09 October 2012

Would There Be Outrage if Muslim Terrorists Had Dragged Obama's Body Through the Streets?

After muslim terrorists destroyed the US embassy in Benghazi, and fatally attacked members of the US diplomatic delegation, they apparently dragged the US Ambassador Christopher Stevens into the street where he was brutalised and finally killed.

There was very little initial outrage in the US over the event. President Obama wasted no time in heading out to Las Vegas to raise campaign funds and let off a little steam.

What if muslim terrorists had dragged US President Obama's body into the streets for a bit of religious supremacist fun and pleasure? Would there have been outrage in the US in that event?

What if more Americans had been told by their news media that Obama had removed a US special operations security detail -- against the wishes of Ambassador Stevens -- just over a week before the fatal attack? If they had been better informed by their media, would Americans have felt any outrage?

The whole incident has been fairly well obscured and whitewashed by now, and the media is unlikely to re-open the sorry episode with a ten foot pole, at this late date.

But what if that had been Obama's bloody, abused body out in those streets? Would the news media and the American public have taken notice, and felt outrage?

Less than two months before the fatal attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, the State Department concluded that the risk of violence to diplomats and other Americans in Libya was high and that the weak U.S.-backed government in Tripoli could do little about it.

“The risk of U.S. Mission personnel, private U.S. citizens and businesspersons encountering an isolating event as a result of militia or political violence is HIGH,” a State Department security assessment from July 22 concludes.

The department’s former top security officer told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that he had recommended keeping U.S. military and additional State Department security forces on hand through October, documents released by the committee show. _WaPo
In recent days, the public has learned that the Obama administration knew full well the dangers that faced Stevens and his colleagues in Libya and in fact denied requests to provide more security for diplomats in that very hazardous place. On Wednesday, the head of a security team that was ordered home from Libya in August will tell the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that embassy staff strongly opposed the security cuts. "We felt we needed more, not less ... for the environment we had," Lt. Col. Andrew Wood told CBS News in a hearing preview. ...__Source

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if we had the expectation that the President of the United States of America showed up for work and did the required aspects of his job?

Wednesday, 10 October, 2012  
Blogger al fin said...

There would have to be a significant penalty for failure. Something like the Japanese ritual of seppuku, in the bushido code.

Unfortunately, we expect at the outset that our politicians, attorneys, academics, and journolists will be dishonourable. There are usually no meaningful penalties when they are wrong.

In a number of other professions, occupations, and vocations, that is not the case. Such professions -- with severe penalties for significant errors -- are generally held in higher esteem by those who know.

Wednesday, 10 October, 2012  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts