Permalink | Date posted: September 14, 2012
The deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya raises a host of uncomfortable questions about the long-term ramifications of U.S. overseas interventions, the impact of Islamophobic media on U.S. international relations, and the ability of the United States to defend its diplomats in unstable or hostile environs.
It also calls into the question the efficacy of the NATO intervention in Libya, which left behind a weak central state and a fractious, violent political order susceptible to penetration by radical groups like the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades, the al-Qaeda-aligned Libyan organization suspected of using protests at the U.S. mission as a pretext for carrying out the attacks.
The Mitt Romney campaign, however, has raised none of these issues. Instead—in language reportedly approved by the candidate himself—Romney fumed that it was “disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” Despite withering bipartisan criticism of both the timing and the substance of the statement, the Romney campaign has refused to disavow it.
The remark was an apparent reference to a statement issued by the U.S. embassy in Cairo, where boisterous crowds had gathered to protest a bizarre anti-Islamic U.S. film that had been leaked to the Egyptian media. In language not vetted by Washington, the embassy staff condemned efforts to “hurt the religious feelings” of Muslims, which the Romney campaign construed as “an apology for our values.” Not only was the statement made in Cairo—not Benghazi, where the actual violence occurred amid similar protests—but it was issued hours before the U.S. personnel in Libya had been attacked.
Although some Republicans condemned the Romney campaign’s response as “craven” and “irresponsible,” a number of campaign surrogates and supporters took to the airwaves to double down. After repeatedly dodging a reporter’s questions about the timeline of the events (how could the administration be faulted, after all, for a statement issued before the violence had occurred?), Romney adviser Richard Williamson mused inanely that the occasion called for the president to “stand up for our values and [be] willing to lead from the front.” On Twitter, Donald Rumsfeld attributed the attacks to “perceived American weakness,” although presumably Twitter’s 140-character format left him no space to address the 12 embassy attacks that occurred during the last Bush administration.
But beyond a sordid new occasion for old “no apology” talking points, some observers have read baser motives into the Republican response. Romney’s remarks, wrote Adam Serwer, “don't merely assign responsibility for the incident to, say, poor leadership or a failed foreign policy. Instead, Romney's remarks suggest that Obama has very specific personal motivations: When violent religious radicals slaughter Americans, Obama is on the side of the radicals.” Serwer lumped the implications in with “a very well-developed narrative, popular on the fever swamps of the right where questions about Obama's citizenship or faith linger” and likened them to attacks leveled by the conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza.
But if Romney kept such implications to a dog whistle, other Republicans raised them to a fever pitch. Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, for example, tweeted that it was “sad and pathetic” that “Obama sympathizes with [the] attackers in Egypt.” Todd Akin, the Missouri Republican notorious for his insistence that women can’t get pregnant from “legitimate rape,” concluded simply that President Obama was “just apologizing because he doesn’t like America.” And after Obama called Libyan president Yusuf al-Magariaf to thank him for the Libyan government’s assistance in tracking down the perpetrators of the attack, FoxNews.com ran a story headlined “Obama Calls Libyan President to Thank Him after U.S. Ambassador Murdered.”
Amid the Beltway chatter, a new group of Libyans assembled outside the U.S. consulate in Benghazi holding signs condemning extremism and expressing remorse for the previous day’s violence. In an episode fraught with missed opportunities and debased rhetoric, they may be the only ones actually apologizing.
Dinesh D’Souza, a high-profile conservative writer and academic, is notorious for his right-wing “culture warrior” writings, as well as for his xenophobic insinuations about President Barack Obama.
Although sometimes characterized as a moderate, business-oriented political figure, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney embraced a hawkish foreign policy during his 2012 presidential campaign.
Since leaving office in the midst of the unpopular Iraq War, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has periodically reemerged to champion torture, defense appropriations, and an expansive war on terror.
Richard Williamson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was one of the Romney campaign’s more aggressive surrogates on foreign policy, claiming that Romney would put military force on “on the table” to prevent an Iranian “nuclear breakout.”
Inter Press Service The killing of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens comes in the wake of a new threat…
Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
Clifford May, the founder of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, blames “multiculturalism” for helping lead to the nuclear deal with Iran. He wrote in a recent op-ed: “Why would American negotiators agree to such concessions? They apparently believe that talking softly while carrying no military or economic sticks is all that’s necessary to achieve ‘conflict resolution.’ … Have multiculturalism and ‘moral equivalence’ blinded America’s leaders to that reality?”
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a neoconservative think-tank that observers describe as having an “ideological affinity with the Israeli government.” According to Slate’s John Judis, FDD’s main concern over the Iran nuclear is the potential it creates for broader U.S.-Iran rapprochement and Israel’s “worry that Mr. Obama means to form a de facto alliance with Iran.”
Influential Iraq War promoter Richard Perle has unsurprisingly come out against the Iran nuclear deal, claiming the “likelihood of a crash landing” for the deal is “significant.” For Perle, whose long-standing fellowship at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute appears to have come to an end, any deal with Iran is tantamount to abetting genocide: “Never again should the potential for genocide be allowed and that means taking action before for it’s too late. And that means not entering into an agreements that predictably will place the most lethal weapons in the hands of the most dangerous enemies.”
David Albright’s criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal have placed him amongst a diminishingly small group of arms control “experts” who oppose or seek to change the agreement. Underscoring Albright’s isolation, Mark Wallace of the controversial activist group United Against a Nuclear Iran was hard-pressed during a recent interview to identify many anti-deal figures in the arms control community, stating: “David Albright, even though he’s not affiliated with us, has been very useful.”
Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the neoconservative Hudson Institute, has a track record of levelling accusations of anti-Semitism against those he disagrees with. He has gone so far as to allege that President Obama has resorted to anti-Semitism in defending the Iran nuclear deal, ludicrously claiming in a recent piece: “Obama is using a dog-whistle. He’s hinting broadly at anti-Semitic conceits—like dual loyalties, moneyed interests, Jewish lobby.”