ADDED: Ridiculous NYT headline: "Many Republicans Join Democrats in Denouncing Attack in Libya." Everyone denounces it! What's this notion that the Dems are all one and some but not all Republicans "join" them? I think they're trying to separate Mitt Romney as the one who isn't joining. The item ends:
As those statements [from various Republicans] came out, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, stood by his criticism that a statement from the American Embassy in Cairo condemning the intolerance of an anti-Muslim Internet video was tantamount to “an apology for American values.”As if that means Romney doesn't denounce the attack! That's a way of flipping the problem, which is the Obama administration's insufficient denouncement, as if the murderers had some justification... which reminded me, on 9/11, of lefty chatter I heard on 9/11/01 that the terrorist attacks were provoked by racism in the United States.
Posts
302 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 302 of 302Somebody needs to remind the little animal, Bay of Pigs was an Eisenhower op. People liked the way Kennedy stepped up and didn't do an Obama.
Same with 9/11. It was Dubya's response that people liked - and that made the Lefties hot to divide the country.
"So while American diplomats were dying in the field, Romney pops up with an egregious attempt to politicize the deaths with a flat out lie."
What lie was that? It seems to be self defeating to lie that someone is lying. Recursive.
"attempt to politicize deaths" is a specific claim and clearly a lie.
But when truth doesn't matter, I suppose that's okay. It sounds good to politicize the situation so it becomes more important to make it all about Romney than those people who we now know are dead... that is an actual "attempt to politicize deaths."
Someone is guilty of it, but not Romney.
Romney was not trying to politicize anyone's deaths; he was talking about CAIRO. If anyone tells you he was, ask them if they are aware there were two incidents -- one in Cairo (where as of now, I have not heard of anyone being killed) one in Libya, where the killing happened.
Is it funny or sad watching ARM spin so?
Ugh, the duplicitous language of diplomacy on display again. Inherent weakness in every letter uttered.
Look, in President Obama's defense, how was he supposed to know that apologizing to the crazed Islamists who stormed one embassy, offering them public affirmation from the leader of (what was until recently) the most powerful nation on earth, would encourage an attack on another?
Where and when did the President apologize. The best you can do is a tweet from the embassy that was not cleared.
ANonReasonableMan,
To the extent that you have an argument it is that Romney was an idiot for making his statements without understanding where things were going.
As I've said, you're an idiot. His statements were about the idiotic apology that O's diplomats made about the US having a first amendment. Cairo's embassy response apologizing for the first amendment is a disgrace. That you don't know how to read a timeline or impute other meanings to what Romney said (which would be par for O's supporters, since so many are adamant that he didn't mean "you didn't build that" despite that being an exact quote).
It is hard to believe someone could have such a cursory understanding of how things can play out in the middle east to make such a statement.
It's not hard to understand what Romney was responding to. Intolerant mid-eastern bigots protested in violent fashion. O's diplomatic corp apologized for having a first amendment. Romney called that disgraceful. How hard is that to understand?
Oh, I know. You don't like just how easy this is to understand. It doesn't allow for "nuance", so you inject a little dishonesty, call it truth, and act as if you know what you're talking about. So the standard lefty tactic. Got it.
I guess in your mind being dumb beats being a traitorous sleazebag.
First, who was being dumb? Romney? For supporting the first amendment? You know one of the foundations of the American body politic. Or was O dumb for having an idiot policy of apologizing for freedom that hurt the feelings of the most thin-skinned people on earth?
Second, are you saying you would prefer a president being a traitorous sleazebag, rather than dumb?
Freder,
The best you can do is a tweet from the embassy that was not cleared.
Does the buck stop with the president or what? Does he have an out of control diplomacy corp that he is failing to manage? Or are these diplomats parroting the WH line? Is one of these preferable to the other?
AReasonableMan said...
It is hard to believe someone could have such a cursory understanding of how things can play out in the middle east to make such a statement
Dumbass:
Obama criticized his own embassy's statement prior to the death of the Ambassidor.
You continue to make an utter fool of yourself here.
Why?
Freder Frederson said...
The best you can do is a tweet from the embassy that was not cleared.
Hilarious.
"Cleared"
You are a fucking clown.
"To the extent that you have an argument it is that Romney was an idiot for making his statements without understanding where things were going. It is hard to believe someone could have such a cursory understanding of how things can play out in the middle east to make such a statement."
So your argument is, perhaps, that the Embassy was right to apologize, to say free speech is wrong? Because they understand how things can play out in the middle east?
Because I don't see any way that what Romney said was bad except for that. And I agree that the statement by the Embassy was wrong, and demonstrably ill advised.
And the way Romney answered questions wasn't bad either, not unless you think that stifling speech is the right thing to do.
This is a disagreement of policy, not an offense or misstep by Romney. And even though Obama seems to have aligned himself with Romney in defense of free speech, he was pretty wussy about it. And then he refused to take questions.
So who really knows what he thinks.
It's entirely possible that his Ambassadors understand his policies very well and accurately speak for the Administration, which is what they *do*.
Andy R. said...
Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement
“Bungle… utter disaster…not ready for prime time… not presidential… Lehman moment
Not content with his utter beclownment the first time around, hat boy posts another silly link.
Hey dum-dum, why don't you name a source quoted in that article?
OOPS!
Does the buck stop with the president or what? Does he have an out of control diplomacy corp that he is failing to manage? Or are these diplomats parroting the WH line?
He must be magical indeed if he is able to control every tweet, especially from an embassy that is currently dealing with a very dangerous situation.
And yes he tell all embassy staff, hell all government employees, not to use twitter. Twitter is evil and people often regret what they tweet.
AReasonableMan said...
When the U.S. is in distress his basic instinct is to kick it to see if he can gain an advantage
Alternatively, when the feckless, ignorant, barely paying attention President has yet another foreign policy screw up, the man running for his job points that out.
You are an embarrassment.
Obama uses Twitter, FYI.
Because I don't see any way that what Romney said was bad except for that. And I agree that the statement by the Embassy was wrong, and demonstrably ill advised.
Just like the person who tweeted from the Embassy, Romney should have kept his mouth shut until the situation was resolved.
Freder: Too bad Obama agreed with Romney's assessment that what the Embassy said was bad, and that the embassy ALSO agreed with Romney, hence taking down the statement.
It must burn that Romney was right, and right first, so the best you can do is whine about how right he was.
Obama uses Twitter, FYI.
I know politicians, including the President, love Twitter. I just can't figure out why.
AReasonableMan speaks from the alternate universe: "It is hard to believe someone could have such a cursory understanding of how things can play out in the middle east to make such a statement."
It is doubtful you even know what the statement was. A more interesting issue is: Did it take more than a "cursory understanding" to anticipate the possibility of 9/11 attacks on our embassies and take precautions. Does it take more than a "cursory understanding to notice that the "new democracies" (Thanks, Barack.) neither protected our embassies nor, thus far, condemned the attacks, before making excuses for them (Thanks, Hillary.)?
Reasonable Man, my ass.
AReasonableMan said...
It is hard to believe someone could have such a cursory understanding of how things can play out in the middle east to make such a statement
Right!
Because Romney should have totally anticipated an Ambassador would be killed!
It like happens all the time and stuff!
Idiot.
"Where and when did the President apologize. The best you can do is a tweet from the embassy that was not cleared."
The Embassy reflects the official US policy. It's their JOB.
I think we can agree completely (maybe?) that the Embassy should not Tweet policy statements. (Service availability and advisory updates, sure, why not.) So someone at the Embassy screwed up in a spectacular manner. Someone should be fired.
But the notion that the Embassy has to "clear" something is weird. If the Ambassador and Embassy can not be trusted to be speaking for and accurately relaying US policy, well, someone needs to be fired.
The question is... who? Did the Embassy speak for Obama and official policy but make shit up? Or did they more-or-less accurately relay official administration policy?
Both Obama and Hillary issued "we denounce offensive speech" statements combined with "no excuse for violence" statements.
I don't know that the Embassy statement was actually divergent from that. Denouncing offensive speech seems to be a true representation of US policy.
Judging by a whole bunch of Americans, it's not an unpopular policy. Fuck free speech.
It must burn that Romney was right, and right first, so the best you can do is whine about how right he was
The issue is not whether the embassy's statement was ill-advised or not, it is whether Romney should have kept his mouth shut, at least for the time being (and if Romney were an honest person, he would have said "embassy" in his statement, not "Obama Administration").
Judging by a whole bunch of Americans, it's not an unpopular policy. Fuck free speech.
Where were you when I was being called a traitor and un-American (and Cedarford said I deserved to be lynched) for criticizing the Bush Administration?
Uh... the embassy is part of the Obama administration. As a leader, you are responsible for your subordinates. It is part of being a leader.
PS: The issue IS whether it was a stupid thing to say or not. If it was, then... well, Romney was right. The End. All of this is just noise and distraction ignoring the fact: Guy was right.
If he was -WRONG-, then all this whining MIGHT have a point. But if he was right? Then the conversation ends, and it doesn't matter how much the media or Obama whine. Who cares? He was right.
As a leader, you are responsible for your subordinates. It is part of being a leader.
It doesn't mean you have to affirm, believe or agree with everything your subordinates say.
Right. But -until- you take leadership, they are speaking for you. Obama made it clear that Romney was right: These people are wrong and should not have said that.
Done and done. It could have been an open and shut case; Obama subordinate says something dumb. Romney calls him out on it; Obama agrees dumb thing is dumb. End of story.
Instead, the media wants to fight over it. A lot like the Janesville plant and "didn't build it" line, they insist on fighting losing battles for no reason other than stubbornness and pride. Let this battle go.
"it is whether Romney should have kept his mouth shut,"
He said... the Embassy shouldn't have apologized for free speech.
As subversive statements during times of strife go, that seems pretty darn mild.
Are you so certain that the outrage, like that of the Muslims, isn't just a *wee* bit opportunistic?
... This is how journalism dies.
It's not hard to understand what Romney was responding to. Intolerant mid-eastern bigots protested in violent fashion. O's diplomatic corp apologized for having a first amendment. Romney called that disgraceful. How hard is that to understand?
========================
Excellent, but Freder the terrorist rights lover is having difficulty as usual understanding Americans have rights..not just his beloved Islamists.
As for garage and "reasonable" man - the two are simply partisan Obama talking point factotums. Dishonest from the start...nothing Obama does is less than perfection, everything their Black Messiah's rivals do is demonm-spawned straight from hell..
Least I'm honest. I voted for the smug asshole because McCain was visably thirsty for more Neocon wars of adventure and was clueless on the economy. And I would have much preferred Romney and Hillary had been the nominees.
If either Romney or Hillary would have been elected, we Americans would be vastly better off than with the Incompetent One, or Trigger-Happy Johnny.
And quite a few Americans believe that - as it is because most Americans are not rabid partisan liars. They are like me. Or Roger J, Yashu, Sablan, Althouse herself, or several other posters that can see both sides of issues without being wishy-washy.
"Where were you when I was being called a traitor and un-American (and Cedarford said I deserved to be lynched) for criticizing the Bush Administration?"
Different context than my statement.
First... Do we defend the right of free speech, the right to offend others? Or do we squelch free speech and denounce those who hurt other people's feelings? Dumb Twitters are calling for arrests for incitement for the movie maker. Some idiot professor at a university did the same. Do we defend free speech or not?
Second... Is it right to give comfort and aid to the enemy, to undermine war efforts? When you criticize Romney for not waiting, you're talking about speech or dissent in that context and the context that some of us complained about related to Bush. Romney saying that the Embassy should be defending our foundational freedoms, or Kerry explaining that we shouldn't be terrorizing Iraqi citizens.
Personally, I think that what Kerry said was worse, and definitely Biden saying that the surge had failed is worse. No one cares what Cedarford or Freder say.
Does it bother anyone on the left that Obama didn't take questions?
Freder Frederson said...
Judging by a whole bunch of Americans, it's not an unpopular policy. Fuck free speech.
Where were you when I was being called a traitor and un-American (and Cedarford said I deserved to be lynched) for criticizing the Bush Administration?
==============
You are a traitor and you deserve to be lynched, Freder. You sealed the deal when you said it would be better that hundreds of thousands even millions of Americans die rather than interrogate the Muslims that had brought a bomb or anthrax in.
Because enemy "due process rights in a court of law" mattered more than the masses of Americans the enemy was trying to kill.
That put you square in the enemy sympathizer camp.
He must be magical indeed if he is able to control every tweet, especially from an embassy that is currently dealing with a very dangerous situation.
Oh, "he didn't know". Man, how many corporate CEO's make similar claims. I bet you defend all of those clowns too, huh?
Why do we hold CEO's to a higher standard than our Resident?
And yes he tell all embassy staff, hell all government employees, not to use twitter. Twitter is evil and people often regret what they tweet.
So, if Obama isn't in charge of an Executive Branch Department --- who is?
Just like the person who tweeted from the Embassy, Romney should have kept his mouth shut until the situation was resolved.
Perhaps the Resident should have addressed the issue rather than waiting 8 hours after he bashed Romney...
Because Romney should have totally anticipated an Ambassador would be killed!
It like happens all the time and stuff!
...well, a Democrat IS in office. That sort of thing tends to happen.
The issue is not whether the embassy's statement was ill-advised or not, it is whether Romney should have kept his mouth shut, at least for the time being (and if Romney were an honest person, he would have said "embassy" in his statement, not "Obama Administration").
Who appointed the people in that embassy? What branch are they a part of?
It doesn't mean you have to affirm, believe or agree with everything your subordinates say.
Obama hadn't rebuked them. He attacked Romney first.
The Republicans didn't "join in" in denouncing it with the Democrats, they did it sooner when they disapproved of the Cairo embassy's apology.
Cedarford said...
As for garage and "reasonable" man - the two are simply partisan Obama talking point factotums. Dishonest from the start...nothing Obama does is less than perfection, everything their Black Messiah's rivals do is demonm-spawned straight from hell..
No. I just think Romney would be a repeat of Bush/Cheney on foreign affairs and there is now pretty good evidence to conclude that I am right.
We don't want more useless crusades. We can't afford them. Romney has shown no evidence that he would clearly depart from the failed Bush/Cheney policies.
freder,
He must be magical indeed if he is able to control every tweet, especially from an embassy that is currently dealing with a very dangerous situation.
O controls public relations. If he can't, then he is failing at public relations. The message from a US diplomat was "We're sorry we have a first amendment. If we could do something against those who offended you we could. And your violent protest is totally okay, as we are tolerant of other cultures, except for our own." It is clear this is O's stance. All his actions support this policy. And rightly he should be criticized.
Romney should have kept his mouth shut until the situation was resolved.
What a crock of shit. That anyone in the diplomatic corp thinks this, much less tweets it to the public represents a problem. That problem starts at the top. Problems, especially one that goes against the core of American culture, should be criticized immediately by anyone.
In addition to this, lefties constantly droned on that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. You sowed it. Now reap it.
Where were you when I was being called a traitor and un-American (and Cedarford said I deserved to be lynched) for criticizing the Bush Administration?
And we all heard from idiots like you that dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Own it.
Re: Frederson:
He must be magical indeed if he is able to control every tweet, especially from an embassy that is currently dealing with a very dangerous situation.
First, the mealy mouthed bit from the Cairene embassy appears to have come in two forms -- first as a press release type statement, and then as a later retweet saying they aren't going to walk that statement back.
While I'm fine with State not clearing every press release that goes out, this is not the first time we've faced protests from foreigners over private statements in the US over which the government rightly exercises no control. As a matter of policy, our first response in every such case ought to be that we defend freedom of speech for private individuals. Then if we really, really want to, we can say it's regrettable that a free people may occasionally use that freedom to engage in offensive speech, but hey, that's kind of why it's called "freedom."
Obviously, though, it isn't in the culture of the State Department to make a strong defense of the American system, and that's a problem (one that I don't think started with Obama).
Re Reasonable man's comment about the failed policies of "Bush-Cheney." As far as things like Gitmo, renditions, and, one suspects, waterboarding, the Obama administration appears to have specifically accepted those policies. And even doubled down on them with kill lists and drone strikes absent any kind of judicial review. I do support the administration's adoption of all those policies, BTW. But to say these are failed policies, but yet adopted and added to by the Obama administration, says more about RMs analytical capabilities than anything.
Re: Cedarford:
If either Romney or Hillary would have been elected, we Americans would be vastly better off than with the Incompetent One, or Trigger-Happy Johnny.
If Hillary were in charge, I suspect this entire incident would have played out very differently:
Likewise, Danielle Pletka, of the American Enterprise Institute, zeroes in on the discrepancy between President Obama and his secretary of State says the media should focus on whether “Hillary Clinton was right or her boss?” Pletka observes that Clinton at least repudiated the connection to the anti-Mohammed film, but “her boss, not so much. This is the problem for the President. For Barack Obama, there’s always a reason for people to hate us. For Hillary, it’s clear there is no justifiable reason.”
A Romney supporter, along the same lines, told me, “Hillary answered the 3 a.m. phone call.” When it was Obama’s time to speak she appeared to “chaperone” him as he read a prepared statement, likely one she prepared.
here is now pretty good evidence to conclude that I am right.
Evidence? Where?
Roger J. said...
Re Reasonable man's comment about the failed policies of "Bush-Cheney."
Obama completed the original goal, kill Osama Bin Laden to both revenge 9/11 and to deter further acts of terrorism. He has acted to get us out of both Iran and Afghanistan. I disagreed with his decision to initially ramp up the war in Afghanistan but the payoff, the killing of Osama, was worth it. Now we can all start to focus on business, R and D, and education to meet the commercial challenge from the far east, which is a vastly greater challenge to US leadership than a bunch of middle eastern ragtag economies.
Yay! Obama killed Osama so NOW he can finally get to the economy?
Seriously?
which is a vastly greater challenge to US leadership than a bunch of middle eastern ragtag economies.
Failure. Of. Imagination.
Now we can all start to focus on business
Presidents should be expected to multi-task, dumbass.
Reasonable man--you are selling Mr Obama far short--is gitmo closed down? do we still rendition suspects? do we still waterboard? think for a minute: if killing obl was the be all and end all was the raison d'etre of our antiterroist policy, why are we still doing drone strikes on terrorists? Dont get me wrong: I approve wholeheartedly of the administrations policy in this regard--its the only thing they are doing right. As far as A-stan, when will mr Obama abandon his failed surge and withdraw from the shit hole that is A-stan? But that, of course, would require him to admit failure.
The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued BEFORE the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement Tuesday.
It takes a pretty massive leap to get from ambiguous tweets by besieged social media outreach staff member[s] at an embassy in Egypt to claiming the White House itself reacted to the death of Americans in Libya by expressing sympathy for militants.
Romney is wrong. Period. He is playing politics.
And Reasonable Man--do you think that whacking OBL would end terrorism--gee--Ask the the Ambassador's staff at Benghzi. The terrorist movement was NOT obl--it continues to this day as demonstrated quite aptly by their coordinated attack on the Benghazi compound. Me? I am elated that OBL is dead--would that he would have had a harder death. But at the time he got whacked, he was inconsequential.
No edutcher, who's only reason to get up in the morning is this blog, Bay of Pigs was a CIA Op formulated when Ike was president.
And it was JFK's foolish decision to think Ike's holdover Joint Chief's had a clue about Cuba!
Roger J. said...
if killing obl was the be all and end all was the raison d'etre of our antiterroist policy, why are we still doing drone strikes on terrorists?
To kill them, because they represent a threat to US interests. I thought this would be obvious.
As far as A-stan, when will mr Obama abandon his failed surge and withdraw from the shit hole that is A-stan? But that, of course, would require him to admit failure.
He has a well defined timetable for withdrawal. Romney, of course, objects to this.
Excuse me RM--I gathered, perhaps wrongly, that you asserted now that OBL was dead we could get on with the American economy. Did I misconstrue your remarks? Did I wrongly assume we should continue to prosecute a war on terrorism using the hated Bush-Cheney approach?
NotquiteunBucklay @ 12:11 PM:
Good point; I'll calm down a bit now.
He must be magical indeed if he is able to control every tweet, especially from an embassy that is currently dealing with a very dangerous situation.
Perhaps Obama should acquire a better diplomatic corps.
It takes a pretty massive leap to get from ambiguous tweets by besieged social media outreach staff member[s] at an embassy in Egypt to claiming the White House itself reacted to the death of Americans in Libya by expressing sympathy for militants.
Romney is wrong. Period. He is playing politics.
-------------------
Why bother decrying someone for saying something that you made up in your head?
He has a well defined timetable for withdrawal.
And you don't see a problem with telegraphing our moves to our enemy?
I'm glad you aren't in charge of our national security. I can only wish that President Obama weren't.
RM: as I have read Mr Romney's positions on A-stan he calls for withdrawal by end of 2014. Seems to me that is a stated position; your take sir?
Roger J. said...
Excuse me RM--I gathered, perhaps wrongly, that you asserted now that OBL was dead we could get on with the American economy. Did I misconstrue your remarks? Did I wrongly assume we should continue to prosecute a war on terrorism using the hated Bush-Cheney approach?
If this means continuing to invade sovereign countries at enormous cost for no good reason. Then no, I think we are past that stage, at least as far as Obama is concerned.
Nathan Alexander: your point re letting the bad guys know when we are leaving is well taken; however both candidates are on record as getting out. All the Taliban has to do is wait.
Nathan Alexander said...
He has a well defined timetable for withdrawal.
And you don't see a problem with telegraphing our moves to our enemy?
Roger J. said...
RM: as I have read Mr Romney's positions on A-stan he calls for withdrawal by end of 2014. Seems to me that is a stated position; your take sir?
You guys, in successive contradictory posts, manage to capture two of Romney's more prominent positions on this issue.
RM--where in the world did I mention invading countries--strawmen dont suit reasoned discourse. We ARE in A-Stan--the issue is how to get out.
Now I was not aware that any candidate is calling for an invasion of a third country. Are you privy to some intel or just throwing up strawmen. I frankly suspect the latter.
To paraphrase our great president: Let me be clear--telegraphing our withdrawal dates make no strategic sense. However, that said, we go into the political fray with the positions voters want to hear. Both candidates have stated withdrawal dates. Makes no sense strategically, but we are now in the realm of politics and not strategy.
Does that clarify things for you RM?
Roger J. said...
RM--where in the world did I mention invading countries--strawmen dont suit reasoned discourse.
I am sorry, I just inferred from what you said that you supported the Bush/Cheney invasions, which was their primary foreign policy achievement. Apparently you repudiate these invasions as ill considered, which I did not realize.
Leaving Afghanistan does not strike me as a particular problem. Dealing with Pakistan on the other hand is an enormous problem. Hopefully pro-western factions at least retain some control of the levers in power in that country. Unfortunately a large nuclear powered country like this, apparently determined to descend into chaos, does not provide any US government with a lot of easy options.
RM--thanks for the clarification. As a rather squishy libertarian I think invasions of foreign countries are so not constitute wise foreign policy unless the US has very direct security issues involved. The Iraq invasion is now over and historians can judge its after effects.
My point was I agreed with the Bush approach to dealing with terrorists which, admittedly, does involve unsavory means which the Obama administration has doubled down on.
Now, I think your point about Pakistan is very well taken. I am not convinced that we really know who our enemies are, and there is clearly an islamic radical element in Pakistan who seeks to do us harm. Unfortunately for our levers of power, the Paks also have nuclear weapons which considerably limits our freedom of action.
I appreciate your views even though I may not agree with all of them--but with respect to Pakistan, we are probably on the same page.
Don't ya know?
According to FF and Siloh, even though Obama has been running the WH (and foreign Policy) since 1/20/09, he isn't responsible for anything!
So all you lemmings vote for him!/siloh
President Obama is in charge of the embassies, not Governor Romney. The death of the Libyan Ambassador falls on President Obama's hands, not Governor Romney's.
Didn't Obama involved us in Libya?
And, ARM, the Iraq withdrawal was the time table Bush negotiated before leaving office.
An interesting question, in response to my discussion with ARM--Invasions are not, IMO, a wise way to go unless there is a direct national security issue. Unfortunately, there are no bright lines involved. For example, we are actively involved in Yemen; and have been involved in the Balkans for 20 years; and we have American troops in Africa hunting down renegade warlords. All of these operations cost lives and treasure, and so far as I can tell the returns havent been worth the investment. It may be that Iraq turns out to be some sort of success--that is a judgment history will make. But, (quoting Mr Obama) to be clear, I oppose foreign invasions as a matter of principle.
damikesc said...
And, ARM, the Iraq withdrawal was the time table Bush negotiated before leaving office.
Not just negotiated - signed into a binding treaty. Obama's contribution to the withdrawal from Iraq was negotiating until literally the month before the last mass withdrawal to try to extend the timeline and increase the number of troops remaining.
And that doesn't even get into why it was okay to be at war with Iraq for the entirety of the Clinton presidency but not okay for his successor to order increased military action to end the hostilities.
damikesc said...
Didn't Obama involved us in Libya?
Our current involvement in Libya seems reasonable to me. We are advancing our interests in stabilizing a secular democracy in an arab state, largely by diplomatic means, at least up until yesterday. By no reasonable standard could we be said to have invaded the country, although we clearly took sides in a civil war. This was remarkably cost free for us, literally everyone hated Gaddafi. Not a single country objected to his ouster.
damikesc said...
And, ARM, the Iraq withdrawal was the time table Bush negotiated before leaving office.
I don't disagree with this. I just think it was remarkably bone-headed to go in in the first place.
So let's recap, shall we:
mittens has had a really, really bad day as he once again failed the C-in-C test.
btw, who the fuck is advising willard? Rhetorical.
Shorter Shiloh after "mittens" saves a baby:
"Mittens once again fails the CinC test."
ARM--it may have been ill advised to go in the first place--as it was in A-Stan and Mr Obama declared it to be the "right war" Once you are in, however, you have to get out. Now that appears to have happened in Iraq with results yet to be determined. With respect to A-stan, both candidates have identified 2014 as a withdrawal date. not wise, strategically, but politicall expedient. Alas
Re: Matt:
The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued BEFORE the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement Tuesday.
Guess again -- they've deleted this tweet, but it said:
This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy
They reiterated their condemnation after the "We are all Osama" mob breached the embassy.
By no reasonable standard could we be said to have invaded the country, although we clearly took sides in a civil war.
Indeed. We took military action against a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to the United States and sided with the group that yesterday was dragging the corpse of the US Ambassador through the streets.
shiloh said...
No edutcher, who's only reason to get up in the morning is this blog, Bay of Pigs was a CIA Op formulated when Ike was president.
And it was JFK's foolish decision to think Ike's holdover Joint Chief's had a clue about Cuba!
My reason to get up in the morning is The Blonde. If you ever get out of Mom's basement, you ought to try meeting a girl. They're fun.
As took place on Ike's watch, it was his op. that's the way he'd see it.
People loved it that Kennedy didn't pull an Obama. I don't doubt you want to obfuscate that.
mittens has had a really, really bad day as he once again failed the C-in-C test.
Suuure. Keep telling yourself that.
Like Kevin Bacon in "Animal House". right?
"Remain calm. All is well".
We took military action against a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to the United States and sided with the group that yesterday was dragging the corpse of the US Ambassador through the streets.
Don't think your facts are quite straight on this one. The guys we backed apologized, very quickly, for this attack. Incredible as this may seem they are still fighting competing factions as part of wrapping up a civil war. And, incredible as this may sound, not all Libyans/arabs are the same.
AReasonableMan:
Our current involvement in Libya seems reasonable to me. We are advancing our interests in stabilizing a secular democracy in an arab state, largely by diplomatic means, at least up until yesterday. By no reasonable standard could we be said to have invaded the country, although we clearly took sides in a civil war. This was remarkably cost free for us,
(A) "Largely by diplomatic means"? What? No, it was by aerial bombardment! That's not jaw-jaw, that's war-war.
(B) We're still waiting for that bill to show up. There were some concerned murmurs, around the time Qaddafi was sodomised and then murdered in custody, that the "rebels" we had supported were actually Al Qaeda. After yesterday, I think we ought to be pretty concerned that the bill is not going to be anywhere as cheap as we thought.
A comment off HotAir that says all we need to know about the little animal's song and dance this afternoon:
Wow. CNN showing the debt clock and talking about the deficit.
This must be less unpopular than talking about a terror attack on US soil.
Indeed.
RE: AReasonableMan:
Don't think your facts are quite straight on this one. The guys we backed apologized, very quickly, for this attack.
It is good that the people we installed in power are behaving well. But we knew long ago that the rebel forces we were assisting included Al Qaeda. There may be factional infighting, but I have 0 confidence that there's no Al Qaeda working within the government's forces today, especially given reports that the Libyan security personnel betrayed the ambassador to the protesters.
Balfegor said...
We're still waiting for that bill to show up. I think we ought to be pretty concerned that the bill is not going to be anywhere as cheap as we thought.
Of course there will be some blow-back. The men who died in Libya are American heroes who took on a dangerous job in the full knowledge that Libya is not a safe place at the moment. We should stand in awe of their sacrifice and understand it was taken in full knowledge of the risks involved. There are real American interests at stake here and these men were willing to make sacrifices to advance their country's long term diplomatic goals.
What they weren't doing is sitting on their ass, riding their car elevator and second guessing our f**king president.
And once more Shiloh's post can be boiled down to:
"Mittens! Lol"
There are real American interests at stake here?
Like what? I have my own ideas about what our interests in Libya are, but those interests were a lot vaguer and more amorphous than, say, the EU's goals (to avoid a flood of refugees if Qaddafi successfully crushed the rebellion). Interested to hear what you think our interest in Libya was. Oil? The Bush Doctrine?
I have my own ideas about what our interests in Libya are, but those interests were a lot vaguer and more amorphous than, say, the EU's goals (to avoid a flood of refugees if Qaddafi successfully crushed the rebellion).
You seemed to sum up our interests up pretty well: oil, long-term stability in the region and support for our closest allies. This and the fact that literally everyone hated Gadaffi. Not a single country or person stood up for this prick or mourned him when he was killed. He was apparently the most disliked person on the planet. It was largely cost-free for us in terms of realpolitik, maybe even a net plus.
The men who died in Libya are American heroes who took on a dangerous job in the full knowledge that Libya is not a safe place at the moment. We should stand in awe of their sacrifice and understand it was taken in full knowledge of the risks involved. There are real American interests at stake here and these men were willing to make sacrifices to advance their country's long term diplomatic goals.
So in your opinion, does people being willing to die for a cause give legitimacy and correctness to their cause?
The real question there is, did they really have to die for their cause?
Why was the Ambassador not better protected? Why were mobs in two countries able to storm our embassies on the anniversary of 9/11?
I mean, just because someone is willing to die for their cause, it doesn't mean the US has to let them.
"No. If it were State Run Media, it would be just as fawning to Republicans in office.
This is Party-Run Media. Pravda. Yellow Journalism. The Propaganda Arm of the Democrat Party."
Good point, true.
Hey, Hillary, Susan and Samantha, how's that Multicultural-Multilateral stuff workin' out for ya?
Poster Child for Multiculturalism:
Picture of Ambassador's body being dragged in triumph.
"Why was the Ambassador not better protected? Why were mobs in two countries able to storm our embassies on the anniversary of 9/11?"
And, why was this a surprise, where were the intel masters?
Answer: Multiculturalism, Ideology.
Politico is reporting the only security at the Benghazi facility was locked doors.
So yeah, that seems to me like craven abuse of men dedicated to their cause. Not protecting them in the most dangerous of circumstances, in a place known to house terrorists.
What does this tell us about our state department?
Balfegor
Yes but the WH wrote "The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government."
This fact was publicly known before Romney got into this silly political game.
But one thing is clear; No American official has "sympathized" with any "attacker" of any kind. Romney knows this but he is playing games.
BTW when Bush was in office they appologized for anti-Muslim cartoons. Where was the outrage then?
Yes but the WH wrote "The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government."
Also, Obama directed "Jerusalem" and "God" be put back in the Democratic Party platform as soon as Drudge made an issue of it.
Andy, if you want to say that this is polarization of this attack, then what was the response of the democrats and libs during pretty much every action George Bush took during his presidency, not just with the war on terror (hell every time there was a question of raising or lowering the threat level it was a political play by the dems) but also with Katrina. We were still digging people out of their houses when the dems and libs were already mocking bush for saying heckuva a job, and saying that he KNEW the levees were going to be topped. We had nearly 8 years of non stop politization of every event . Im surprised you're not aware of this.
Actually I know you are aware but because it was your side doing it you don't care. So go F yourself Andy.
And how was this supposed to work anyway. Should romney have to wait three days after an event to make a comment about it? And why? It's not as if the press will actuall question the president about it. If rom dy didn't make the point the press would probably as we speak be putting this event down the memory hole.
BTW when Bush was in office they appologized for anti-Muslim cartoons. Where was the outrage then?
Maybe you missed it, but South Park had an amazing take on that whole issue. One of the best statements about our country and free speech ever.
Our current involvement in Libya seems reasonable to me.
So, you didn't really mean
"If this means continuing to invade sovereign countries at enormous cost for no good reason. Then no, I think we are past that stage, at least as far as Obama is concerned."
?
We are advancing our interests in stabilizing a secular democracy in an arab state, largely by diplomatic means, at least up until yesterday.
If your policy can't last a full 2 years --- then it's not a good policy. Sorry. And the issues were painfully apparent before we even got involved.
And I was unaware that lobbing missiles = diplomacy.
By no reasonable standard could we be said to have invaded the country, although we clearly took sides in a civil war. This was remarkably cost free for us, literally everyone hated Gaddafi. Not a single country objected to his ouster.
Well, as long as it's the popular thing, then it's free to contradict one of your beliefs.
What they weren't doing is sitting on their ass, riding their car elevator and second guessing our f**king president.
Dissent is not patriotic, eh?
Why was the Ambassador not better protected? Why were mobs in two countries able to storm our embassies on the anniversary of 9/11?
And why was Obama caught so flat-footed about the possibility that an attack might occur on 9/11? Especially one as clearly planned as this one has been thus far?
Perhaps he shouldn't have been skipping so many briefings?
Also, Obama directed "Jerusalem" and "God" be put back in the Democratic Party platform as soon as Drudge made an issue of it.
I was also impressed with how he slapped down Bill Maher, who has never, EVER insulted religion...
"BTW when Bush was in office they appologized for anti-Muslim cartoons. Where was the outrage then?"
Um... I'm pretty sure that Bush was roundly criticized for that, just like people railed about him continuing to call Islam "the Religion of Peace".
Pretending that no one criticized Bush is silly. Do you REALLY not think he got criticized for that?
Our current involvement in Libya seems reasonable to me.
So, you didn't really mean
"If this means continuing to invade sovereign countries at enormous cost for no good reason. Then no, I think we are past that stage, at least as far as Obama is concerned."
This is transparent BS. The US has a very small diplomatic presence in Libya. Tragically it is now somewhat smaller. There is no invasion or occupation.
By no reasonable standard could we be said to have invaded the country, although we clearly took sides in a civil war. This was remarkably cost free for us, literally everyone hated Gaddafi. Not a single country objected to his ouster.
Well, as long as it's the popular thing, then it's free to contradict one of your beliefs.
It was a civil war. Should we have supported Gaddafi?
"I know politicians, including the President, love Twitter. I just can't figure out why."
I agree with Freder. I think it's important to say that. We shouldn't disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. Better to find common ground.
The usefulness of Twitter seems to be in encouraging people to push out short, ill thought, statements. Verbal diarrhea on purpose and by design.
Our *diplomats* shouldn't tweet. Our President shouldn't tweet. Romeny should not tweet. Ryan should not tweet. Our elected officials, cabinet members, and military brass should not tweet.
The past tense of tweet is twat.
(just saying)
Freder Frederson said...
As a leader, you are responsible for your subordinates. It is part of being a leader.
It doesn't mean you have to affirm, believe or agree with everything your subordinates say.
No. It means the subordanants follow the policies that their leader espouses or they keep their traps shut.
Why didn't they super-size the defenses at embassies and consulates in Egypt and Libya as soon as each country became tinderboxes?
(Respectively, at the onset of the Arab "Spring" and whenever it was that we had actual embassies/consulates in Libya.)
They deserve to pack more heat than Janet Reno's raid on Mount Carmel.
What has been remarkable to me is the response of the Libyan government and the Libyan people. They seem genuinely remorseful for these deaths.
This is what winning the hearts and minds of the people looks like. It is a triumph for Obama and Clinton's policies in Libya and a stark contrast to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are not doomed to an endless cycle of conflict with all muslim countries. Effective foreign policies can break this cycle. We should support these people and their elected leaders, not try to score cheap political points that undermine this effort. The Libyans obviously have problems with a continuing civil war but there is an equally clear attempt to forge a reconciliation with the west. Let's hope this continues and doesn't get derailed by domestic political rivalries.
So was his body dragged through the streets or carried to the hospital?
There must be a source more credible than Hillary and the Administration on this.
It is a triumph for Obama and Clinton's policies in Libya and a stark contrast to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Huh? Could you explain that? We have allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. A consulate gets attacked in only one of those countries - Libya. Where is the success in Libya?
Post a Comment