This was my initial fear as well, hearing this news. The reality is that yes, it was under GW that said terrorist was released but it was to the custody of the Libyan government and with the condition he never be released from prison. Interestingly, it appears he remained in prison in Libya until… a certain president encouraged rebels to displace that government.

One can logically argue that it was indeed someone’s mid-east policy that led to the attack and the involvement of a terrorist that should have been in prison, but that someone was not GW Bush. It was not GW Bush that encouraged the regime change in Libya that likely led to his release… that would fall squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Obama.

The sad fact is you are 100% on the money. These morons in the media will never bring out a fact to discredit America’s first “Indonesian American” president. Yep, its that wicked Bush’s fault!

Erick is supposed to do this? You thought of it, you do it. Crowdsource it yourself.

I’m nitpicking, but a lack of inaction implies that they actually did something, which is only true if you count blaming others, playing golf, or appearing on late night talk shows.

Imagine . . . what a different world it would be if the media would simply tell us what’s really happening.

I drive for a living and listen to NPR during long hours behind the wheel. When the story about the lethal attacks on US personnel in Libya and the attendant riots broke, NPR went to its “Mideast correspondents”: mostly women living their romantic “reporter-in-an-undeveloped-foreign-politically-unstable-country-” dreams. (Danger! Excitement!) Amid the endless “entertainment-value-only” recordings of foreign-language shouting and chanting (which could’ve been Starbucks in Miami on Saturday morning), the story slowly emerged: none of the rioters had seen or knew anything about the video that supposedly “sparked” the rioting.

Meanwhile, NPR was repeating, and solidifying as truth, the US State Department’s explanation–the rioting was in response to the video, which had insulted Mohammad and deeply offended Muslims–and trotting out whatever “experts” it could dig up; they talked about the differences between freedom of speech in the US and in Mideast countries and–of course–how people feel. Further solidifying as truth the US State Department’s explanation, NPR dug into the video itself: who made it, et cetera. NPR–and, by extension, its funding audience–has identified, arrested, tried and found guilty the video maker. He’s a bad, bad man . . . if he really is, in fact, the guy who made the video, and if he really did, in fact, make it for the reasons the US State Department, a la NPR, has alleged.

Hillary Clinton weighed in with her by-now well-polished “angry, authoritative woman” persona (a drug-fix for white, American, female leftists): the video disgusts her. Barack Obama weighed in, too; the video doesn’t represent American policy and–oh, yeah–Romney shouldn’t use such incidents for political gain. Romney “hoots from the ship,” or “shoots from the hip,” or something: some cliche-made-wisdom by–if you’re a leftist–Obama’s vocal chords.

The Democrat party had interrupt Clinton’s world-tour show–it’s kept her out of the way during the campaign–and drag Obama back from his job as president-in-absentia (Eastwood’s empty chair is spot on)–getting paid to get re-elected instead of for running the country–for the return of the killed Americans’ remains to the US. Our President and Secretary of State were solemn. They were sickened. They were . . . oh, you know.

(I have to add, however, that Hilary Clinton looks more and more like a hung-over trucker. I’ve seen hung-over truckers, and she looks like one: face all puffy, hair shot back with tap water, built-in slouch and pouching belly ill-concealed by a bad attempt to stand straight.)

The end result is a now widely-heard-and-believed falsehood: free political coverage for the American political left.

I’ve watched the video and don’t believe it’d genuinely “offend” anybody. It’s Monte-Python-esque humor: a joke. It doesn’t seriously attempt to dethrone Mohammad from his Islamic deity. It’s too silly.

“Piss Christ” and “The Da Vinci Code” were serious–and, in the case of “Piss Christ,” publicly-funded and decidedly vulgar–attempts to debase Christian and/or Catholic theology. The video that–says the US State Department–supposedly sparked rioting, at first in Northern Africa and the Mideast and now all over the place, features goofy, child-like amateurism that shoots to pieces any idea that it’s a serious challenge to anybody’s religious beliefs. (Then again, some people are seriously offended by the Three Stooges; so it goes.)

NPR, as of yesterday, was still relying on the US State Department for its story line: the video caused the rioting, and that was its purpose, and–again, according to the US State Department–no evidence that the rioting or the murders of American personnel in Libya were pre-planned events.

NPR was even reporting on the kind of other feel-good stories its listeners love: a lady from Burma visted the US and got a medal (which, if her story is true, she richly deserved).

Part of the insanity is that NPR tries to at least present the image of genuine news in its broadcasts, and in its attempts to do that, some genuine news emerged: none of the rioters knew anything about any video, and they could be rioting about almost anything. But NPR–again, as of yesterday–is actually ignoring what its reporters have found, and isn’t digging into what has really brought the rioters into the streets. They’re staunchly standing by the US State Department’s story (its a democrat exective; what can you say?) and building an aura of respect and admiration around our heroic president’s decidedly presidential response, and our heroic Secretary of State’s heroic condemnation of the video . . . and–oh, yeah–Romney shouldn’t use such incidents for political gain, but he did, which ties in neatly with the leftist-correct image of him as a cold-hearted bastard.

Obama, on the other hand, is such a likeable guy. He publicly makes fun of ordinary citizens who challenge him, and he makes fun of Christianity, and he’s polarized the country, or at least exploited its polarization. But he’s more likeable than Romney. I know it’s true because the same news media that refuse to tell us who he is and what he wants say that I’m supposed to believe it’s true, so . . . I do.
Got Kool-Aid?
Meanwhile–and slowly but surely–the real story is starting to emerge. The video-maker actually has ties to the US government: has been used as an informant. If the US State Department’s story is true, then the US embassy in Egypt denounced the video before it was released. (Ann Coulter pointed this out.) The Libyan “government” is saying that the attacks on the US personnel were pre-planned and likely linked to Al Qaeda, and Libyan security personnel might’ve even been complicit. In some countries, local “security personnel” either did nothing to prevent attacks on US embassies or, in some cases, participated in the attacks. One of the Americans killed was a former Navy SEAL who was reportedly gathering information about the flow of weapons into Libya since its “revolution”: weapons being used–since the Libyan “revolution”–to arm Al Qaeda-linked Muslims who are suddenly wreaking havoc in northern Mali: ousting sitting politicians, stoning “adulterers” to death and otherwise terrorizing non-Muslims, and all that democratic, Arab-Spring sort of thing. It’s likely true that Al Qaeda terrorists, previously jailed in Libya but freed during its “revolution,” planned the attack against the Americans and used the aforementioned weapons–which are now easily got in Obama’s democratic, post-revolutionary Libya–to carry out their plan.

One overriding story is becoming clear; Romney, even though he was “shooting without aiming”–something like that–was right. Barack Obama’s support and characterization of the “Arab Spring” (which some say doesn’t exist), and his support of the so-called rise of democracy in the Middle East and Northern Africa (which others say is misinformation bordering on the insane) created the format for what’s happened and is still happening in northern Africa and, by now, deeper into Africa, across the Middle East and into southern Asia.

That’s the story. Barack Obama has screwed up again . . . or perhaps done what he’s intended to do. Meanwhile–and with the leftist news media’s help–he’s put lipstick, eye shadow and rouge on his support of and participation in the creation of instability in Africa, Southern Asia and the Middle East, but it’s still an ugly situation, the end results of which are only now starting to emerge.

That’s what’s happened. Whether NPR and other Obama-supporting news media organizations will come out with it–actually report the news–remains to be seen. It’ll be great if they do; if they actually tell us what this “president” has done, and depict him as what he is: either very stupid or decidedly–as his associations indicate–anti-American. It’ll be great if they actually tell his who this man is and what he wants.

He is, after all, the president. The people actually do, in this case, have a right–and even a need–to know.

He’s our President. Tell us who he is and what he wants. Jeepers, are you people news reporters or not? (Don’t answer that question.)

Judging from what I’ve heard from NPR about its funding audience–its listeners who help pay its employees’ salaries–those who fund and listen to NPR will get pretty angry if NPR casts Obama in anything but a heroic light. From my experience as a journalist, I know that “news” publishers are reluctant to broadcast information that might jeopardize their funding. They have bills to pay and salaries to earn. I often get the impression that at least some of NPR’s “news” people genuinely want to tell the whole story about Obama, but something or someone is holding them back. They’re afraid of offending either their funding audience or other people. This is understandable; they want to keep their jobs: perhaps their lives. None the less, it has redefined their “news” service as entertainment and propaganda.

I don’t think Obama’s stupid. I think he hates America. I think, judging from his actions, that he wants to cripple the country, and I think that’s exactly what his supporters–including, perhaps, NPR’s news programmers, but certainly its funding audience–want him to do. He hates America–you’re dog-gone right he does–and that’s why those who vote for him vote for him; either that or because he has dark skin.

So, NPR isn’t going to dissect, analyze and ultimately belittle Obama’s words and behaviors as it does Romney’s, but–and to repeat myself for the second time–it’d be great if they would: if they’d be genuine and professional journalists, honor their journalistic responsibilities, and tell us what’s really happening instead of what they want us to believe.