surely to God, the American government would take steps to protect its own people regardless of the host nations duty.

Is it really possible that absolutely nothing has been learned since the Iran Hostage crisis, the bombing of the USS Cole or any of the other attacks by Islamic extremists, including 9/11? How is it possible that in this time of instability, with Syria in the middle of a bloodbath, Iran working feverishly to develop a nuclear weapons capability and other countries in the region so unstable that violence is almost an everyday occurrence that nobody from the President on down thought it might be possible that American embassies could potentially be targeted on September 11?

How is possible, that given the ongoing instability in the region, the President felt it unnecessary to attend more than 60% of his daily intelligence security briefings in 2012 and hadn’t attended one since September 5 before the attacks? How is it possible that a President wouldn’t feel it necessary for some face-to-face, hands-on security discussions leading up to the anniversary of 9/11?

How is it that given the crisis in the region, the President cannot find the time to meet with the prime minister of Israel, America’s only real ally in the Middle East, who will be in the United States later this month to attend the United Nations General Assembly?

How is it possible for the Consulate in  Benghazi not to have had any marines stationed to provide security, especially this past week?

How is it possible for any Administration to rebuff the concerns of the only democracy in the Middle East over the Iranian build up of weapons-grade uranium while rationalizing attacks against its embassies in other countries in the region?

Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read, “The buck stops here” and he lived that simple message, taking full responsibility for the actions of his administration. Love him or hate him, he was a leader with principle and character. Where does the buck stop with this Administration? Who is responsible for the security of the United States? Some would say the President but while it is clear that President Obama has much to answer for in this crisis, it is not simply the fault of one man.

I have purposely avoided using profane language in this blog since I started it a year ago but this crisis is a cluster-fuck of unbelievable proportions and there is no other word for it.

From the White House to the State Department,  the Pentagon and the CIA, how is it possible for a nation to spend billions on national security, employ thousands to conduct intelligence, diplomatic and security functions and still be caught flat-footed on a day that should have clearly been tagged as a potential red flag day? 

How is it possible for what was once the world’s most powerful and well-equipped country to be so ill-prepared for potential threats and so anemic in its responses to them when they occur? 

How is it possible for the mainstream media and supporters of the administration to be more focused on defending the administration than on asking the tough questions that led to this terrible circumstance?

How is it possible that attacking the Romney campaign for being critical of the response by the administration is somehow more important than taking a hard look at the lack of preparedness and leadership that led to this situation in the first place?

Romney is irrelevant in this crisis and can be ignored. It is the administration that should be having its feet held to the fire. How is it possible for the fourth estate to have so completely lost its sense of responsibility and objectivity?

How is it possible that people on social media cannot get past their particular partisan politics to realize that this is not a political issue, it is not about being Democrat or Republican. but an American issue? How is it that they don’t understand that when an attack comes, the attacker doesn’t ask to see which party you have registered with before deciding whether or not to shoot you?

Billions wasted. Time wasted and once again, Americans under attack and being killed because all that money and time accomplished nothing. It’s a disgrace and I don’t care what side of the political divide you support, nobody is covered in glory by the lack of anticipation, planning, security and response to what has happened this week.

It’s a cluster-fuck with terrible consequences that have already occurred and with more on the way. It is unbelievable that all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, aren’t united in demanding better than this from their government and its political leadership.

How is possible that the so many fail to understand that the greatest threat to America comes from within and that it is the nation's own leaders and government agencies who are the reason that a great nation's prestige, reputation and security have been so undermined?

How indeed!

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

The Response To The Attacks On American Embassies In The Middle East

Two American Embassies were attacked yesterday. The first attack, which the administration called a protest of a small group of Muslim extremists, took place in Cairo. Thousands massed outside of the embassy, eventually scaled the walls intimidating embassy staff and tearing down and burning the American flag. Hillary Clinton referred to this as merely a protest demonstration. Apparently she has forgotten that the taking of the American Embassy in Iran a few decades ago started in pretty much the same manner.

For its part, the embassy released the following statement which the Obama campaign is now saying was not authorized by the White House.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of

free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Within hours of the ‘protest’ at the Cairo Embassy, a protest began at the American Embassy in Libya. Unfortunately, the protesters did not carry signs and chant slogans; they employed rocket launchers and grenades to attack the embassy. Many were injured and one American embassy employee was killed.

By international law, a country’s embassy is considered part of its sovereign territory. An attack on its embassy is considered no different than an attack against the country itself. The Obama Administration and the re-election campaign can label what happened yesterday as protests or isolated incidents but that doesn’t change what they were.

Nor does it change the fact that the President was silent.

Except for the apology to Muslims issued early in the day and a few diplomatic-type comments from Hillary Clinton, the administration in general and the President in particular were missing in action. Even Bill Clinton had more to say than President Obama but then, it seems that Bill Clinton is the surrogate candidate for president these days.

It was very late in the day when the President’s re-election campaign finally issued a statement. Unfortunately, it wasn’t to denounce the attacks on its embassies, it was to deplore the Romney campaign for trying to politicize the issue.

“We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.”

I’m not sure what they’re smoking and drinking at the President’s campaign office but criticizing him for being invisible when his nation’s embassies are being violated and Americans are threatened, injured and even killed is not a political attack. It is a legitimate questioning of the President’s ability and willingness to lead when his nation is threatened, especially on the the anniversary of the worst attack on American soil by terrorists in the nation's history.

This lack of response by the Obama Administration is consistent with its erratic Middle East foreign policy. Iran continues its nuclear weapons program unabated and definitely unafraid of the current American administration; Syria is a bloodbath, Israel (America’s only ally in the Middle East) is confused by an inconsistent level of commitment to its safety and security by what had always been its foremost ally and now, two American Embassies have been attacked and an American embassy employee killed.

It would appear that the Administration's policy of trying to 'tone down' the seething situation in the Middle East isn't working out too well.

Where is the president in all of this; who knows? Clearly, however, it is a sad day when a former president has more to say than a sitting president from the same party and an even sadder day when the only statement to come from the President's campaign office is criticism of his opponent rather than of those who attacked American embassies.

The conventional wisdom of the chattering class is that it is the economy that will decide the election. I believed that up until yesterday but now I believe it will come down to whom Americans believe will stand up and defend their nation; Governor Romney or former President Bill Clinton. Clearly both Romney and Clinton were front and centre to speak to the nation while President Obama was not and did not.

I believe Americans not only deserve better, they had a right to expect better from the President's glib promises in 2008. 

They were promised and expected leadership but the President demonstrated again yesterday that they are not going to get it while he is in office.

-----------------------UPDATE-----------------------

Since posting this commentary early this morning, the situation has evolved in the Middle East. The death toll at the American Embassy in Libya now stands at four, including the Ambassador. The statement of apology issued by the American Embassy in Cairo has been removed from the embassy's English web site but remains on its Arabic website. Perhaps the administration is hoping nobody who votes speaks Arabic or will notice.

In what can only be characterized as a day late and a dollar short, the President has finally spoken out against the attacks on his nation's embassies.


"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

"I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."


One wonders why that statement could not have been made yesterday or why the President couldn't have issued a statement to the American people to assure Americans that he was on top of the situation.

That would be leadership. Invisible silence is not.

The film that supposedly sparked the attacks was produced in the U.S. by an Egyptian Coptic Christian who goes by the name Sam Bacile, and backed by Terry Jones, the wingnut Florida pastor who outraged Muslims two years ago by threatening to torch the Qur’an. The film has been in release for months and it is becoming clear that it was used as an excuse to forment attacks on American embassies on the anniversary of 9/11. The film maker has since gone into hiding. There is a film being shown at the Cannes Film Festival that features a young woman lugging around a statue of the Virgin Mary and masturbating with a crucifix. I seriously doubt that we will see Catholics storm an American Embassy and kill Americans because of it.

For its part, the United Nations has typically made no statement about the attacks.

Many are now blaming Islam and all Muslims but that would be no different than blaming Christianity and all Christians for the actions of the IRA or wingnuts like Terry Jones. The simple truth is that more Muslims have been killed by radical Islamists than any other group. Earlier today, Muslims Facing Tomorrow released this statement.

"The Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow is saddened by the killing of the US Ambassador and staff in Libya and the unprovoked attack in Egypt. We at MFT strongly believe in individual freedoms, freedom of speech and even the freedom to offend. As such we strongly condemn any violence and killing in the name of religion however controversial the reasoning may be. 
Since the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, Muslims should stop being hooked by publications or films that they find offensive and as a personal choice can avoid viewing them."

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others