Replies

Some context:
These events were clearly planned for Sept 11 - the date, coordination, and organization of the initial events show clear premeditation and prior planning. Take away: the film is an excuse - not a catalyst.
.
Further context, for those who wish to discuss the “strong” rhetorical stance taken by the administration against such outrages as this obscure internet film...
Salman Rushdie:
In 1989 President GHW Bush made a public comment about Iran’s death decree for Mr. Rushdie “deeply offensive to the norms of civilized behavior”
In 1999 was named a Commander of the order of Letters and Arts by government of France.
In2007 Queen Elizabeth dubbed Rushdie a Knight Bachelor for his contributions to literature.
.
Fast forward to 2012:
President Obama accepts financial support and refuses to decry the statement of Bill Maher who dubs the Koran “a Hate filled Holy Book”. Indication - President Obama is on the side of religious free speech even when offensive to some.
And yet now President Obama, in his official capacity, apologizes and decries “offenses” caused by individuals exercising their free speech rights. Further his administration opens an investigation into the makers of the film in question. Indication - he puts the opinion of islamist radicals who seek to do harm to America and Americans ahead of the Constitutional rights of Americans.
.
To recap - the film is a straw man, a red herring, an excuse upon which the PR gurus of the radical violent islamists have hung their murderous actions as righteous. A previous president when faced with similar hatred and violence stood firm against the savage and uncivilized rhetoric and actions. A sitting monarch knighted an “offensive” author for his bravery and contributions to the arts.
And our current president: he defends public funding of the NEA which routinely and regularly offends Christianity, Mormonism, and other western religions, he accepts political financing from outspoken critics of religion who have said things about islam and christianity both that I dare not repeat on these pages, and then when faced with a true moral decision pint - he apologizes, kowtows, and hides.
When money and domestic political gain are involved - he sides with freedom for all - when he is called upon to make moral judgements and speak from the seat of power - he falls on bended knee, apologizes, and bows in the face of murder, violence, and direct attacks on his country, his government, and his people.
... just my 2 cents ...