↓
 
Home » Obama’s statement on the death of Ambassador Stevens

Obama’s statement on the death of Ambassador Stevens

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the text of Obama’s statement on the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Some excerpts:

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

Statements like this are tricky to write, because they need to walk a fine line between angry condemnation and diplomacy. But a couple of things stand out in Obama’s. The first is that when he said “we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people,” Obama appears to be leaving the justice to the Libyans.

Next, the statement “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” is a sop to the PC crowd, a less-than-ringing defense of free speech (to say the least), and an implicit endorsement of the probably-bogus theory that these killings were actually sparked by the Coptic videos.

When Obama says “The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts,” I give him a bit of a pass because it’s just the usual obligatory diplomacy-speak. It’s not going to happen, and Obama knows that (at least, I think he does).

As for the role of Libyan security in the whole mess, that remains to be seen. According to Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi:

…Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building – deemed safer – after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack…

Al-Sharef said there had been threats that Islamic militants might try to take revenge for the death of al Qaeda’s No. 2 commander Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan in June, and he said the U.S. consulate should have been better protected…

Al-Sharef said the Libyan guards employed to guard the consulate building were far outgunned by the protesters, and thus retreated when the building was stormed.

Is al-Sharef telling the truth? Beats me.

Comments

Obama’s statement on the death of Ambassador Stevens — 32 Comments

  1. I am so angry at our failed president I cant express it. The “PC” crowd that guy kowtows to wouldnt think twice to denigrate Christianity and they do so because they’re cowards. That the elections can be a close is they are does not bode well for the future of this country.

  2. Harry the Extremist: another pertinent point is that this administration has not been especially vocal in condemning the Egypt persecution of Copts there, as far as I know.

  3. What are the odds of Obama pulling some kind of wag the dog military stunt to look tough for the election? That’s where Jimmy Carter screwed up. He did nothing for a year. Obama won’t make that mistake.

  4. MR Frank, it took Obama 3 passes on getting OBL before he was forced to act. There will be no military action in any of these cases. Obama thinks of these murderers as victims instead of the thugs they are.

  5. This is first and foremost a failure of basics. Yes Obama has projected a sense of American weakness that is the ultimate cause. However, September 11th is a high risk day for US missions. Cairo and Benghazi are high risk any day right now. Dependents should have been moved out weeks ago and any building with known weakness abandoned (discretely). There is now evidence that SS Clinton has been active in ensuring our embassies safety on the quiet diplomatic channel. The Canadians evacuated their embassy in Teheran just a few days ago.

    Just like budgeting, POTUS has a inability to do the mundane work (no briefing, no cabinet meetings).

  6. Why do we need Libyan “help” finding the killers? Have we run short of Marines and Hellfires?

    In the interest of international cooperation, I’d even give Obama a shot at my vote if he went Teddy R on them: “Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!” is the proper approach with Barbary Pirates.

  7. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.

    This is false and provably so. Nowhere in any founding document does it say to respect all faiths. At most, these documents say that faiths should be tolerated and only to a point. Once those differences express themselves as violent protests that result in the deaths of peaceful people, then that tolerance should be rightly shed.

  9. An embassy is sovereign territory. All embassies, especially those in muslim countries, should have enough Marines on site at all times to provide a credible defense of embassy soil.

    Obama’s wishy-washy, half apology, half condemnation of the events in Libya is entirely in keeping with the last 3.75 years. Shades of Carter for those of us who well remember Tehran 1979. Romney’s statement sounds like that of a decisive CINC. 55 days and counting…..

  10. ‘We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

    So, for rioting Muslims who kill our ambassadors and fly our airplanes into our skyscrapers and we aid and feed, we’ll reject all efforts to denigrate their religious beliefs, but Christians and Jews, well, its clear that they are filled with hate and cannot be tolerated.

  11. “According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack”

    A damning statement.

  12. Neo says, “When Obama says “The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts,” I give him a bit of a pass because it’s just the usual obligatory diplomacy-speak.”

    In addition to splitting an infinitive, Obama’s sentence really makes no sense. One can reject something or someone that is offered, but not something that has occurred. Perhaps he meant “to unequivocally (sic) denounce these brutal acts.”

    And you’re correct, Neo. That denunciation, or rejection, will not happen. There will be a few countries who will give a token statement to that effect, but no international outrage. I heard no outrage in Obama’s voice either.

  13. Love you, neo, but there was nothing tricky about writing the statement at all. You condemn the attacks and anyone who covers for them and swear they will be avenged. You leave out that crap about “denigrate the religious beliefs of others” because it’s completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

  14. Tom the Redhunter: I thought I made it clear I think the statement about religion was wrong. If not, let me say it more clearly: I think the statement was a weak, gratuitous bow to the PC line. Which of course is Obama’s specialty.

    That’s not what I meant by “tricky.” I meant that such statements are generally tricky. Diplomacy must be considered, and balanced with the outrage and the condemnation. I am most definitely NOT saying Obama struck the right balance–au contraire!

  16. Susanamantha: I haven’t yet listened to Obama reading his statement (I’m in a big hurry today). But I’ve seen other people refer, as you do, to his emotionless reading of it. This does not surprise me.

    I would guess, though, that he is pissed. First of all, the incident makes him look very very bad. Second of all, it’s my impression that Ambassador Stevens was a guy who was loyally carrying out the Obama agenda in Libya. Whether Obama is pissed on the behalf of the US is another question, but I have little doubt he’s pissed for at least those two reasons. He’s not showing it, I think, because he believes that would inflame the Muslim world he’s so eager to placate and soothe.

  17. Ray: see this:

    MSGs focus on the interior security of a diplomatic post’s building(s). In only the most extreme emergency situations are they authorized duties exterior to the building(s) or to provide special protection to the senior diplomatic officer off of the diplomatic compound. MSGs carry a certain level of diplomatic immunity in the performance of their official duties.

    IMHO, we should either not have embassies in countries that are so very dangerous, or we should provide them with the proper security and not just a show guard. Otherwise, they are a great temptation and sitting ducks.

  19. So as in Afghanistan, the guards and police suddenly showed who they worked for and did their job. and THIS is why, under normal operation, the RSO at the embassy would have insured protection at the consulate.

    ie. there is a system here, and it has rules and it functions a certain way.

    USUALLY the function of the system is actually quite good and amazing. you can tell by how much happens when they follow the rules, and what happens when they break them.

    ie. in Egypt they broke the rules

    its very hard for a civilian waking up today to suddenly find out that they had to learn tons of crap while they were playing the past decades.

    I happen to be a civilian who learned a ton of crap, and remember it (and the internet magnifies that ability a hundredfold as the memory ties to the information to pull up).

    Belonging to no group, i belong to them all…

    The military divisions, regardless of whether you approve or not, are all similar in several ways, and the way that is important here is in how they follow rules, and how rules are established and how not following them reveals not only incompetence, but malice, subterfuge, and more. Spies are often caught because they break protocols, and when you do that, the eye turns towards you.

    One of the most serious blunders of WWII, was that the head of one of the two major spy agencies, broke protocols. when one of the agents dropped into Europe was captured, and they didn’t misspell the word they are supposed to, that was supposed to indicate they were caught, and compromised. the freaking head of the division telegraphed back a reminder to misspell the word!!!! He totally ignored that protocol demanded that he consider any messages received that way to come from a compromised person. his telegraphing it back then clued the Germans in and so they would seek this special info and not let others signal this.

    The area of security at embassies AND consulates is an area of heavy obedience to the rules. if you look at what is required to be a MSG officer, you might quickly realize that out of the pool of all marines, these are hyper rule followers and rabid protocols keepers.

    You do NOT get a top secret clearance if your not the rule following kind of guy (or gal)… and the reason they need that clearance is because of what goes on outside the public purposes of the consulate. ergo the mission statement of the MSG says: to protect the top secret documents and so on…

    so there is only a few ways that such protection was not there… and depending on which one you pick, some of them will point to some harsh complicity.

    THIS was the discussion i wanted to get to in the prior thread as to how this could have come about GIVEN the way the system operates and so forth.
    (and not how young newspaper idjits assume it does and report without looking)

    there is a chain of command…
    in this case, two of them, as there are two departments that have to cooperate to make this work (and a third we don’t talk about that is there too).

    somewhere up that chain, someone had to decide how the station was going to be worked.

    now this place was closed in the 90s, and was re-opened again this year by Hillary Clinton.

    As Karl Von Clausewitz said (given a prior quote from someone):

    Principles and rules are intended to provide a thinking man with a frame of reference.

    I shall proceed from the simple to the complex. But in war more than in any other subject we must begin by looking at the nature of the whole; for here more than elsewhere the part and the whole must always be thought of together.

    Two qualities are indispensable: first, an intellect that, even in the darkest hour, retains some glimmerings of the inner light which leads to truth; and second, the courage to follow this faint light wherever it may lead.

    [right now on the military channel they are going over the actions at the IRAN embassy/consulate (they are using both terms in this case)… but its a interesting look as to how things operate. (there is also a documentary on the rescue and actions in Somalia too – but its in another series)]

    in all these places… someone had to make the conscious choice to decide which places should or shouldn’t have whatever they should or shouldn’t have.

    did the RSO decide they did not need any? was that choice made due to the speeches of politicians? was it because the RSO was compromised? was the choice from higher? a policy decision to make a statement as to how much we trust the new regime?

    the big problem here is that a new place would not normally be unguarded. remember what happened at the embassy/consulate they had to destroy? it was so full of bugs, and devices that it could never be used.

    so from the time that Hillary opened it up again, it should have been guarded by something other than the state it was in (as the land is technically US territory. if it wasn’t, the MSG guards could not kill all who enter if need be)

    NEO:
    Is al-Sharef telling the truth? Beats me.

    In what i have read so far, i believe so. The rent a cops were not trained to go up against soviet grenade launchers, hand grenades, and Kalashnikov. in fact, i doubt they had enough ammunition to dent the crowd if it just stood there and let them shoot. their indicating the building is just their fear when being overrun.

    and so THIS is why the protocol is not to leave these places unguarded… especially a new place… especially if an ambassador is stationed there… especially if its going to be used to gather info

    at the very least, the SDU force should be there. while their specialty is to watch the watchers watching the consulate, they did go through basic and marine training before their specialty.

    no… the problem is higher up…
    and the higher up you go, the easier it is for two entities to cooperate and orchestrate something by orchestrating the whole situations. something those lower down cant do as their reach doesnt span farther than the local area they are working in – unless they are connected or an agent of some sort.

    ie. if an agent, then they have a connection to the coordination of the other who tells them what to do that suits it, and only the other is responsible (the weak link is responsible for being a weak link).

    if not an agent, then he or she is not going to act in accordance to some higher plan he doesnt know, nor can an outside agency give him an order. the order has to come from higher up their chain (for whatever reason).

    the fact that it happened in two places and both places happened to not be protected the way similar places are in much less dangerous places, points to a higher coordination.

    somewhere, someone, who can say something to both locations, made some kind of policy or gave an order, that caused these places to be understaffed at best, and no staff at worst, leaving the properties and the employees unprotected… (and outcomes up to fate).

  21. Thank you, neo, and upon reading your post I see you did. bty, when I said “you” in my comment above I meant Obama, or more generically whoever writes this type of statement, not you personally. My bad!

  22. AAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!

    I am ANGRY! As angry as I’ve been since we bugged out of Vietnam.

    Obama, and Hillary by extension, have a foreign policy that I call, “Walk stickly and carry a big soft.”
    Every embassy and consulate in Muslim countries should be on high alert on 9/11. For as long as jihad is a danger. Period!!

    The fact that Obama did not take any intelligence briefings in the last week is a dereliction of duty. Period!!

    The fact that these man-caused disasters cannot be called what they are is an abomination. Period!!

    We are drifting, drifting inexorably toward a real war. Or, if the progressives have their way, surrender. Forbid it Almighty God!

    Do not tell me that anyone who calls themselves an American cannot see the insane policies of this administration. It is to weep!

    I pray that I don’t live to see what I believe is coming. That is a war that will make the casualties of WWII seem like child’s play or…….dhimmitude.

    Anybody but Obama – 2012! ABO-2012!

  24. “I pray that I don’t live to see what I believe is coming. That is a war that will make the casualties of WWII seem like child’s play or…….dhimmitude.”

    I do not understand our reluctance to stomp down hard on our enemies. And anyone who doubts radical Islamists are not in it for the long run and intend to bring down the West is clueless.

  25. Curtis, you are a veritable encyclopedia of movie knowledge. Gutwrenching to see those scenes. Even though I know it’s not Saigon. How do I know? The electric wires. Too neat and well arranged.

    Parker, you got it exactly right. They will try to outlast us. Look how far they have come in eleven years. Are we winning? Only a fool thinks so.

    First, we have to acknowledge that their goal is to convert, enslave , or kill all infidels.
    Second, we have to tell them we know what they are up to.
    Third, we have to tell them that we are a tolerant nation and want to live in peace with all nations.
    Fourth, we have to tell them that we will not tolerate attacks on our people anywhere in the world and be ready to back that up with swift, massive retaliation.
    Fifth, we have to continually tell Muslims who claim to be moderates that their only protection is to shun the radicals who are carrying out violence and jihad. When they allow the radicals to shelter in their midst, we will not be responsible for any collateral damage. When the moderates are more afraid of us than they are of the radicals, maybe Islam will change.
    Sixth, we have to refuse to tie our troops’ hands behind their backs when they are given combat missions.

    An old Marine friend sent me an e-mail detailing how our operations in Afghanistan have been co-opted by the lawyers. Every year the restrictions on our trigger pullers have become more onerous, which the enemy uses to his advantage. The legal obstacles that were placed in the path of the Seals who were tasked with taking out bin Laden required ridiculous numbers of power point briefings and assurances that all the t’s crossed and i’s dotted before the plans were accepted. I understand a lot of this is covered in the book, “NO EASY DAY.”

    To risk our warriors lives in such ridiculous ways serves no useful purpose except to assuage the PC pols and pundits. Is there any reason why we have to stand in long lines and have our body cavities checked at airports except that we have failed to deal with the threat in any meaningful way. When we no longer fear suicide bombers then I will say we are winning. We have to stand up for freedom!

  26. I’m really not an encyclopedia of movie knowledge. Not even close.

    Not any more than we all are and want to be free. I just remember a scene and google or youtube it. Everyone can do the same. Just start and see how easy it is. You will soon develop a “find” strategy.

    More than that, however, is passion. Why bother? If that answer is no, then there will be no search. But if that answer is yes, then the search will begin.

    And you will live. You will thrive. You will fight. You will tea party.

  27. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

    Yeah, I’m sure, had there been Christian actions to, say, ransack the museums that showed “Piss Christ” or “Virgin Mary in Elephant Dung”, that he would have decried those awful artists for being so disrespectful, and been “understanding” of the Christians acting as they did.

    Ah-hun. Yeah.

  28. }}}} I do not understand our reluctance to stomp down hard on our enemies. And anyone who doubts radical Islamists are not in it for the long run and intend to bring down the West is clueless.

    The ones in it for the long run are the Chinese.

    You want to notice someone sitting at the sidelines waiting for the two fighting forces to beat each other up sufficient to allow them to take over the whole shebang… that would be the Chinese.

    Kinda like the Romulans… In The Pale Moonlight — someone needs to do something to kick the Chinese in the ass.

  30. A christian bed and breakfast has to close as they wont handle gay wedding receptions…

    why?

    a deli run by an islamic, sells alcohol, and pornography…

    why?

    to an outsider one is following their faith, and the other isn’t… but that’s not true…

    the first is following their faith and that faith has them close rather than contribute to the harm of others (as they believe).

    the second, as explained to me by a bodega owner of a deli that the 9/11 terrorists passed through (in queens near the mosque they arrested some others)…

    he explained that he does not drink, nor does he look at the magazines. but he is fighting for islam by NOT protecting his customers.

    ie. by promoting what is bad to his enemies, he gets to hurt them while they think he is making them happy.

    you know. kind of like feminists teaching women to be sluts then claiming that the resultant behavior and social outcome is not their fault, but they shouold attack the society for trying to prevent them from being harmed!!!!

    ie. destroy the enemy by changing their morals and giving the very bad advice and things described as good and liberating.

    why wouldn’t your enemy sell you poison (mercury bulbs, pornography, sex without love, etc)?

    the question sounds funny?

    so we understand that your enemy would do that.. so the problem lies in our ablity to be allowed to say – that’s an enemy.

    whether its islam, or feminists, we are not allowed to define who the enemy is… are we?

    so both are free to cause lots of misery and be thanked for it. a position that subclinical sadistic sociopaths love…

  31. one more note..

    make a movie to inform people about something, and murder and mayhem as that is disresepectful and not art.

    to the point where the left is saying to prosecute the movie makers for the deaths they caused. so obviously they think its not art.

    load up a jar, put a cross in it, urinate briskly, put it on a stand, make a nice label..

    and that IS art…

    we even discussed it…

    and now i wonder, do we see how we have normalized a level of disrespect for others by making it art?

    why is piss christ art, and the cartoon as to mohamed not art?

    because the state dictates that, and so your a deviant if you dant telll the difference. (so its just easier to obey rather than request that the whole be cogent and consistent, eh?)

    how is this different from nazi art over jews and favoring the mullah and africans? (african blacks served i the waffen ss)

    our failure to understand this and to be so insensitive in general, has creatred the fertile situation where its easy to create such things by just leting us be offensive selectively…

    put a cross

  32. calling disrespect art allows the left to protect the disrespect selectively as needed, and when not, be outraged.

    and yet, when you discuss whether piss christ is art, the conditioned cant get it… and cant even be machiavellian enough to imagine that their discussion and thinking is totally contrived as its contradictory and situanally derived and not absolute.

    ie. that doesnt mean that such is not art, the problem is the selectivity the diktat it is so buy, and the lack of the freedom to react to it normally.

    ie. if the outraged were allowed to be outraged, people might learn its not art, and so making it serves no purpose.

    but since the christans are not allowed that, the disrspect is instutitionalk and protected, it serves the perpose of hegelian division where one group is pushed down, while the other is given privileges till they become punitive.

    so feminists are now punitive, and the state is making gender based quotas for colleges or else they are goint to take away the grants. 66% is not enough…

    christians and jews in the second Shoa II are held down, while islam and atheism is allowed their violence.. till they become real oppressors, which the prior were not in any recent era… (when was the last auto de fe?)

    gays and heterosexuals
    blacks/spanish and whites/Chinese

    its the same process in each case, and we are too stupid and ignorant to read about it, note it, and then dismantle it.

    so how can the end be anything else than whats coming if we cant even do that?

    it boggles the mind that they describe it out in the open, self proclaim their affiliation and goals, and then all that is ignored as their conditioned followers react according to their conditioning… and not reason…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑