According to two Republican congressmen on Tuesday, “Multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the (House Oversight) Committee that, prior to the Sept. 11 (2012) attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these requests by officials in Washington.”

White House officials certainly failed to mention these requests — or if they even know about them — in the days following the Libya consulate attack, where U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others were assassinated.

Instead, the administration incorrectly called the Libya assassinations a spontaneous reaction to an American-made, anti-Islam video in an attempt to appease our attackers.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice called the attack “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the killing in Libya was “not a case of protest directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy,” but was “in response to a video — a film — that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting.”

White House officials even asked YouTube to “review” the anti-Islam video against YouTube’s terms of use, hoping it would be removed.

The picture changed last week when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reversed its initial assessment on the Libya attack, calling it a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists” with links “to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to, al-Qaida.”

So, the anti-Islam video is irrelevant, and this recent realization should have prompted the Obama administration to change its tone regarding the incident.

Despite this, President Barack Obama came before the United Nations last week and continued the appeasement. Thirteen percent of Obama’s speech, by word count, focused on condemning the anti-Islam video. Near the end of the speech, he said, “al-Qaida has been weakened.”

Considering that before last month, the last time anyone killed a U.S. ambassador was 33 years ago, the video had nothing to do with the attack and U.S. intelligence connected al-Qaida to the attack, Obama’s rhetoric does not match the situation.

The assassinations in Libya are evidence that Obama’s four years of nice-guy posturing toward the Muslim world have not reduced the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Immediately following the attack, Carney said, “This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.”

Amazingly, the U.S. Press Secretary — the same man who briefed the press about how Obama ordered U.S. forces to kill Osama bin Laden — was certain that the killing of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans on Sept. 11 by Muslims had nothing to do with any policy or action of the United States under the current administration.

It is not surprising that Carney failed to see the connection, considering the false sense of security that comes with practicing appeasement. Last May, for example, Carney told the press, “Osama bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. He was a mass murderer.”

Despite the intentions of the Obama administration, four years of similar overtures have eased no hostilities and saved no American lives.

Michael Stikkel is a junior computer engineering major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mcstikke@syr.edu.

Published on October 3, 2012 at 3:45 am