‘THE MANTLE OF LEADERSHIP’ —
Text of Mitt Romney’s Speech at VMI

The text of the foreign policy speech Mitt Romney gave today at the Virginia Military Institute, as prepared for delivery:

I particularly appreciate the introduction from my good friend and tireless campaign companion, Gov. Bob McDonnell. He is showing what conservative leadership can do to build a stronger economy. Thank you also Congressman Goodlatte for joining us today. And particular thanks to Gen. Peay. I appreciate your invitation to be with you today at the Virginia Military Institute. It is a great privilege to be here at an Institution that has done so much for our nation, both in war and in peace.
For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation’s defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI’s sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm’s way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.
Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe’s rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.
General Marshall once said, “The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.” Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours.
Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead — murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.
The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.
As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.
The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East — a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.
The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.
We saw all of this in Benghazi last month—but we also saw something else, something hopeful. After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs that read, “The Ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya is sorry.” They chanted “No to militias.” They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound. Then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said, “We are not going to go from darkness to darkness.”
This is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its foundation. It is the struggle of millions and millions of people — men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers — all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.
We have seen this struggle before. It would be familiar to George Marshall. In his time, in the ashes of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today’s crises from becoming tomorrow’s conflicts.
Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. And though the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in Europe is as inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century.
This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country — it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.
I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history — not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.
The relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The President explicitly stated that his goal was to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.
Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us. And it has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation’s capital. And yet, when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, “Are you with us, or are you with them?” —- the American President was silent.
Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.
In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.
The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.
America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. These are real achievements won at a high cost. But Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region. Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East.
The President is fond of saying that “The tide of war is receding.” And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today — with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threating to destabilize the region, with violent extremists on the march, and with an American Ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates— it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.
I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.
The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East -— friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.”
It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them… no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them… and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America’s capability to back up our words.
I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions —- not just words —- that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.
I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security —- the world must never see any daylight between our two nations.
I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.
And I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
I will make further reforms to our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade, in the Middle East and beyond. I will organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results. I will rally our friends and allies to match our generosity with theirs. And I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government — to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities … to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary … and to abide by their international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property.
I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure. I will work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships and establishing new ones.
I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.
In Libya, I will support the Libyan people’s efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.
In Egypt, I will use our influence — including clear conditions on our aid — to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid.
In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.
And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war — and to potential attacks here at home — is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.
Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.
There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East — and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America’s friends and allies in other parts of the world as well — in Europe, where Putin’s Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are “pivoting” away from them … in Asia and across the Pacific, where China’s recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region … and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: “Where does America stand?”
I know many Americans are asking a different question: “Why us?” I know many Americans are asking whether our country today — with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years at war—is still capable of leading.
I believe that if America does not lead, others will — others who do not share our interests and our values — and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America’s security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America’s great influence—wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively — to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better — not perfect, but better.
Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more—more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves—that we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power, and to lead the course of human events.
Sir Winston Churchill once said of George Marshall: “He … always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion.” That is the role our friends want America to play again. And it is the role we must play.
The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It is not America’s torch alone. But it is America’s duty — and honor — to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

UPDATE: Romney’s “harshest language yet” on the Libyan terrorist attack. Reaction from Ed Morrissey:

Democrats opened up this line of attack in two ways. First, they very overtly brought up the topic repeatedly in Charlotte during the convention, especially on the final night, as John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Obama himself attacked the Republican ticket for their lack of experience on foreign affairs. I interviewed Romney in 2007 and stuck to foreign policy almost exclusively, and I knew this was a trap for Democrats even before the Benghazi attack. Romney has an extensive knowledge of foreign policy, especially on trade, but by far not exclusive to it.

UPDATE II: Jake Tapper: “Security Team Commander Says Ambassador Stevens Wanted His Team to Stay in Libya Past August.”

 


EXPOSED: Obama Administration Had Advance Warning of Libyan Terror Threat

Eli Lake has the exclusive report:

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.
Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.

More from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

[I]ncompetence and dishonesty go together hand in hand — and we’re seeing plenty of both from Obama and his team in the wake of the Benghazi terrorist attack. The White House and State Department were asleep at the switch before the 9/11 anniversary attack, and they’ve been lying ever since about the circumstances behind it, too.

UPDATE: One of the lessons you learn in life is that truth is constant, whereas liars will change their stories as their lies are exposed. An editorial in USA Today makes the point:

Three weeks after an attack in Libya killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, we now know that it did not spring from a spontaneous protest, spurred by an anti-Muslim video, as the Obama administration originally described it. In fact, every aspect of the early account — peddled most prominently by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — has unraveled.

The first instinct of the Obama administration is always to lie.

UPDATE II: Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom provides excerpts of the letter from the House Oversight Committee leadership:

“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest . . . In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington. . . .
“Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi.”

 

 

PREVIOUSLY:


You Don’t Say, Kirsten Powers!

The media — with certain notable exceptions, she neglects to add — “seem to have taken their marching orders from the Obama administration” in their coverage of the terrorist attack that killed our ambassador to Libya:

The fact is, most of the major media didn’t even wait for marching orders, but rather began their coverage of the Benghazi massacre with the premise that it was a campaign controversy (which Obama must win), rather than a policy issue (which might possibly damage their beloved idol’s re-election chances). So they were willing and eager to attack anything Mitt Romney said about it or (contingently) to attack him for being silent if he said nothing at all.

The current narrative the media are interested in telling can be summed up in six words: Heads, Obama wins; tails, Mitt loses.

Classic: State Department Attacks CNN for Reporting Inconvenient Facts on Libya

We now know that, despite warnings from multiple sources — including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens — about the rising threat from Islamic extremists in Libya, the Obama administration failed to take necessary precautions. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, the Obama administration dishonestly tried to deceive the public by characterizing the attack as part of a “spontaneous” protest inspired by an obscure video. As the truth of the matter has slowly emerged, the Obama administration has sought to avoid admitting its errors and deceptions, and instead attempted to distract from this catastrophic failure of its own policies by attacking media outlets that are reporting honestly on the Libyan disaster.

CNN news reported that Ambassador Stevens was concerned that he was on an “al-Qaeda hit list,” but the network failed to disclose that one source of that report was the ambassador’s journal, which the network’s reporters had recovered from the ruins of the consulate.

The State Department has scapegoated the network for that decision, and you can see the predictable dogpile at Memeorandum, although news that is favorable to the Obama administration — e.g., “secret video” — never provokes this kind of reaction. PJ Media’s Rick Moran comments on the ethical question:

One can sympathize with the family on this issue, but the murder of an American ambassador and publishing his thoughts leading up to his death is a story with worldwide significance. CNN felt it had an obligation to selectively air those thoughts, only after confirming them with other sources, and keeping secret any personal and intimate details contained in the journal.

It’s a rare day when I agree with Rick Moran, but he’s right here: While CNN’s conduct is certainly subject to criticism, that pales in comparison to the “worldwide significance” — the legitimate news value — of the story they were reporting. Attempting to distract from this important story by trying to indict CNN before the court of public opinion? Predictable and wrong:

CNN broke a pledge to the late ambassador’s family that it wouldn’t report on the diary, said State Department spokesman Philippe Reines, a senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In a blistering statement, Reines called CNN’s actions “indefensible.”
The channel said in the story online that it took “newsworthy tips” from Stevens’ diary and confirmed them with other sources. Citing an unidentified source “familiar with Stevens’ thinking,” CNN said that the ambassador was concerned about security threats in Benghazi and a “rise in Islamic extremism.”
In a statement Saturday, CNN defended its use of the journal’s contents and asked “why is the State Department now attacking the messenger.”
“CNN did not initially report on the existence of a journal out of respect for the family, but we felt there were issues raised in the journal which required full reporting, which we did,” the channel said.
The public has a right to know what CNN learned from “multiple sources” about fears and warnings of a terror threat before the Benghazi attack, the channel said, “which are now raising questions about why the State Department didn’t do more to protect Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel.”

Here is the CNN video report:

More commentary from Darleen Click, Ann Althouse,  The Lonely Conservative, Twitchy, Gateway Pundit and NewsBusters.

Related: “Fox News’ Chris Wallace Hammers Obama Advisor Robert Gibbs on Administration’s Libya Lies.”

 


Obama Talking Point: ‘Opportunistic’

“The best information we have now, the facts that we have now, indicate that this was an opportunistic attack.”
— Matt Olsen, head of the U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center, testifying to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

“President Barack Obama said he thinks Muslim protests against Western criticism of Islam are ‘natural.’
” ‘The natural protests that arose because of the video… were used as an excuse by extremists,’ Obama said during an hour-long town-hall interview on the Spanish-language Univision channel.”

— Daily Caller via AOSHQ

Finally, a punchline to the sick joke of Obama’s foreign policy. After the Idiot Ambassador Susan Rice was all over TV Sunday insisting that the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was not — repeat, not — a “pre-meditated” attack, now the facts that contradict the original White House spin are becoming public, and so the slow-motion walkback is underway.

“Opportunistic” was still somewhere between “spontaneous protest” (Spin #1) and the final “yeah it was totally a pre-planned al-Qaeda hit” admission. And, no, Jay Carney doesn’t want to get into the details because — nudge, nudge — it’s an “ongoing investigation.”

At no point, whowever, will the White House ever admit that their Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Islamaphobe game was all about political damage control, nor will any of the mainstream media people who enthusiastically pushed the Obama spin ever admit that they were, in fact, totally in the tank for their Democrat buddies and thus complicit in a deliberate deception.

Source: Slain ambassador said
he was on al Qaeda hit list

What? The slain ambassador himself knew he was targeted for assassination by radical Islamic terrorists? And the Obama administration did . . . what? Nothing?

“Can we ask a question, Mr. President? No? OK, then . . . ” And then it’s on to do the Letterman show and party down with Jay-Z.

Grant that they’re totally in the tank for their Democrat buddies, but do these “reporters” have no sense of professional pride? Are they just gonna roll over and take it? Are they going to let themselves be played for fools by this administration?

“What’s clear,” the CBS reporter concludes, “is that the public won’t get a detailed account of what happened until after the election.”

Yes, of course. That’s exactly the arrangement. And they like it.

Lots more at Twitchy, but the hands-down best line of the day was a commenter at Ace of Spades HQ:

There was no advanced planning for what happened in your mouth. It was merely an opportunistic event.

The Disgrace That Is Susan Rice

The position of Ambassador to the United Nations has been held by such distiguished persons as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and John Bolton. This is what’s so outrageous about the idiocy of Susan Rice:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told [Jake Tapper] this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

Was the Egyptian protest also “spontaneous”? Could we suppose, hypothetically, that radical elements in the Islamic world are capable of coordinating activities on a certain date known in advance — say, for example, September 11?

The fathomless nitwittery is thickly layered: Rice’s continued insistence that this was all about a “very offensive video”; her post hoc propter hoc explanation of the Benghazi attack as a reaction to the Cairo riot; and then her claim that some “extremists . .. with heavier weapons” just decided to drop in at Benghazi — “Surprise! Sorry we’re late. Did you miss us?” — to add their RPGs and machine guns to the festive atmosphere of what was otherwise a spontaneous peaceful protest.

Perhaps we should consult an expert on affairs in Libya?

Consulate Attack Preplanned, Libya’s President Says
— NPR

Libyan president: ‘No doubt’ attack ‘preplanned’
— Politico

Libya’s Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf: Attack
On U.S. Embassy Was ‘Planned — Definitely,
It Was Planned by Foreigners…’

— American Power

(Via Memeorandum.) Kinda emphatic, the contradiction:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Was this a long-planned attack, as far as you know? Or what — what do you know about that?
MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: The way these perpetrators acted and moved, I think we — and they’re choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no — this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined — predetermined.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that — is that what you are telling us?
MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: It was planned — definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who– who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their — since their arrival.

Rice’s idiotic explanation that the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were killed in Libya because of a YouTube clip and a copycat “spontaneous” protest inspired by Egypt blithely ignores the specifics of the situation in Benghazi prior to the deadly attack. Before anyone ever heard of this stupid video, before anything happened in Cairo, U.S. officials in Libya were warned:

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.
He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn’t good for international business.
“The situation is frightening, it scares us,” Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials.

If that’s what Mabrouk and his comrade told U.S. officials on Sept. 8, and if the Libyan president says the attack was “definitely . . . planned by foreigners,” how can Susan Rice so confidently declare that the violence was not “premeditated”?

Answer: Because Susan Rice is an idiot.

 

SAVAGES: Did Libyan Mob Sodomize U.S. Ambassador Before Killing Him?

This report is so shocking that it seems impossible: According to one unconfirmed Arab-language account from a Libyan news agency, citing the French agency AFP, “the U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi.” It appears that the first English version of this account was published last night at the NOPC blog, then made its way to I Own the World, was picked up by Riehl World News, and then reported at the Washington Times by Kerry Picket.

My apologies in advance if I’ve gotten the sequence of events in any way confused. I learned of it via a Tweet from Michelle Malkin, and wish to emphasize — as Picket did in an update — that this is an unconfirmed report. Obviously a mob that would attack our consulate and kill four Americans is capable of anything, but we do not yet have confirmation that this reported atrocity actually happened.

Last November, journalist Mona Eltahawy described being sexually assaulted by Egyptian security forces after she was detained in Cairo, prompting me to remark:

A few weeks ago, discussing Libya on Red Eye, Kevin Williamson used the phrase “desert savages,” which is politically incorrect, but when we see savagery like this, who can say it isn’t also accurate?

The question remains valid, for obvious reasons.

UPDATE: One of the things about liberal bias is how it creates a bizarre disproportion in attitudes toward events. While mobs of enraged Muslims are now besieging U.S. embassies worldwide — in Yemen and elsewhere — the liberal media continues to unblinkingly accept the administration’s assertion that the real problem is not Islamic thuggery, but rather an obscure anti-Islamic video that no one in American had even heard about until Tuesday. Political correctoids are more offended by Kevin Williamson’s “desert savages” description of Libyans than they are by actual Libyan savagery. And we must remember, of course, that political correctness is ultimately about politics:

Ambush: Media Exploit Obama’s ‘Clear Advantage’ Narrative Against Romney

Protesters at U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012

Many people were shocked by the hot-mike incident Wednesday, in which reporters were overheard coordinating their questions before a Mitt Romney press conference, planning to question the candidate about whether he regretted his statements about the Libyan attack that killed four Americans, and how his “answer is continuing to sound.”

What has perhaps been forgotten was that the day before the eruption of Muslim riots in Libya and Egypt, the Obama campaign had already dictated its foreign-policy narrative to the media. This was the message already packaged and delivered on the eve of the annual 9/11 commemoration. An article at BuzzFeed posted early Tuesday morning had this headline:

Obama’s Plan To Use National
Security To Beat Romney

The article included explicit comments like this:

“For the first time in a very long time, a Democrat has a clear advantage on national security issues,” Michele Flournoy, a national security campaign advisor and former Defense Department official said. “This is a real significant shift in our political system.”
Voters, Flournoy went on to say, “consistently prefer President Obama over Mitt Romney on this issue by double digits.”

It was therefore pre-determined by the Obama campaign that the 9/11 remembrance would be the occasion for emphasizing the Democrat’s “clear advantages” on foreign policy.

No “Swiftboats” allowed!

One might have thought that the sudden onslaught of Islamic violence that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead would have been perceived as an unfortunate reminder that the “clear advantage” wasn’t really so clear.

However, inside the pro-Obama bubble that seems to envelop much of the political press corps — evidently including of Ari Shapiro of NPR and Jan Crawford of CBS — no contradictory facts can be permitted to disturb the precious narrative: Obama is winning, Romney is losing, and everything must be conformed to that storyline.

Toby Harnden of the London Daily Mail is evidently outside that bubble, and saw the attacks in Egypt and Libya for what they actually were:

 The Obama administration is engulfed in a full-blown foreign policy crisis just two months before the presidential election after the murder of the US ambassador to Libya and three other officials and amid fierce criticism from his opponent Mitt Romney.

These incidents, occurring as they did in two nations where Obama had sided with radical insurgents who overthrew their governments in the “Arab Spring” uprisings, clearly raised questions about the wisdom of the administration’s policy. But for pro-Obama reporters, the attacks had to be interpreted within the “clear advantage” narrative, and so whatever Mitt Romney said or did, the Republican challenger’s response had to be portrayed as insufficient, inadequate or otherwise wrong.

By daring to criticize the Obama administration, Romney was contradicting the press-corps consensus, as John Podhoretz says:

The murders of US diplomats in Libya and the attempted storming of the US Embassy in Cairo took place 56 days before the election of America’s next president.
Apparently, it is the view of much of the mainstream media and foreign-policy establishment that discussing these horrific events in the course of the presidential campaign is monstrous.
One might think that these custodians of the public good would wish the discussion to be of nothing else. The United States and its representatives abroad have been attacked, and in a manner that threatens to spread like wildfire. You’d think everyone would agree it’s time to talk foreign policy.
Oh, no. In the precincts of America’s Most High, the worst evil done [Tuesday] was Mitt Romney daring to broach the subject and use it to criticize President Obama’s foreign policy. . . .

Read the whole thing, as Podhoretz describes how the attacks on Romney started with explicitly left-wing Talking Points Memo and then dispersed throughout the media. The real outrage, in the minds of the pro-Obama media, is not that savages destroyed our consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, but rather that a Republican would dare describe this tragedy as a consequence of Obama’s failed policies.