The ‘No Justification’ Talking Points

-By Gary Krasner

Referring to events in Libya and Egypt today, Obama said there was “no justification” for Muslim mobs violating US sovereign territory and murdering our embassy people and ambassador.

Hilary also said there was “no justification.”

Presidential spokesman Jay Carney said there was “no justification.” That was the administration’s line for the day. It’s an abamination.

Whenever one says that there’s no justification for a particular action, that means there are situations when that action might be deemed justified.

In other words, one may appropriately tell a lie. It’s justified, for example, to tell your wife her hair or shoes look nice, even if you think they look atrocious.

In fact, from what I’ve learned, one had BETTER lie about that stuff! But it’s not justified to lie in your testimony in a murder trial.

It’s justified to kill someone who’s about to kill you. (Such as when you’re attacked while on a neighborhood watch patrol.)

But it’s not justified to kill someone who’s not threatening your life or is about to seriously harm you.

What I cannot imagine though, is a situation in which it’s justified for mobs to go on murderous rampages, whether it’s over a cartoon or a movie.

If you’re still not understanding what Obama did wrong, I will simplify it.

Suppose someone killed your brother over a verbal insult. The killer seeks legitimacy by citing justification—-the fact that he was insulted.

The way he can obtain that justification is to have you to listen to the words of the insult.

Your correct response is to raise your hand and say, I will not hear it, because there is no verbal slight that could possibly justify killing another person.

The incorrect response is to listen to the killer recite the insult to you, before you render judgment.

Why is it incorrect? Because merely listening to the complaint conveys to the killer that there may be an insult that MIGHT justify his extreme response. Otherwise, why listen to it?

If you want to convey a message that there exists an insult that WOULD justify murder, then you would listen to the insult that triggered the reaction.

That is why Obama has no moral character: He announced to the world that he watched the video about Mohammed. He then announced that he thought it was a deplorable video.

Then he announced that even though it was deplorable, it didn’t justify the killing and torturing of our people.

He didn’t say that the killing and torture of real people was deplorable. Only that it was unjustified. He saved his harshest criticism for play actors mocking a religious figure in a video.

But regardless of that revealing aspect of Obama’s values, the problem is that Obama demonstrated cowardice and an appalling lack of character.

A genuine leader would have announced that he would not even consider rendering an opinion of someone’s right to free speech, in any context in which it is weighed against the claimed right to kill and torture innocent third parties—–let alone the video makers!! IT WAS THE KILLING THAT RENDERED ANYTHING ABOUT THE VIDEO TOTALLY MOOT!!

What Obama had done was dishonor our nation, our values, and the slain American Ambassador and those private contractors who died trying to save his life.

Rather than rendering a judgment about the movie, Obama should have focused squarely on the reprehensible and deplorable (NOT unjustified!) acts of murder.

In civil society, there are movie reviewers who can handle bad movies. It works very effectively. They warn the public to avoid the movie.

It works pretty well, and no one gets harmed by bad movies. Apparently, in Muslim countries, they have a different system.

So Obama thinks there ARE situations in which invading US sovereign property and murdering the unarmed American occupants would be justified.

Very telling. Shocking.

“Shocking” is another word Hilary and Obama used to describe these events.

But what is really shocking is that a President would find these events shocking. After 20,000 attacks by Muslims worldwide, since Sept. 2001?!

After murderous rampages by ordinary Muslims following any mockery of Mohammed, even from a cartoon published on the other side of the world.

This behavior is NOT shocking. It’s typical. It’s typical because Islam is NOT the “religion of peace” that Bush and Obama believe.

Islam is a religion integrated with supremacist political and legal mandates that have jurisdiction, according to it’s own tenets, over Muslims and Non-Muslims.

Unlike Obama, I would have been shocked had there NOT been any violence on the 11th Aniversary of 911.

And certainly following the Democrat Presidential Convention, in which one speaker after another chanted, “GM is alive and bin Laden is dead”

Not shocking. And Not justified.

Copyright Publius Forum 2001