Politico reports that the Obama administration is now running a TV ad in Pakistan, condemning the anti-Islam film that it’s been blaming for the anti-American violence across the Muslim world:
The Obama administration is airing ads on Pakistani television condemning the anti-Islamic film “The Innocence of Muslims,” a State Department spokeswoman confirmed Thursday.
“As you know, after the video came out, there was concern in lots of bodies politic, including Pakistan, as to whether this represented the views of the U.S. Government. So in order to ensure we reached the largest number of Pakistanis – some 90 million, as I understand it in this case with these spots – it was the judgment that this was the best way to do it,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters.
The ads show clips of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemning the film in English (but dubbed in Urdu) in remarks they made last week, emphasizing that it was not produced or authorized by the United States government.
Imagine for a second that you’re a Pakistani enraged by the Muhammad video, and you are on your way to a violent riot at the U.S. embassy. Is a commercial of President Obama insisting the U.S. government had nothing to do with the film going to change your mind? The ad buy assumes that the rioters will act rationally when faced with the “truth.” But why should they, when they’re not acting rationally in the first place?
Rioting and setting things on fire is not an understandable or instinctive response to being insulted. That’s not a culturally or religiously-relative point, it’s a universal point. There are millions of devout Muslims in the U.S., many of them immigrants from countries like Libya and Egypt and Pakistan, and yet the YouTube video did not drive them to violent frenzies. Similarly, there are millions of devout Muslims in Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan who didn’t join in on the rampages outside U.S. embassies.
Those who engaged in violent riots this week and last did so for one reason: because they chose to. And why did they choose to? Maybe because there’s no real cost, and a whole lot of benefit. When top U.S. officials respond to wild tantrums across the Muslim world by pleading with crackpots like Terry Jones and blocking anti-Islam YouTube videos, it creates a moral hazard on two levels. First, it rewards these violent uprisings by handing a victory to the Islamist leaders who egged them on. Second, it hands anti-Muslim fringe figures an unhealthy amount of notoriety and power.
There’s nothing wrong with the Obama administration denouncing the anti-Islam film, in the context of condemning the riots. But that’s not what this is. This is a taxpayer-sponsored ad that repudiates a YouTube clip by a private citizen, while accepting the false premise that it was responsible for the violence. The intention is to ease the riots for the moment, but the long- (and short)-term consequence could end up being the opposite.
There is a third moral hazard it creates: The Obama Administration's belief that the First Amendment is not worth defending when under violent attack. By not defending this right and this core American principle, the Obama Administration has sent the unmistakable message that free speech is not only a negotiable right, but an absolute problem which Americans would be better off not exercising when it comes to discussions or portrayals of Islam.
The ACLU must be hiding in the cellar. They haven't opened their extreme leftist mouths on this one yet.
Absolutely correct – there IS a problem with the Administration denouncing the video. n nOur position should be – "Regardless of the content of the video, the destruction of property and killing of Americans is not acceptable." n n
Imagine if Israel ran commercials on American TV — in predominantly Jewish markets such as NYC, Florida and such — urging Jewish voters not to vote for Obama. I am not talking the lesser related stuff of even Israeli citizens donating to PACs doing the same thing, be it legal or not depending on how they did it, but the State of Israel, using Israeli tax dollars, and making it quite clear that this was an official governmental action, running these on American TV. n nWould there be problems? n nOther than rioting being illegal while voting is not (and "rioting" may not be illegal under Pakistani law when Islamic law gets mixed in), how is this any different? In both cases, a sovereign government is going onto the television networks of another sovereign state and urging the citizens of the latter not to do something. n nThis isn't like the CIA going in covertly and doing this through a front company or even some modern version of "Air America" — if I read this correctly, this is an overt act of the US Government. nI don't believe that Iraq was yet a sovereign country when George Bush did this and the outcry almost parted the Red Sea a second time, and yet this is OK? n nAnd what about that pesky little "Church & State" thing? Islam is a religion and where is the line between condemning an anti-Islamic film and funding the support of Islam, albeit in a foreign country? "PissChrist" — an alleged artistic display involving a Christian Crucifix submerged in urine (human, I believe) was incredibly offensive to a lot of Christians, particularly Catholics. Would it have been acceptable for US taxpayer dollars to fund television commercials attacking that artist and (while I don't remember if they were in office at the time) having Bill Bennett and Lyn Cheney condemn everyone involved with taxpayer-funded commercials? n nOne other thought – what would happen if the Israeli Government was to by a half hour "infomersial" and have Bibi N just give a speech as to what his perspective of US/IL relations are? He speaks eloquently in English and people would watch this. And what if he was to say this is what he wanted to say to Obama, but since Obama wouldn't meet with him, he is saying it to the American People instead. What could Obama say? n nI know the consequences would be somewhat like hitting the third rail with a fire hose, something I would really prefer to be no where near when it was done, but other than that, exactly what is the difference here????
President Obama is calling on all religions to respect each other. In other words, everyone is supposed to pretend they believe the unsubstantiated assertions of every other religion. They are not supposed to let on they consider them absurd. That sounds on the surface like a noble goal, but it is actually a foolish conspiracy to keep people mired in superstition. We need a balance. We need to poke fun of each others' religions, so that people know not everyone shares their beliefs, but not so viciously as to provoke violence.
A modest proposal: Romney should replay the ad in the U.S. with English subtitles. No voiceover; none needed.
So we have come to the point where instead of sending in Marines to punish those who murder Americans, as well as to protect other Americans, we now buy air time on Pakistani TV to denounce the exercise of our First Amendment right to freedom of speech, to legitimize the barbaric reactions of Salafists and Al Qaeda supporters at our embassies and consulates. We are tacitly telling Muslims that our citizens are irresponsible and insensitive and that the actions of those who retaliate against our country with destruction and murder are not contemptible and reprehensible. This country has been in decline since the 1960's when campus communists were shutting down universities and when Johnson launched his war on poverty using our hard-earned money to do so. The decline continued through 2008 and has accelerated since then. We can now imagine the unthinkable: America transformed into a totalitarian state, ruled by a dictator and an obsequious judiciary and legislature. We are close to becoming the Venezuela of North America.