Sen. Inhofe: Embassy Attacks a Result of Obama’s ‘Policy of Appeasement,’ Calls for Immediate Hearings

Posted by on Sep 13, 2012 at 8:24 am

Well, it appears at least some folks have their head screwed on right and don’t buy this “anti-Islam” film nonsense being used as a pretext to spread mayhem and murder. It’s quite obvious these maniacs in the Mideast realize what a spineless twerp we have in the White House and would like nothing more than to influence the November election. They may not like the result.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Thursday that the attacks on American embassies in the Middle East were happening as a result of “the policy of appeasement” and called for immediate congressional hearings into the violence that has left four foreign service officers dead.

“You can start them tomorrow. These hearings should start,” Inhofe told Fox News.

Can you imagine the circus Democrats would make out of hearings? The absolute last thing they want is an examination of Obama’s record.

“Let’s keep in mind, this is a big deal,” he continued. “We have four countries right now attacking America. When you attack an embassy, you’re attacking America. We can’t sit around and wait for hearings. We’ve got to do it right now.”

Inhofe was then asked by Fox host Steve Doocy if the attacks were the result of President Obama’s foreign policy, and specifically his “apology tour” when he visited Egypt at the beginning of his presidency. Although the president did not issue any apologies during that trip, Republicans have criticized the tone as too conciliatory.

“Yeah. What foreign policy? The policy of appeasement,” Inhofe said. “Yes, it’s happening as a result of that… this thing is huge. we mentioned four countries, let me tell you, it’s not going to stop there. there is war against america throughout the entire region. they’re attacking us now.”


2 Responses to “Sen. Inhofe: Embassy Attacks a Result of Obama’s ‘Policy of Appeasement,’ Calls for Immediate Hearings”

  1. pa on 13/13/12 at 11:21 am

    It would have helped if Congress had stopped Obama when he first sought to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya. Especially since he used the American military and American money to help the rebels in Libya, while deliberately avoiding that tiny detail about needing Congressional approval for his plans. None of this would have happened if Congress had ever shown any spine in stopping Obama from committing myriad abuses of power in domestic affairs as well as in foreign policy.

    Then again, had he sought their support, Congress may well have gone along with his plans just as easily as they did when he thumbed his nose at him. McCain, Graham, and Lieberman were fully on board with Obama, and they pushed for greater efforts to arm the rebels, despite not knowing who or what would end up in power.

    Many of us knew that the Muslim Brotherhood would end up in charge, from which no good can come. They are about as far from the enlightened leadership of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as a country can get. But our betters know best, don’t they. Our role is limited to coughing up the dough to pay for all of it.

    So what good will a Congressional hearing do? If they ever arrive at a conclusion that is not in Obama’s favor (highly unlikely), what will they do about it? What can they do about it? Call him a naughty boy? Sen. Inhofe is one of the few leaders I respect, but there really is no point in spending time or money on an after-the-fact gabfest. The time to act was long ago, before Obama set the wheels in motion.

  2. Westie on 13/13/12 at 1:29 pm

    Don’t forget the glorious Bush State Dept under the inept Condo rice managed to get some MB cutouts voted into power in Gaza and Lebanon. Maybe it is time to completely defund the State Dept?