Don't Misplace Blame for Middle Eastern Mayhem

An incendiary video about the prophet Muhammad, "Innocence of Muslims," was blamed for the mob attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt (and later, Yemen). In Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered. The video stirred some passion here in America as well.

Over at MSNBC a riot of consensus broke out when contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch as well as University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler all agreed that the people behind the video should be indicted as accessories to murder. "Good Morning," declared Butler, "How soon is Sam Bacile [the alleged creator of the film] going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now."

Barnicle set his sights on Terry Jones, the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran a while back and who was allegedly involved in the video as well. "Given this supposed minister's role in last year's riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where ... at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact."

It's interesting to see such committed liberals in lockstep agreement with the Islamist government in Egypt, which implored the U.S. government to take legal action against the filmmakers. Interestingly, not even the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian government demanded these men be tried for murder.

Now, I have next to no sympathy for the makers of this film, who clearly hoped to start trouble, violent or otherwise. But where does this logic end? One of the things we've learned all too well is that the "Muslim street" -- and often Muslim elites -- have a near-limitless capacity to take offense at slights to their religion, honor, history or feelings.

Does Barnicle want Salman Rushdie, the author of "The Satanic Verses," charged with attempted murder, too? That book has in one way or another led to several deaths. Surely he should have known that he was stirring up trouble. Perhaps the U.S. Justice Department and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security could work together on a joint prosecution?

Perhaps Rushdie's offense doesn't count because he's a literary celebrity? Only crude attacks on Islam should be held accountable for the murderous bloodlust they elicit.

One might ask who is to decide what is crude and what is refined? But that would be fruitless because we know the real answer: the Islamist mobs and their leaders. Their rulings would come in the form of bloody conniptions around the world.

Are we really going to hold what we can say or do in our own country hostage to the passions of foreign lynch mobs?

If your answer is some of form of "yes," than you might want to explain why U.S. citizens aren't justified in attacking Egyptian or Libyan embassies here in America. After all, I get pretty mad when I see goons burning the American flag, and I become downright livid when a U.S. ambassador is murdered. Maybe me and some of my like-minded friends should burn down some embassies here in Washington, D.C., or maybe a consulate in New York City?

Of course we shouldn't do that. To argue that Americans shouldn't resort to mayhem, while suggesting it's understandable when Muslims do, is to create a double standard that either renders Muslims unaccountable savages (they can't help themselves!) or casts Americans as somehow less passionate about what we hold dear, be it our flag, our diplomats or our religions. (It's hardly as if Islamists don't defame Christianity, Judaism, moderate forms of Islam or even atheism.)

But, I'm sorry to say, that may in fact be the case. After all, with barely a moment's thought these deep thinkers on MSNBC were willing to throw out the First Amendment for a little revenge. It was a moment of voluntary surrender to terrorism.

Within 24 hours, however, it became increasingly clear that the video wasn't even the motive for the murders; it was a convenient cover for them. In effect, the terrorists behind the Libyan attack not only successfully played the Muslim street for suckers, they played Barnicle & Co. for suckers, too.

...”Over at MSNBC a riot of consensus broke out when contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch as well as University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler all agreed that the people behind the video should be indicted as accessories to murder. “Good Morning,” declared Butler, “How soon is Sam Bacile [the alleged creator of the film] going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.”

...”Within 24 hours, however, it became increasingly clear that the video wasn’t even the motive for the murders; it was a convenient cover for them. In effect, the terrorists behind the Libyan attack not only successfully played the Muslim street for suckers, they played Barnicle & Co. for suckers, too”...

Who needs enemies anywhere else in the world when we have the above enemies of America right here at home?...Enemies who are able to spout their hatred because of the freedoms they enjoy here, which they want to rip from everyone else. They want to stamp out other expressions of opinion because they know theirs does not pass muster if the truth be known. TOLERANCE for multicultural ideas and religious conviction is a part of the American dream and a vital part of the individual freedom and peace we HAVE enjoyed in America. Our enemies want those practicing that to be jailed. Who does that remind everyone of from past history?

MSNBC is not attacking the producer of "Innocence of Muslims," it is attacking Mitt Romney.

We have to go back about two news cycles to remember that Romney indicted the Obama administration for blaming the international disaster on those who exercise free speech by making a political film before it sought to say even one word mourning the victims. The administration is obviously so embarrassed and threatened just before the upcoming election. With the connivance of the media, the administration turned the issue away from its own incompetence to the contrived complaint that Romney's statement betrayed Romney to be an amateur who "shot before he aimed" and who therefore could not be trusted with the presidency.

If the film, Innocence of Muslims is somehow illegitimate and therefore somehow not entitled to First Amendment protection, then Romney's indictment is false and could more plausibly be labeled amateurish. I think this explains why the administration has taken so many pains to blame the film for the murders, even going to extent of having the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff telephone the minister who was allegedly promoting the film. More, the Attorney General, who can find no energy to keep terrorists from crossing our southern border, has launched an investigation of the film and it has recently emerged that the producer might have a criminal record and might be guilty of identity fraud. The irony of the Obama administration accusing anyone of illegitimacy because of identity fraud needs no further comment.

If the electorate is convinced that the film was not the cause but only the excuse for the murder of our ambassador and others, the questions concerning the incompetence of the Obama administration in failing to protect our embassies and consulates on the anniversary of 9/11 and in the wake of at least two warnings becomes much more difficult to answer. If the film, however, is somehow illegitimate then so is Romney's complaint and the focus stays on Romney and away from Obama.

These clowns on MSNBC are stupid but they are also cunning, one inadequacy not necessarily foreclosing the other. Their purpose has been served which was to get Obama through a couple of news cycles by putting the blame at least arguably on Romney and to further confuse the issue in the minds of the public which only superficially follows the news. The principles at MSNBC are willing to make themselves look foolish with these outlandish statements just to cover for Obama.

In any event, the issue becomes larger and larger as the rioting continues and extends into other countries and more more revelations about warnings and so forth come to the fore. I am waiting for Romney to go before the national press club or some other respectable venue and deliver a serious speech on foreign policy. If he had done so before now, no one now could accuse him of opportunism for saying, "I told you so." But this omission is a failing of the Romney campaign which regrettably extends also to domestic economic issues. I can explain it as not betraying a want of thoroughness on Romney's part but animated by an excess of fear that if the campaign puts forth explicit programs, the media will simply distort the message and sabotage Romney.

One cannot say that the fear is entirely misplaced when one considers how the media has connived to shift the blame from Obama to Romney for the disaster in the Mideast.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.