Gone Fishing

Is the White House complicit regarding the two ME embassy attacks? Notice that I’m not linking them to the general rioting and demonstrations going on in several countries now, but just these two attacks.

We are still digesting the events of the last few days, but new intel points to a organized coordinated terrorist attack and not some Muslims butthurt over a silly movie.
My local paper had a nice write up of Chris Stevens, a local boy who made good, the Libyan goons could not have killed a stronger advocate and friend of Libya then Stevens. And I’m amused at the Romney backlash regarding his comments. Gee, a presidential candidate who is running for the job that would make critical decisions on foreign affairs, having an opinion about a foreign affair, what a cad. Having the unmitigated gall to slam the State Dept. for an apology that the WH later said they did not authorize and disavowed themselves, a crazy world we live in. But some disturbing information (still being vetted, naturally) that is pointing to an unprepared Obama who dropped the ball, got lazy, and left his subordinates in a lurch.

First from Breitbart we have this:

We knew he never could squeeze in a meeting with his jobs council between his golf games and campaign stops, but not attending security briefings during the week leading up to 9/11? just wow! I realize Obama was always a big picture guy who never got involved with the actual sleeve rolling up stuff, he was a concepts guy, as the healthcare summit proved. But 9/11 happens to be a pretty important day, with world wide ripples, an inspection to make sure all the hatches were properly battened down, this would have been minimal preparation.

Then we have this:

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.
—-
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

We know that they knew ahead of time that they were in deep shit, hence the hastily put together apology, hoping to defuse what was coming. We don’t know if Marines were sent from Tripoli or whether our government contacted Shagur and asked for help.

Not only did they torch our embassy, secret valuable files were taken.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups

Looks like the CIA will have to pretty much start from scratch all over again.

Other disturbing news is floating around that the Cairo ambassador was one of those anti gun types and did not allow the Marines guarding the embassy to carry any live ammo, holy smokes. The pentagon has recently come out and denied this (typical damage control) so who really knows? But they did admit that each individual ambassadors runs her little fiefdom as she sees fit;

The U.S. ambassador to any nation ultimately decides whether Marines are authorized to carry ammunition, according to a GOP national security adviser knowledgeable about American embassy protocols.

It now appears that arrests have been made, we’ll see.

I get that being president is a tough job, and I already gave him kudos in an earlier post for his 9/11 dedications that he attended, but it would appear reasonable to me, given what happened 11 years ago, and given that the Arab Spring has been a convoluted abortion with no score cards to tell us who the good guys are, it would be reasonable to put all ME embassies on high alert, sufficiently staffed with live ammo carrying Marines and contingency plans in place with the locals to send in the cavalry if needed. What happened here?

And just for fun, here is what Malkin thinks about this fiasco, you go, girl.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    Gee, a presidential candidate who is running for the job that would make critical decisions on foreign affairs, having an opinion about a foreign affair, what a cad.

    It’s not the opinion, it’s the fact that he lied about what was said, who said, when they said it and why. It was that faced with his first “3 am phone call” situation, he fumbled it. It was not from the state department, but from an employee of the embassy; it was issued before the attack without and SD or WH approval. I mean apart from getting the facts completely wrong, it was a fine statement from Romney. Based on an unofficial communication from an embassy employee in the early hours, he claimed that the President sympathized with terrorists. That strikes you as “having an opinion?”

    As for the “skipped briefings”, this is now know to be bullshit. Obama, like Reagan and Clinton and Bush I, has his intel briefings in written form.

    [Note: none of the above is a defense of Obama. They can both be shitheads.]

    The reports coming out are indeed disturbing (although the Marines deny they were unarmed). And there certainly seems to have been a security screwup in Benghazi.

    Thumb up 5

  2. richtaylor365 *

    it’s the fact that he lied about what was said

    My radar always starts to blip whenever I see the word “Lied”, to me this implies a deliberate attempt to deceive. If this lie of yours involves transposing “Obama” with “The US Embassy Cairo” I think you owe him an apology. Given what he knew then, I don’t think it that outlandish to think both were on the same page, maybe a stretch, but hardly a lie.

    That strikes you as “having an opinion?”

    That’s exactly what it was. How is that the WH can criticize and walk back the apology but Romney can’t?

    Voters have a right to know where the president and his challenger stands on the issues, he was providing that, you may not like his opinion, but it was given nonetheless.

    Romney did err equating “condemning offensive content” with “To sympathize with those who waged the attacks”, if you want to nail him on that, be my guest. He made a calculated decision to speak out, a show of strength and conviction if you will that has been sorely lacking wrt his foreign policy chops.

    And as far as your comparisons with Reagan, that was like apples and butterflies. Carter showed some Reagan like fortitude in greenlighting that mission, it failed through no fault of his own. There was nothing to criticize Carter for and nobody doubted Reagan’s gumption,there was no apology blurring the lines between the good guys and the bad guys. This situation is entirely different, some stink can clearly be traced back to the WH, they were not prepared when they should have been, and as we learn more about what happened, criticisms and finger pointing appear legit. And, as noted before, Romney will never be confused with Reagan, so his impetuousness in this whole affiar can be somewhat explained.

    As for the “skipped briefings”, this is now know to be bullshit. Obama, like Reagan and Clinton and Bush I, has his intel briefings in written form.

    So how do you explain that on the WH website under presidential schedule, there are some days with “president received his daily briefing”, and other days, like the entire week prior to 9/11, where it is absent? Not saying you are wrong, and as with many things, we find out that sources are wrong, but just relying on the ” his intel briefings in written form” does not work for me.

    Thumb up 3

  3. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  6. Mississippi Yankee

    Ronald Reagan, Republican candidate, after president Carter’s botched mission to save US hostages.

    CM,
    Since you brought up;

    One of the reasons Reagan beat Carter in 1980 was the MSM had hammered the WH over the Tehran Embassy takeover all year. Reporting facts cost their party of choice the presidency in their opinion).

    That won’t happen again if they can help it. There’s not an alphabet network that didn’t smear Romney for pointing out the same incompetence they themselves did in 79 and 80. And the apologies and excuses … jesus jumped-up christ.
    Now you want to call him a coward?

    But let me ask you this, in a ‘larger picture sort of way’;

    Which furthers al-Qaeda’s purpose. If Obama is re-elected he pretty much turns a blind eye to Muslim Brotherhood shenanigans while drone killing one or two al-Qaeda every couple of months. With I might add little fanfare even from our bleating MSM

    OR

    Romney, with an aggressive foreign policy. One that they ( al-Qaeda) can throw several hundred cannon fodder at when ever the need arises.

    Which administration is guaranteed to inflame the Arab Street, draw hyper devotees and immediately hasten the the final showdown they seek?
    Radical Islam needs a devil,always has, Reagan, Bush and Bush were recruitment gold for them. Carter, Clinton and this neophyte causes them stagnation.

    Please note they did not stage these attacks last year on the 10th anniversary of 911

    Thumb up 5

  7. Mississippi Yankee

    rich,

    Here’s a little worm for your hook;

    Our ambassador to Egypt, Anne Peterson, was the pussified genius who denied ammo to our Marines at the embassy in Egypt. In addition, the embassy in Cairo and the consulate in Benghazi had 48 hours advance warning of the attacks from American intel departments.
    Anne Peterson was in Washington at the time of the attacks. She left her people naked and covered her own ass by going AWOL.

    To me, the biggest glaring stupidity on the part of all involved at WH and State is that they took no particular notice of the approaching 9-11 anniversary. I remember from years ago that al-Qaeda and their fellow travellers are big on symbolism like anniversaries and birthdays. I remembered that. WTF is the matter with the so-called professionals?

    Yanno, if we stipulate that Uhbama is a pathological narcissist and a muslim, between one or the other, everything he’s done in the past 3-1/2 years makes perfect sense.

    Put me in the column with
    Hillary YES Obama CLUELESS

    Thumb up 3

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    CM.

    This kinda/ sorts negates your Romney…coward link I believe;

    President Barack Obama used Air Force One to conduct a policy loop-de-loop today, asserting in a CBS interview that he supports Americans’ right to criticize Islam, following almost 18 hours of determined condemnation from Team Romney and damaging news from Egypt and Libya.

    “We believe in the First Amendment,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft during an interview arranged days earlier.

    “It is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I’m sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind,” he said, according to a transcript narrated by White House spokesman Jay Carney.

    The transcript was released several hours after Obama had a Rose garden statement to condemn criticism of Islam.

    Obama caves to Romney, embraces free speech for critics of Islam

    Carney read the transcript during an impromptu press conference aboard Air Force One as it carried Obama to a fundraiser in Las Vegas.

    Thumb up 3

  9. Hal_10000

    My radar always starts to blip whenever I see the word “Lied”, to me this implies a deliberate attempt to deceive. If this lie of yours involves transposing “Obama” with “The US Embassy Cairo” I think you owe him an apology. Given what he knew then, I don’t think it that outlandish to think both were on the same page, maybe a stretch, but hardly a lie.

    Here is the timeline. Romney stood by his attack after it was clarified that the statement was not official.

    And as far as your comparisons with Reagan, that was like apples and butterflies. Carter showed some Reagan like fortitude in greenlighting that mission, it failed through no fault of his own. There was nothing to criticize Carter for and nobody doubted Reagan’s gumption,there was no apology blurring the lines between the good guys and the bad guys. This situation is entirely different, some stink can clearly be traced back to the WH, they were not prepared when they should have been, and as we learn more about what happened, criticisms and finger pointing appear legit. And, as noted before, Romney will never be confused with Reagan, so his impetuousness in this whole affiar can be somewhat explained

    1) I don’t see it that way. We respect the White House, not the occupant. Yeah, yeah, they did it to Bush, blahblah blah. I expect better of Republicans. And I used to get better.

    2) Nothing to criticize Carter for? Carter did precisely what all the neocons are saying we should have done in Egypt (maybe, perhaps, this week) — support the Shah in the early days. He kept US personnel in Iran after the initial attack on the embassy. He ordered the failed rescue. His negotiations ended in ridiculous humiliations. I mean, hell, Ted Fucking Kennedy was roasting Carter over it. No criticism?

    3) Carter showed fortitude in the mission? When OBL was killed, I specifically cited Eagle Claw as the potential downside of Obama ordering it. But Carter’s got gumption; Obama don’t. Got it.

    4) The stink being traced back to the White House brings me back to the point I keep hammering and no one has an answer to: how should Obama have reacted to the Arab Spring? I think there’s a very good argument that he could have done nothing to prevent this and everything to make it far far worse.

    That won’t happen again if they can help it. There’s not an alphabet network that didn’t smear Romney for pointing out the same incompetence they themselves did in 79 and 80. And the apologies and excuses … jesus jumped-up christ.

    Yes, but this time we have Fox News, the #1 network. Yesterday, they had a panel of four people to talk about the Romney thing and all four defended him. Whining about the media does not get anywhere with me. We’ve had worse media situations in the past and Republicans dealt with it. I am tired of that excuse from conservatives.

    Please note they did not stage these attacks last year on the 10th anniversary of 911

    Uh, you do know that Obama was President last year, right?

    Thumb up 4

  10. Xetrov

    Uh, you do know that Obama was President last year, right?

    Pretty sure he was alluding to it not being an election year.

    As far as which man looks Presidential…CM you’re smoking crack.

    Thumb up 4

  11. blameme

    Uh, you do know that Obama was President last year, right?

    I think the point he was making about this year versus last is that this is an election year – hence why they attacked this year rather than last.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Kimpost

    By attacking this year they are trying to influence the US election by making Obama look weak so that Romney wins the election, or they are trying to make Romney look weak so that Obama will win?

    I’m sorry, but this is silly…

    Thumb up 1

  13. blameme

    I’m sorry, but this is silly…

    Whatever their motive, they get a lot more coverage in an election year than not – which is probably ultimately their main motive – coverage.

    I don’t see how that is silly – the whole point of these groups doing these protests are to get as much press as possible.

    Thumb up 5

  14. richtaylor365 *

    Here is the timeline

    Which does zero to refute anything I said.

    Romney stood by his attack after it was clarified that the statement was not official.

    Your timeline indicates that the WH walked back the apology AFTER Romney made his statement. In the Second statement where he says he stands by his criticisms, he cites ,” noting that U.S. embassies are part of the administration.”. If you want to quibble with his rational, fine, but don’t go all silly and say he “lied”.

    Nothing to criticize Carter for?

    Concerning this rescue mission? No, nothing at all, you know what I meant. It took guts to greenlight this rescue mission, and through no fault of Carters, it failed. Why on earth would Reagan criticize him for that? Come on.

    Carter showed fortitude in the mission? When OBL was killed, I specifically cited Eagle Claw as the potential downside of Obama ordering it. But Carter’s got gumption; Obama don’t. Got it.

    I’m surprised in you, Hal, you usually don’t go over the deep end like this. Your conclusion is stupid. I never said Obama does not have gumption. We hashed out the OBL raid pretty thoroughly when it happened. We ALL agreed (not just you) that naturally there would have been serious blow back if the raid failed and SEAL’s died. You should have used this example in your Carter comparison, this is more appropriate, not Eagle Claw. But that is what presidents are supposed t do, make the hard choices. We all gave Obama kudos for making the call, similarly if Eagle Claw was successful, they would have put Carter’s mug on Mt. Rushmore. But Romney criticizing the administration over the embassy killings is nothing at all like Reagan wrt Carter and Eagle Claw.

    The stink being traced back to the White House brings me back to the point I keep hammering and no one has an answer to: how should Obama have reacted to the Arab Spring?

    Macro vs. micro, this is not about the Arab Spring, it is most certainly about a president who can’t be bothered with daily intel briefings, who after his 9/11 appearances jetted over to Vegas, and who’s administration got caught with their pants down all along the chain of command, not preparing for even the possibility that mischief would occur with their embassies in the ME. They were incompetent in this matter.

    I think there’s a very good argument that he could have done nothing to prevent this and everything to make it far far worse.

    How about just doing the bare minimum, locking down and fortifying the embassies and securing our ME diplomats so that they were not exposed? I would have been happy with just that.

    Thumb up 2

  15. Hal_10000

    blameme, if that’s the point, maybe it’s legit. But the “it’s an election year” seemed more of a back-handed conspiracy mongering to me. Limbaugh was doing this the other day: saying AQ let Obama get bin Laden so he would be re-elected.

    Thumb up 1

  16. Hal_10000

    More protests today. Libya, ironically, seems to be the most friendly country in the region right now, honestly trying to cooperate. They really did seem to like Stevens. By all accounts, he was doing a good job. And there are more details about the guys who died with him, including an ex-Navy seal.

    What a tragedy.

    Thumb up 0

  17. richtaylor365 *

    Which side should I put you on Rich?

    Their guilt is obvious. Of what, I’m not sure because we still don’t know;

    1)Were the embassy Marines allowed to protect themselves with live ammo.
    2) What communications ensued between US Embassy Cairo and the SD/WH prior to the attacks
    3) What if any contingency plans were formulated with the local governments and the police incase these went south.
    4) Were they in fact warned 48 hours ahead of time that they were in fact being targeted, and attacks were being planned on their ME embassies?

    We know that it was just business as usual for the ME embassies, woefully unprepared to deal with what was obvious to just about everyone, that on this sacred anniversary, some mischief just might come their way.

    Thumb up 0

  18. Hal_10000

    I agree that the LIbyan consulate was underprepared and relying too much on local security.

    On the subject of media bias … you have to check out this conversation between Bob Dylan and a Rolling Stone reporter where the reporter tries, and fails, to get Dylan to praise the President. It’s oddly beautiful.

    Thumb up 0

  19. AlexInCT

    Romney stood by his attack after it was clarified that the statement was not official.

    I think there is a point to be made that the statement became “not official” when it caused all that blow back for team Obama. Even worse, if this statement was non official as they want us to believe now, what it shows is how freaking dysfunctional both the State Department and the WH are for allowing this nonsense to go on.

    My opinion – and I will grant that it is just that for now, since we are never likely to get the truth from this crew – is that this tweet went out because that’s how these morons at State and members of Team Obama generally feel about the subject. Remember that this idiot told NASA their job was to make Muslims feel welcome in the scientific community, not do all the rocket science shit us tax payers pay billions for.

    I stand by the fact that Obama still has not done squat. Especially now that we know they had advanced warning that this was coming and they didn’t communicate it out to these posts. The whole “the guy just got there and that’s why we couldn’t inform him about it in time” in the age of satellite phones and sophisticated communications gear smells to high heaven.

    I doubt the LSM will ever get the facts out. Unlike back in ’79 when they showed how inept these do nothing leftist morons tend to be, the LSM is now circling the wagons and trying to protect team blue from the consequences come November 6th. I am surprised they have not found a way to not just pretend the one that f-ed up was Romney, but to somehow bring up Bush and blame him as well for this. That’s how stupid and predictable these turds are.

    BTW, what was the official statement about all this crap going on? I still have not heard one. What I do know is that Obama is out there doing campaign stops and looking for cash. Fuck, even Slick Willy knew to fire a few cruise missiles at empty buildings and grandstand to cover for the stupid. These morons aren’t even bright enough to do that.

    Thumb up 4

  20. Poosh

    Are there sources other than the Independent?

    This seems increasingly to have been a Terrorist Strike rather than just mob violence. Planned, premeditated.

    I do find it a little hard to believe that Obama and those under him were *this* stupid as to not even up security a little bit.

    Thumb up 3

  21. Hal_10000

    Remember that this idiot told NASA their job was to make Muslims feel welcome in the scientific community, not do all the rocket science shit us tax payers pay billions for.

    One guy said that; while being interviewed on Al Jazeera. If that’s our mission, I know several thousand NASA people who have never heard this.

    Thumb up 1

  22. ilovecress

    Aside from all the back and forth about Romeys response being “lies” or whatever – isn’t the larger point that Romney just blew the best chance he”s going to get before the election to look like a President rather than a presidential candidate?

    Remember, his job isn’t to convince you guys that Obama sucks, it’s to convince ‘undecideds’ that he can be the president in tough situations like this. This was the perfect chance to get people to imagine what life would be like with a Romney presidency, and think “you know, he’d do a pretty good job.”

    I’d wager that you see a lot of stuff coming out of the Obama campaign over the next couple of weeks about ‘how hard it is to be president’ – appealing to the great man theory.

    Thumb up 1

  23. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  25. richtaylor365 *

    This is awesome.

    You would make a good journalist, grab one sentence, ignore the other eight, and just run with that…………………double awesome.

    Thumb up 3

  26. richtaylor365 *

    I’m going to come out and say that I really hope Obama wins

    Dang, there goes my bet I had with the other readers here that you were really on the fence.

    Sorry Rich – I wasn’t actually being serious, but you must admit it was an awesome quote

    It’s cool, I probably should have worded it better, something like ,”We know they are guilty of negligence, whether its gross negligence would depend on the answers to the questions I posited.

    Thumb up 0

  27. CM

    Shock endorsement! Call CNN? :-)

    Dang, there goes my bet I had with the other readers here that you were really on the fence.

    ;-)
    Hey, I still believe a Romney Presidency would be SIGNIFICANTLY more interesting. And now I’m not living in a target city for extremists (i.e. not within half an hour of being blown up on the tube), ‘interesting’ is a much larger factor to me.

    Thumb up 0

  28. Poosh

    On foreign policy alone. Romney’s whole approach to this gives me the shits. For the sake of the world I’d rather the foreign policy of the US not be outsourced to the Likud Party, with the neocon failures from the last GOP administration lamely trying to sell it.

    Indulge in protocols of Zion type antisemitism. Check

    Hysterically bring up boogeyman “Neocons”. Check.

    Rewrite history 1984 style. Check.

    Liberalism: it’s religious and like a second skin.

    Thumb up 4

  29. CM

    I think Hal said it best:

    …after eight years of Foghorn Leghorn foreign policy, having one in which restraint is not a four-letter word is good

    Thumb up 1

  30. Poosh

    When anything other than support of hard-right policy with Israel is considered to be antisemitism, the discussion is over.

    No, when you invoke – probably without even realising, seeing as you’re so soaked up in liberalism – that evil Jews are running the world and the US government, and calling the shots – something that isn’t even remotely connected with reality – THEN the discussion is over.

    You don’t even know what you’ve done.

    Thumb up 2

  31. Kimpost

    I don’t think that Romney would be too bad actually. His policies would be virtually identical to Obama’s, except for Obamacare which he would end, replacing it with “common sense step-by-step” reform (aka nothing).

    Id expect zero changes in foreign policy, barring a loving speech for Israel. Fiscally he’s the same as Obama, in love with or at least being in bed with the Feds and Wall Street. He might step away from another bailout, not because he cares, but because politically he has to pretend to care. But would it matter much anyway? The Feds would still be printing money. They’d replace any missing bailouts with quantitative easing anyway.The system is what the system is, and both candidates are attached to it. Expect them to keep working within it.

    Anyway, the polls now indicate an Obama presidency, but with both houses going R. I shouldn’t be too worried even if I thought that Obama was anti-Christ. What could the guy do, without having access to the purse?

    Thumb up 2

  32. Seattle Outcast

    I’m going to assume you wrote that with a smirk on your face.

    I’m sure he was – it’s not often you so completely forget that you’re “neutral” and not sucking Obama’s cock as hard as you can. Obama has NEVER seemed even remotely “presidential”. I’ll grant you “wears an empty suit well” and “reads teleprompter without stuttering” or even “comes across as thin-skinned and bitchy”, but he’s acted like a bit performer doing a role in a made-for-tv movie from the very beginning.

    Oh, wait, that’s pretty much exactly what he is….

    Thumb up 3

  33. CM

    Id expect zero changes in foreign policy, barring a loving speech for Israel.

    One can only hope. If that’s so, then great.

    You should pull your nose out of Obama’s asshole once in a while….

    sucking Obama’s cock as hard as you can

    He must have a long and bendy cock.

    You miss Bush so much it makes you cry doesn’t it.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Xetrov
    As far as which man looks Presidential…CM you’re smoking crack.

    I’m going to assume you wrote that with a smirk on your face.

    100% Sincere.

    “Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later,” Obama said in an interview with CBS News Wednesday. “And one of the things I’ve learned as president is you can’t do that, that it’s important for you to make sure the statements you make are backed up by the facts, and that you’ve thought through the ramifications before you make them.”

    Later on, Obama was asked in a Telemundo interview whether Egypt is a U.S. ally, and he turned long-established foreign policy on its head. “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” the president said.

    Tak about shooting first, aiming later.

    REPORTER: Egypt is an ally. It is a major non-NATO ally…

    STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Correct.

    REPORTER: …and you neglected to mention that. And that major non-NATO ally status is something that you guys have celebrated ever since the 1970s, when they were among the first batch of countries, along with Israel, to get that distinction. So, is Egypt an ally or is it not an ally? And if it is not an ally, in the sense of it being a major non-NATO ally, is Israel not an ally either? Is Japan not an ally?

    STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Well Japan has a treaty alliance with the United States…

    REPORTER: OK, they have a treaty. So other countries; Pakistan and India that don’t have mutual defense treaties with the United States – they’re major non-NATO allies – but, you guys really don’t think they’re allies, is that the message you’re trying to send? Because that’s the message the President sent last night. Unless you’ve decided that Egypt no longer qualifies as a major non-NATO ally.

    STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Well that was certainly, I don’t think, the intention. I’m going to refer you to the White House for further parsing on this.

    REPORTER: So, forget about the President’s words. You’re saying that the Administration and the State Department still regard Egypt as a major non-NATO ally, and it is still a recipient of all the privileges that that entails?

    STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Yes.

    Oh but wait, Romney may have said something stupid! Concentrate on that, MSM. Not the fact that the President insulted a long-standing US Ally.

    Anyway, the polls now indicate an Obama presidency

    Hmmm

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

    Oh but Rasmussen is just conservatively biased, right? Whatever.

    Thumb up 3

  35. Kimpost

    Yes, I saw the Rasmussen poll. I know that some think that they are wrong or biased, but that wasn’t the reason I (still) gave the edge to Obama. I just honestly think that the he leads overall, when looking at all the polls. Both nationally and the electoral college.

    Things can and might change (I expect things to get tighter), but Obama has the edge, IMO.

    Thumb up 0

  36. Hal_10000

    Oh but Rasmussen is just conservatively biased, right? Whatever.

    One poll. OK. Nate Silver has analyzed years worth of Rasmussen data and they are consistently several points off toward the GOP. You can look at their voter models and see the difference between them and everyone else. Not as bad as Zogby, but a bit biased.

    Of course, Daily Kos’s polling system was completely fraudulent with made-up numbers. So the Left is in a glass house on this one.

    Thumb up 1

  37. AlexInCT

    When anything other than support of hard-right policy wrt Israel is considered to be antisemitism, the discussion is over.

    I have no problem supporting civilization over 7th century barbarianism. Ift he only country in the ME that was prosperous and not populated by these death worshippers was populated by a bunch of martians I would still support them and their right to exist over fucktards that think its honorable to strap explosives to kids, their own kids too boot, and send them to die, on the off fucking chance that it allows them to score a kill against people they hate simply because these people have proven how inept, dysfunctional, and ridiculously barbaric the other societies and beliefs of these people of the ME are.

    There is a reason all these fuckwads hate Israel, and while they will go to great lengths to convince stupid people that it is because the people of Israel stole from them, the fundamental reason is solely that Israel’s success constantly reminds them of their own ineptness and dysfunctional societies. Anyone that takes the side of these losers against Israel should remain suspect. Doubly so when they pretend the problem is Israel and not the fucking death worshippers.

    Thumb up 4

  38. Xetrov

    Nate Silver has analyzed years worth of Rasmussen data and they are consistently several points off toward the GOP.

    And yet in 2008 they were dead on with the final results of the election. (or didn’t you bother to click on my link?)

    In regard to current polling, the oversampling of Dem’s continues on multiple polls.

    Thumb up 3

  39. Hal_10000

    I don’t want to get too far into this, Xetrov, since I think polls are stupid anyway. Yes, I read that. But Rasmussen, in 2010, was simple awful. For example, he missed the Hawaii Senate race by 40 God damn points. Silver found they had a consistent bias of 4 points to the Republican side.

    I have just noticed, over the last few months, that Rasmussen is all conservative blogs talk about. It’s the only poll they cite. I wonder why?

    Thumb up 0

  40. Mississippi Yankee

    …after eight years of Foghorn Leghorn foreign policy, having one in which restraint is not a four-letter word is good

    And precisely how many US Ambassadors were murdered and raped (or was it raped and murdered) during those eight years Hal? WWHD? what would hal do?

    By attacking this year they are trying to influence the US election by making Obama look weak so that Romney wins the election, or they are trying to make Romney look weak so that Obama will win?

    I’m sorry, but this is silly…


    Kimpost

    I believe I adequately covered that question with my comment @ 5:09AM and CM touched on it again with his comment @ 3:48PM.

    If you’re going to sit at the adult table please keep up.

    Thumb up 1

  41. Xetrov

    I don’t want to get too far into this, Xetrov, since I think polls are stupid anyway.

    I agree. I’ve already stated elsewhere that polls this early are completely meaningless. I only brought it up because Kim was apparently misinformed on some polls, and only took it further because I knew it would be summarily dismissed as biased. Sadly, I can’t pull the winning powerball numbers for tomorrow out of my head as easily.

    Thumb up 0

  42. Hal_10000

    State Department is refuting the claim that the Marines had no ammo. Story sounded dubious to me.

    MY, there were no ambassadors killed under Bush (unclear at this point if Stevens was raped, indications are he wasn’t). But we did have 3000 murdered in a terrorist attack, another few thousand killed, tens of thousands maimed in wars. Of course, I know that nothing that ever happened was Bush’s fault.

    Thumb up 0

  43. Iconoclast

    But we did have 3000 murdered in a terrorist attack…

    …a mere 9 months into Bush’s first term.

    …nothing that ever happened was Bush’s fault.

    Right (inadvertently, I’m sure), it was Clinton’s policies that led to 9/11 (essentially not responding to the first WTC bombing, the dual Embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, etc).

    There were no further attacks on US soil after 9/11 UNTIL a Democrat occupied the Oval Office.

    Of course, I know that nothing that ever happened was Obama’s fault.

    Thumb up 5

  44. Mississippi Yankee

    The possibility that the events of 9-11 2001 were planned before the Bush v Gore election – almost certainly.

    The planning of the events of 9-11-2012 even a year ago – unlikely.
    But if they were it was Bush’s fault. Right?

    In just the span of this one post by rich I believe you have let slip the facade and shown us all your true political leaning Hal.
    Has the truth made you free?

    Thumb up 3

  45. Hal_10000

    There were no further attacks on US soil after 9/11 UNTIL a Democrat occupied the Oval Office.

    Jesus Christ, what kind of blinders do you have to have on? The anthrax attacks, the attack on our Consulate in Pakistan, the attack on the compound in Riydah, the attack on the US consulate in Jedah in 2004. An attempt on our Syrian embassy. An attempt on our embassy in Athens. The 2008 attack on our embassy in Yemen which left a dozen dead.

    Does none of this count?

    Thumb up 6

  46. Hal_10000

    MY, I don’t know which facade you’re talking about. I have made it clear, over and over, that I am no longer a Republican (although I still caucus with them). And shit like this is one of the reasons why. It’s not enough to criticize Obama for the poor security at our Benghazi consultate. It’s not enough to criticize him for not having a clear direction in Libya. No, it’s not enough, it’s never enough until he’s a terrorist sympathizer who hates America. Even if we have to twist every argument, even if we have to defend everything the Republicans say, even if we have to make stuff up (yeah, it’s Mother Jones; it’s got the memo from the Marines). It’s never enough.

    Bullshit.

    I’m on the side of the argument. I hate bullshit arguments when “their” side uses them. And I hate bullshit arguments when “our” side uses them. The entire conservative response to this reminds me of nothing more than 1980’s liberals: vague statements, no clear plans, weird calls for the President to take the situation “more seriously” and always, always the over-riding concern that the other guy be blamed and be seen as wrong no matter what he does. I have STILL not heard a coherent answer from Obama’s critics of how they would have handled Arab Spring. And if they can’t even form a more coherent foreign policy than some law professor community organizer from Chicago, what the hell is the use of them?

    Thumb up 7

  47. Poosh

    You’ll note the constant attacks prior to 9/11 – almost as if we’re in an unacknowledged war.

    Is mrblume’s spin the same spin that the left is trying to pull now? How dumb do they think people are?

    Obama claimed, plausibly? that he would heal all wounds and was going to make peace with the Muslim World – i.e his Cairo speech and constant other speeches.

    How many of these attacks on diplomatic facilities came from a country that had a democratic revolution, where America and her allies armed and supplied the allies, and constantly supported their efforts?

    How is this the same to MULTIPLE RIOTS AND ATTACKS around the world in a few mere days?

    Did any ambassador’s get killed in those 8 attacks who were not in a war zone? (or at all!) It seems to me that when an ambassador gets killed that’s a pretty big thing…

    Thumb up 3

  48. Poosh

    There were no further attacks on US soil after 9/11 UNTIL a Democrat occupied the Oval Office.

    Depending on what you mean by soil, if you mean USA rather than Embassies, there were constant failed attacks during the Bush years after 9/11 – and most western countries. Most of which you would have never heard of. Attack after attack which was foiled, thank goodness for the most part. A few got through (7/7 in London, Madrid) etc. In the US none got through.

    With the exception of Fort Hood (I cannot remember any others?) no attacks have got through under Obama.

    Hal_10000 < I assume Iron is talking about actual America, the anthrax was not an Islamist attack, was it? (memory fails now)

    Thumb up 2

  49. Poosh

    Even if we have to twist every argument, even if we have to defend everything the Republicans say, even if we have to make stuff up (yeah, it’s Mother Jones; it’s got the memo from the Marines).

    That’s not so praise worthy as you think, in regard to the ammo, I’ve seen plenty of conservative, right-wing, “wingnut” blogs pointing out they did carry live ammo.

    Eh so basically, I think there is a tradition of self-correcting and being careful with sources, in the right blogsphere, which we should be pleased Hal is part of, so long as you do not fall into hysteria. I think it’s important to keep other right-wing blogs and politicians in check and savage them for being inaccurate. Can back-fire though, such as the imaginary Paul Ryan “lies”.

    Thumb up 0

  50. Hal_10000

    I do agree that Obama was under the delusion that making nice with the Arab world would change things. If it does, it will be over a very long term. Short term, no President can have a greater influence than poverty, corruption and some guy with a Koran saying he has all the answers.

    Thumb up 1

  51. HARLEY

    I do agree that Obama was under the delusion that making nice with the Arab world would change things.

    Is this just out right ineptness?> or out right, gullibility?
    All this talk about RESETTING relations… just sounded so juvenile and inexperienced….. guess we should have expected that from a guy who was a senator for only a few months before he decided that he would run for president.

    Oh any one seeing the anti-japan rioting in China?

    Thumb up 3

  52. Seattle Outcast

    All this talk about RESETTING relations… just sounded so juvenile and inexperienced….. guess we should have expected that from a guy who was a senator for only a few months before he decided that he would run for president

    Let’s be honest, he’s a “community organizer” that happens to read the teleprompter well. His time as senator was mostly served by voting “present” and pre-campaign activities. His government experience prior to 2008 was really serving at the state level – and since he only got that job by having his competition removed from the ballot, we’re now seeing amateur hour played out continuously in the west wing.

    This, folks, is the promised enlightened governing that all the hippies and ivory tower elitists have been whining for since 1968.

    Thumb up 5

  53. richtaylor365 *

    I’ve seen plenty of conservative, right-wing, “wingnut” blogs pointing out they did carry live ammo.

    Responsible bloggers always factor in 1) the fluidity of events as they unfold, and 2) that sources often times are just plain ass wrong. In my original post not only did I link to the Pentagon site who denied the claims for ammo less soldiers, but I added that we just don’t know at this stage.

    New info might be forth coming but as of now I think you go with the most credible source and in this instance it is the official claim that Marines were in fact armed. Yes, we have seen before how easily screw ups can be mitigated with some damage control, a circling of the wagons, and a general censoring of any additional info, the military can do that without breaking a sweat.

    But in reading the MJ piece and the official Marine Liaison Office response, I was struck by some peculiarities.

    The MCESG Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons.

    “Allowed”?really? Any soldier with 10 minutes worth of training knows that a weapon is not a weapon unless it is a loaded weapon. In training exercises or back in the states, the protocols are different but it boggles the mind to think that any soldier in any ME station would not have his weapon loaded at all times.

    The Marine Corps does not establish Rules of Engagement (ROE)

    That’s odd, why not? Only the Marines know what their training involves, what their capabilities are, and what they can and can’t do effectively.

    since Marine security guards report to the ambassador not to a military commander.

    So these Marines are not controlled by an officer who knows Marine tactics and is trained to lead Marines in the field, they take orders from a civilian who knows nothing (potentially) of the military and what they are trained to do?

    Contrary to open source reporting, there are no Marines currently stationed at the Embassy in Tripoli, or the Consulate in Benghazi.

    Why the hell not? One of the hottest of the hot spots in the world and we don’t have Marines guarding these embassies?

    The original link in my post claimed that each ambassador at each embassy decides for himself what ROE the military personal assigned follow, this seems odd to me. Although it is denied here, an ambassador could potentially forbid troops from carrying loaded weapons, he could also enforce a ROE that would require guards to only carry side arms (don’t want to incite the locals with images of rifles, ya know), or even require all weapons to be concealed, tough to carry that M-4 in your boot.

    Thumb up 1

  54. AlexInCT

    State Department is refuting the claim that the Marines had no ammo. Story sounded dubious to me.

    If the Marines had had ammo and fought back – a given – we would also had the WH issue apologies for our jingoistic and blood thirsty troops killing “innocent civilians”. That didn’t happen. So none of our people shot back. The only way that happens when they fear for their lives is if they have nothing to shoot back with.

    Thumb up 1

  55. Hal_10000

    Responsible bloggers always factor in 1) the fluidity of events as they unfold, and 2) that sources often times are just plain ass wrong. In my original post not only did I link to the Pentagon site who denied the claims for ammo less soldiers, but I added that we just don’t know at this stage.

    Granted. My issue is that the RW outlets that reported this never followed up and most have still not corrected the record. And I guarantee you that, three months from now, it will be a talking point on a list of Obama failures.

    The original link in my post claimed that each ambassador at each embassy decides for himself what ROE the military personal assigned follow, this seems odd to me. Although it is denied here, an ambassador could potentially forbid troops from carrying loaded weapons, he could also enforce a ROE that would require guards to only carry side arms (don’t want to incite the locals with images of rifles, ya know), or even require all weapons to be concealed, tough to carry that M-4 in your boot.

    But is that a new policy or an old policy?

    If the Marines had had ammo and fought back – a given – we would also had the WH issue apologies for our jingoistic and blood thirsty troops killing “innocent civilians”. That didn’t happen. So none of our people shot back. The only way that happens when they fear for their lives is if they have nothing to shoot back with.

    I’m not following this logic at all. We’ve had many protests at US embassies and a number of them stormed, including under Bush’s watch. I don’t recall Marines *ever* filling the streets with bodies. In those circumstances, their job is to protect and evacuate the staff (as the forces in Benghazi tried and failed to do).

    Thumb up 0

  56. richtaylor365 *

    My issue is that the RW outlets that reported this never followed up and most have still not corrected the record.

    Is that realistic? Do you really expect them to do that? Hell, most reputable newspaper rarely to that. I guess maybe the big ones should set the record straight, but more likely they would just move on to something else. Now if they continue with the story line about no ammo, then yes, maybe some dishonesty. But I would not expect RW blogs to post retractions or corrections, they just move on. I am willing to give them (Pentagon/Marine Liaison Office) the benefit of the doubt and accept their version, namely that Marines did have live ammo, because that is where the preponderance lies, but really, do we know for sure?

    But is that a new policy or an old policy?

    Haven’t a clue, it just seems stupid to me, new or old.

    Thumb up 1

  57. mrblume

    You’ll note the constant attacks prior to 9/11 – almost as if we’re in an unacknowledged war.

    Clearly, the volume of attacks for any given time period is higher after 9/11 than before. To claim differently, based on this list, would be to lie. But yes, one might indeed conclude that there is something like an unacknowledged war going on. Now what are we going to do about it?

    How many of these attacks on diplomatic facilities came from a country that had a democratic revolution, where America and her allies armed and supplied the allies, and constantly supported their efforts?

    And that is because of what Obama did? Every revolution causes a counter revolution. Reconstruction and the KKK taught as that.

    Did any ambassador’s get killed in those 8 attacks who were not in a war zone? (or at all!) It seems to me that when an ambassador gets killed that’s a pretty big thing…

    It is a big deal. But it says more about preparedness, security arrangements etc. than about the amount of “fear struck into the hearts of Americas enemies”; It’s not like all these attackers after 9/11, when Bush was blindly striking left and right, were like, “let’s fire an RPG into the embassy, but we’ll make sure the ambassador isn’t killed, or we’ll be in deep shit”.

    The point here is that there is simply no evidence that Obama’s foreign policy in general, or any speech, in Cairo or elsewhere, has harmed America’s security. If you’d like to believe that it hasn’t helped, then ok; but at least appreciate how it helps you claim the moral high ground. As I said before, if it weren’t for the ACLU, Christians would still be burning witches.

    For that matter, enlightenment is not a question economic policy of big government spending. It’s about reason empathy, tolerance, an open mind. None of each I can find in, say, AlexInCT’s hate-filled spewings.

    Thumb up 0

  58. Hal_10000

    I was just compiling a list of terrorist attacks on Americans since 9/11 and the only reason we did not have an ambassador killed was luck, preparedness and the willingness of local militia to fight for us. We’re still sorting through what happened. But the picture emerging is of a Libyan government that is our friend but is, at least in Benghazi, compromised.

    Thumb up 0

  59. richtaylor365 *

    None of each I can find in, say, AlexInCT’s hate-filled spewings.

    Talk about hate filled spewing’s:

    As I said before, if it weren’t for the ACLU, Christians would still be burning witches.

    If you had the help of 6 other people and spent all day working on your comment, you could not have set yourself up any better as being a hypocritical douche tool, nicely done Mr. Blume.

    But the picture emerging is of a Libyan government that is our friend but is, at least in Benghazi, compromised.

    Mr. Obama would reply ,”You did not build that murderous embassy attack, someone else made that happen”. I’ll say:

    Hunt told Breitbart News that the new State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, approved and signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton since the 2011 fall of Khadafi’s regime, severely compromised the safety and security of murdered Ambassador Stevens and all American diplomatic staff in Libya.
    He also stated that the decision not to staff Benghazi with Marines was made by Secretary of State Clinton when she attached her signature to the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya document. Breitbart News has subsequently learned that under those rules of engagement, Secretary Clinton prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in Libya.

    I have mentioned before in this post how utterly amateurish and unprepared we were in not putting our ME embassies on alert for the 9/11 anniversary, how nothing out of the ordinary was done, and how stupid it was to allow Stevens to leave the main embassy in Tripoli (a much more secure building) and go to Benghazzi (A not at all secure location).

    The attackers knew the ambassador would be at Benghazi rather than in Tripoli. How did that happen? They knew when he had been moved from the embassy to a “safe house,” and targeted their attacks accordingly. How did that happen? The State Dept. lost track of Stevens for ten hours, how did that happen?

    But having no Marines in Libya, not allowing Steven’s own security detail inside the compound to be armed? Good thing the MSM is all over Romney for what they consider jumping the gun, we wouldn’t want them actually looking into the massive security breaches that occurred on the watch of the Viva Las Vegas president.

    The assertions that Obama routinely skips his daily intel briefings as yet to be refuted convincingly.

    And Hillary is still pettifogging the issue:

    For whatever reason, Secretary Clinton chose to double down on misleading the American people. “Libyans carried Chris’s body to the hospital,” said Mrs. Clinton. That’s one way of putting it.

    Yeah, much better to humanize them then to go broach the subject of how these animals decided to damn Stevens’ soul in the afterlife, turning him into a woman by sodomizing his dead body, hopefully he was already dead.

    A word on Col. Hunt. Granted, this in only one source, but Hunt as been a Foxnews military expert ever since the Iraq War, he has a chest full of decorations that would almost rival that of Audie Murphy, this guy knows his shit and is not prone to going off half cocked.

    Thumb up 6

  60. CM

    The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi and the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others almost certainly spells an end to any American interest in intervening in Syria. The longevity of Bashar al-Assad’s secular Baathist regime, now attempting to crush rebels that include a small number of radical Muslim vigilantes, may have just been lengthened. Meanwhile, the Muslim world will be unembarrassed that they got so upset about a Youtube trailer but didn’t seem to care if hundreds of Syrians were killed, arrested and/or tortured every day.

    http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/top-ten-likely-consequences-of-muslim-anti-us-embassy-riots.html

    So true.

    Thumb up 0

  61. CM

    Oh but wait, Romney may have said something stupid! Concentrate on that, MSM. Not the fact that the President insulted a long-standing US Ally.

    There’s a decent argument to be made that Obama did that as part of the pressure being placed on Morsi.

    Thumb up 1

  62. Seattle Outcast

    There’s a decent argument to be made that Obama did that as part of the pressure being placed on Morsi.

    If that piece of disingenous BS is the best you can scrounge up, you shouldn’t even bother to post it. Seriously, just spit Obama’s cock out for a second and consider that nobody here is nearly as dimwitted as you appear to think they are.

    On the other hand, you must be using yourself as a reference point for what seems a “decent argument”, which doesn’t speak well for you….

    Thumb up 3

  63. Seattle Outcast

    Ah, did I hurt your widdle feelings? Hit a bit too close to the “I’m fucking lame and I know it” mark? Having a hard time covering for your favorite political butt-buddy? Run out of trolls to run past the smarter people, ….. again….?

    Thumb up 4

  64. Hal_10000

    Yeah, much better to humanize them then to go broach the subject of how these animals decided to damn Stevens’ soul in the afterlife, turning him into a woman by sodomizing his dead body, hopefully he was already dead.

    Is there any evidence that this actually happened? I’ve heard back-water assertions of this. Maybe it’s true, but it smells to me. We know he died of smoke inhalation after the initial attack on the consulate.

    Thumb up 0

  65. CM

    Ah, did I hurt your widdle feelings? Hit a bit too close to the “I’m fucking lame and I know it” mark? Having a hard time covering for your favorite political butt-buddy? Run out of trolls to run past the smarter people, ….. again….?

    You couldn’t even understand the words that went with the picture? Sheesh.
    It was another of your meaningless, substance-free, trolling posts – making you seem just that much smaller again. How on earth would it result in my feelings getting hurt?
    Weird.

    Thumb up 0

  66. Mississippi Yankee

    But the “it’s an election year” seemed more of a back-handed conspiracy mongering to me. Limbaugh was doing this the other day: saying AQ let Obama get bin Laden so he would be re-elected.

    About a year and a half or so ago someone here, it might even have been you Hal, posted a YouTube clip and story about Ann Barnhardt. In it she would rip a pager out of the Koran, read the vilest parts out loud, smear it with bacon fat and burn it. The clip(s) were about 10 minutes long.

    Well I see from her site that Coptic Christians, over a year ago, translated her videos and they were broadcast all over the ME including Al-Jizera.. Now honestly (yeah I’m talking to YOU you lying little leftards) which video is, was or will always be more offensive to ‘the religion of peace’?

    Ann Barnhardt’s video = not an election year
    “Innocence of Muslims” = a barely cloaked excuse from the Obamateur WH.

    But no one asks … What about Bill Maher? Where’s the righteous outrage over the last 20 minutes of his film “Religulous” that’s most famous for mercilessly mocking Christianity. But what people forget is that the last twenty-minutes or so of the film make a damning case against Islam.

    If ANY ONE tells you ANY of this violence was cause by this new YouTube vid please convey to them that I call them either goddamn liars or fucking fools. Dishonest appologist assholes every-damn-one of ‘em.

    Thumb up 1

  67. AlexInCT

    The point here is that there is simply no evidence that Obama’s foreign policy in general, or any speech, in Cairo or elsewhere, has harmed America’s security

    Of course not! It was all the doing of “evil people” that are making bad movies that piss off barbarians! That’s the ticket. Being weak ass apologists and always bending backwards are not going to make barbarians feel they can get away with murder: literally……

    Too easy.

    None of each I can find in, say, AlexInCT’s hate-filled spewings.

    So, telling the truth now is spewing hate? How about you refute any of that “hate filled spewings” of mine with some facts that show I was wrong? I am not holding my breath though. Seriously, are you this stupid?

    BTW, is hate “filled spewings” the new code that replaced the accusation of racism, sexism, homophobia, and all those other nonsense tags that leftists use to silence anyone saying something they want to prevent, now that these old canard accusations have lost their effectivenes because too many people know they are paractically always misused by leftists?

    Thumb up 3

  68. Hal_10000

    About a year and a half or so ago someone here, it might even have been you Hal, posted a YouTube clip and story about Ann Barnhardt. In it she would rip a pager out of the Koran, read the vilest parts out loud, smear it with bacon fat and burn it. The clip(s) were about 10 minutes long.

    I wouldn’t post something like that.

    I see your point, but …the Muhammed/blasphemy thing is amazingly inconsistent and I think you are read too much into it. The entire Islamic world will just suddenly focus on something for no readily explained reason. So South Park’s portrayal of Muhammed in 2001 was unnoticed. But the Danish cartoon — published in 2005; not an election year — causes a huge eruption. Penn and Teller, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher can say lots of bad things about Islam; but Ayan Hirsi Ali makes a film and get death threats and Theo van Gogh is stabbed to death.

    Basically, I think that, any time the Islamist world needs an excuse to protest, they can find something. Had they needed protests last year, they probably would have found Barnhardt’s video. But I resist the election year speculation because:

    1) It assumes that everything revolves around the United States; it doesn’t. These people have agendas of their own that are much closer to home.

    2) It assumes that the protests will affect the election in a predictable way and Islamists see which way it will go. I don’t see that either. This is making Obama look bad. Are you seriously saying the Islamists want Mitt Romney elected? Why exactly would they protest if they love Obama so much? I would think they would keep quiet and act nice until after the election.

    3) It tends to be intertwined with the hole “Obama sympathizes with terrorists” bullshit.

    If these protests are staged or stimulated, it almost certainly is because of something in the Arab world. I suspect the really real reason is to try to strengthen the Islamic Brotherhood’s hold on Egypt, which is still a bit tenuous and has not come with any real changes.

    Thumb up 0

  69. AlexInCT

    I see your point, but …the Muhammed/blasphemy thing is amazingly inconsistent and I think you are read too much into it. The entire Islamic world will just suddenly focus on something for no readily explained reason. So South Park’s portrayal of Muhammed in 2001 was unnoticed. But the Danish cartoon — published in 2005; not an election year — causes a huge eruption. Penn and Teller, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher can say lots of bad things about Islam; but Ayan Hirsi Ali makes a film and get death threats and Theo van Gogh is stabbed to death.

    Don’t have the time to do the research, but I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that it isn’t that some things result in violence while others don’t that is the problem Hal in so much as what really is happening is that these monsters are looking for convenient excuses to justify their barbaric acts.

    BTW, do we know if it was the WH or one of their propaganda apparatchiks, probably in the State Department or LSM, that touted that Islam movie as the reason for these riots and acts of murder, or if it really came from the people that did the deed? I seem to find that the reason these Islamists glom too always seem to be suggested by someone on our side. Take for example Abu Ghraib or the flushed Koran at Gitmo. Without the efforts by the LSM to entice the barbarians to violence, I suspect these would also be examples of the barbarians just ignoring the event.

    Know what I am saying?

    If these protests are staged or stimulated, it almost certainly is because of something in the Arab world. I suspect the really real reason is to try to strengthen the Islamic Brotherhood’s hold on Egypt, which is still a bit tenuous and has not come with any real changes.

    Actually I remember seeing somewhere that it was to do exactly the oposite: weaken the Brotherhood in Egypt and the government in Libya y showing they would kow-tow to the US. And that it was being done, with a lot of planning and forethought, by the even more radical elements. It seems to have produced mixed results since the US became paralized and actually apologized instead of kicked ass. The whole movie thing? That came from someone on our side, to give the WH nd the State Department cover, and was picked up by the radicals to run with much later.

    Thumb up 1

  70. richtaylor365 *

    I wouldn’t post something like that.

    I believe CzarChazam posted that during his short stint here, he posted a few AB videos.

    Is there any evidence that this actually happened?

    Definitive? No, barring any autopsy leaks. But if you Google Stevens Sodmized you get several links intimating such, like this one:

    The Google Translation of the report follows:

    “The U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film is offensive to the Prophet Muhammad”

    In a link that wanted to make needless hay out of the fact that he was gay, I found this:

    Dino explained in great detail that the brutal sodomizing of Stevens’ corpse was something that Muslims do to show the “utmost disrespect to the body” and that this is “a great insult in Islam” reserved for homosexuals. ”It is like making him a woman in death and he will be a woman now after life” the Serbian explained to me. There’s a good chance this guy was Muslim too, and gay, which makes my head spin more than a little since he seemed to have no anger at all in his voice that Muslims in Libya assassinated the American ambassador and then sodomized his corpse.
    “He should not have gone there” was the general consensus from this man.

    I was not going to waste any bandwidth discussing the implications of his sexual preferences. From everything I’ve read about Stevens, he was the perfect man for the job.

    But the broader issue here, and you can bet the MSM will not go near it, is that this whole mess, the 20 plus nations rioting against America, the signs and chants (not isolated) that ,”We are all Osamas now” clearly points to a hubris and arrogance of this man and a failed foreign policy.

    Remember this

    That whole Cairo episode where he was going to make nice with the Muslims? We have ticked off his many foreign failures in other posts, Europe, China, Russia, Israel, but we pretty much left the ME alone (who can predict what those crazyies will do anyway?) but now we can add the ME to that list.

    Also, isn’t it interesting that the official WH and SD line is that all these demonstrations and riots were caused by a movie, yet he gives a big donor buddy (Kathryn Bigelow) special clearances to reputed top secret info. re: his masterful job at snuffing OBL, so that she can make a movie about it, ya think this movie might inflame some of these same Muslims? All the apologies and cowtowing about insensitive movie makers who insult their religion, yet here we go, a movie where the president gets to spike the football (OBL’s head) in the end zone, it is comical actually.

    Thumb up 4

  71. Seattle Outcast

    It was another of your meaningless, substance-free, trolling posts – making you seem just that much smaller again.

    You know, I should have spotted it a long time ago: you have Asperger’s syndrome.

    Thumb up 4

  72. Hal_10000

    BTW, do we know if it was the WH or one of their propaganda apparatchiks, probably in the State Department or LSM, that touted that Islam movie as the reason for these riots and acts of murder, or if it really came from the people that did the deed? I seem to find that the reason these Islamists glom too always seem to be suggested by someone on our side. Take for example Abu Ghraib or the flushed Koran at Gitmo. Without the efforts by the LSM to entice the barbarians to violence, I suspect these would also be examples of the barbarians just ignoring the event.

    The protests did start from them. I think the WH is trying to push that the LIbya attack was from the film, which the Libyan government thinks is not true. They think it was a pre-planned attack.

    I was not going to waste any bandwidth discussing the implications of his sexual preferences. From everything I’ve read about Stevens, he was the perfect man for the job.

    He was a apparently very popular in Libya. There have been marches and vigils in his honor. It is rare for an Ambassador to be that recognized or that liked, although I think part of it has to do with the sane fraction of LIbyans being so happy to see a US presence return after so long.

    Thumb up 0

  73. CM

    I believe CzarChazam posted that during his short stint here, he posted a few AB videos.

    That definitely sounds like Czar Chasm / BluesStringer.

    But the broader issue here, and you can bet the MSM will not go near it, is that this whole mess, the 20 plus nations rioting against America, the signs and chants (not isolated) that ,”We are all Osamas now” clearly points to a hubris and arrogance of this man and a failed foreign policy.

    There’s always going to be a hard-core. Where is the evidence that this sentiment (i..e the anit-Americanism at these protests) extends beyond the hard-core? The numbers involved are still an exceptionally small proportion of the population (who, as I think we’ve all agreed, don’t need an excuse to air their grievances). Personally I’d want to see significantly more evidence of ‘hubris and arrogance’ and a ‘failed foreign policy’ than hard-core Islamists protesting generally against America. It makes far more IMO that the hard-core have been sidelined and are desparately trying to retain some relevance as their government heads away from them and towards a more inclusive society.

    Thumb up 0

  74. CM

    You know, I should have spotted it a long time ago: you have Asperger’s syndrome.

    Hey – perhaps I could engage you on a professional basis to confirm and then graph the correlation between Obama’s lead in the polls / likelihood of winning, and the level of your whining/complaining/acting like a little bitch? Can you give me a quote?

    Thumb up 1

  75. Mississippi Yankee

    1) It assumes that everything revolves around the United States; it doesn’t. These people have agendas of their own that are much closer to home.

    They didn’t attack to Spanish Embassy or the French Consulate. In fact outside of a German Embassy in Sudan (the friggin’ Sudan?) and a British foreign post in some Shitholestan it’s been against American in foreign lands since last Tuesday.

    But if you still want to apologize for Islamist and their caprice in choosing what films enrage them go ahead. I’ve made my feeling crystal clear about the film and the people who tell that lie. Including, but not limited to Obamateur, Her Filthyness, Susan Rice @ Marxist Central, the DNC propoganda machine aka MSM… Why should one expect any less from Ivory Tower Academia.

    2) It assumes that the protests will affect the election in a predictable way and Islamists see which way it will go. I don’t see that either. This is making Obama look bad. Are you seriously saying the Islamists want Mitt Romney elected?

    I’m not sure I could make it any easier to understand then I did in my comment @September 14, 2012 5:09 am at 5:09 am (UTC -4) in this post. But here goes;

    Radical Islam ceases to be an entity without a Satan, Gollum, The Bogeyman, Freddy Kruger, Jason Voorhees …. What part of that eludes you?
    Barry Soetoro only scares people who are free.

    Thumb up 1

  76. ilovecress

    But the broader issue here, and you can bet the MSM will not go near it, is that this whole mess, the 20 plus nations rioting against America, the signs and chants (not isolated) that ,”We are all Osamas now” clearly points to a hubris and arrogance of this man and a failed foreign policy.

    You think that people are pissed off about the last 3 /12 years of US foreign policy?

    Or is it that they’re barbarians just looking for any excuse to act out? You need to get your story straight.

    Thumb up 1

  77. Kimpost

    Radical Islam ceases to be an entity without a Satan, Gollum, The Bogeyman, Freddy Kruger, Jason Voorhees …. What part of that eludes you?
    Barry Soetoro only scares people who are free.

    Sorry, still not clear enough. If Obama is what the radicals prefer, then surely they wouldn’t be fucking with his re-election chances by attacking US embassies? Or is the plan so cunning that it aims to get Obama to respond with a closed tough fist, so that he gets re-elected on toughness, so that that they after the election can go on with their happy terrorist lives without interference from Obama, the friend?

    You could just as easily twist this silliness to be about Romney instead, which would be equally ridiculous. Terrorist attacks mainly stem from policy, and since very little points to any substantial between the two candidates in that regard, it’s all moot.

    I predict that Islamic terrorism will go down in the long run, because it’s inevitable that the theocracies of the ME will fail. United States too will get more liked during that process as the decades and centuries pass and new generations who don’t necessarily remember the effects of the Real Politics (TM) that made their parents skeptical of the West. The Brits and you are friends now, yet you were at war not that long ago. Give it time…

    Thumb up 1

  78. Seattle Outcast

    Hey – perhaps I could engage you on a professional basis to confirm and then graph the correlation between Obama’s lead in the polls / likelihood of winning, and the level of your whining/complaining/acting like a little bitch? Can you give me a quote?

    Move along little crazy person, the adult sane people are here now…

    Thumb up 2

  79. richtaylor365 *

    Kim, both you and cress are totally whiffing this one. This has nothing to do with the rioting Muslims or their clever well thought out plans to influence our elections (come on) this is about us, it is about a dreadful precedent being set to abandon our principals (that being free speech and free expression) thereby enabling and exacerbating the violence. It also has to do with the fact that the world is finally seeing (We knew it all along) that the emperor has no clothes, that all that nonsense about him being able to wave his hand to cow all the American antagonism in the Muslim world because he was just so awesome and had lived amongst them when he was young, all that happy horseshit was just fairy tales, the silly rantings of an arrogant man that was way over his head. The issue was never about them, but how we as a free society would stand up to our principals, or abandon them in the face of Muslims getting their feeling hurt, now half the world is on fire. That transformation he talked about has blown up in his face.

    I predict that Islamic terrorism will go down in the long run, because it’s inevitable that the theocracies of the ME will fail.

    Whistle pass the graveyard much? I realize the day is young but I vote that as the silliest statement of the day.

    Thumb up 2

  80. Kimpost

    To you it might not, but your answer implies that silly isn’t present here, when it is. I’m with you, I don’t think that the US election has anything to do with the attacks, but would MY agree?

    I understand that free speech is important, it is to me as well. But so is standing up against idiocy and hate. Does it have to be one or the other? I think that it’s right to show the Muslim world that we don’t care for racism or bigotry. The movie trailer in conjunction with the volatility of the situation deserved condemnation. I suspect that you agree with that but that you also think that Obama should have been much clearer when defending our right to free speech. “Obama abandoning our principals” is strong though.

    I don’t think that hate is inevitable. Not even in the ME. Nor is theocracy. I think that people are bound to seek freedom. What United States does or doesn’t do matters. Obama was never going to heal the world, idiots who actually thought that need to be shot (might be a bit too hard). But having a more inclusive attitude helps. But it will take years and decades. It might suck, but that’s just how shitty things work…

    I realize the day is young but I vote that as the silliest statement of the day.

    I’m here to please. ;)

    Thumb up 0

  81. balthazar

    I understand that free speech is important, it is to me as well. But so is standing up against idiocy and hate. Does it have to be one or the other?

    Kim, idocy and hate ARE PROTECTED. Just as is your right to call them out on their idiocy and hate.

    Unless their I&H actually evolves into denying others their rights, you cannot and should not, be able to, as SOOOOO many on the left are trying to do with this film maker, call for thier arrest and silence him. Normally someone like that self implodes, ala Mel Gibson.

    Thumb up 0

  82. Hal_10000

    MY, going back to the original comment:

    Which administration is guaranteed to inflame the Arab Street, draw hyper devotees and immediately hasten the the final showdown they seek?
    Radical Islam needs a devil,always has, Reagan, Bush and Bush were recruitment gold for them. Carter, Clinton and this neophyte causes them stagnation.

    This seems to argue that Obama should be elected, no? Why would we want a President who inflames the Arab street, which you argue is Romney? You seem to be arguing both ways at once on this one; saying that Obama’s actions are inspiring these guys and that we should elect Romney because he inspires these guys. I’m honestly trying to figure out which way you’re arguing on this.

    it is about a dreadful precedent being set to abandon our principals (that being free speech and free expression) thereby enabling and exacerbating the violence

    Again, I’m not seeing this. Obama pressured YouTube, which I criticized him for. And he’s criticized the makers of the video just like … uh, Romney did. But that’s about it. Nor are they unique in this. Bush, for example, officially apologized for the Koran defiling incident.

    I don’t think it will make any difference, mind, but I don’t see the harm either. Maybe it encourages radical elements; but you could argue, with equal amounts of evidence (i.e., none) that it encourages moderate elements.

    Aside from that, there’s the principle of the thing: it was a vile movie to make. Why can’t we say so? Why, frankly, should he hedge our generalized respect for religion because we fear it might inspire them? No one had any trouble condemning PIss Christ, for example. I agree with Kimpost: you can regard the video as vile, refute it as inconsistent with American values but still defend free speech. We’ve been doing that with Nazis and KKK for decades. Now it’s suddenly a problem?

    Thumb up 1

  83. richtaylor365 *

    Now it’s suddenly a problem?

    The movie is NOT the problem. Did you read balthazar’s comment above? He is exactly right, A free society has to suffer fools, that is what free speech is all about, we do not censor or jail fools, no matter how much the Muslims demand that we do.

    it was a vile movie to make. Why can’t we say so?

    Tell me, did you think The Passion Of The Christ was a “vile” movie? What about The Life Of Brian? what you (or anyone) thinks about the any movie is not the point, we are not movie critics, we are citizens in a free society.

    What percentage of those rioters out there do you think actually saw the movie?

    Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. From the US Embassy Cairo, to the president, to the Sec. of State and to the US ambassador, they all followed the stupid, they all bent over backwards apologizing for a movie, putting the focus on that. From the very beginning, the condemnation should have been targeted one direction, that being the barbaric behavior of the rioters.

    Thumb up 4

  84. CM

    You seem to be arguing both ways at once on this one; saying that Obama’s actions are inspiring these guys and that we should elect Romney because he inspires these guys. I’m honestly trying to figure out which way you’re arguing on this.

    I’m also trying to figure that out. Apparently because there are still some unhappy Muslims under an Obama administration, Romney is the answer. Romney will inspire more love by………how exactly?

    Obama was never going to heal the world, idiots who actually thought that need to be shot (might be a bit too hard). But having a more inclusive attitude helps. But it will take years and decades. It might suck, but that’s just how shitty things work…

    Absolutely.
    The whole ‘but but Obama said everyone would be happy!??’ argument is so incredibly lame.

    Thumb up 0

  85. CM

    WASHINGTON—Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

    Thumb up 2

  86. Hal_10000

    What percentage of those rioters out there do you think actually saw the movie?

    I would say it’s pretty close to zero.

    Although none of them had read the Satanic Verses either.

    Let me put it this way:

    1) I think the region has been a powder keg for a long time.

    2) I think that’s the result of religious fundamentalism, poverty, oppression, violent cultures and, yes, some contribution from American policies.

    3) That our policies have contributed to this powderkegishness does not mean we should abandon them. We accept powderkegishness as a potential risk of action.

    4) I think this film lit a spark on that power keg. Would the riots have happened without it? Likely. But it certainly didn’t help.

    Thumb up 2

  87. CM

    If the current protests by hardliners in some Middle Eastern countries are evidence of a failed Obama foreign policy, then what did tens of millions of moderates out on the streets over the entire world in protest against possible war in Iraq say about Bush’s foreign policy? Nothing I bet.

    Thumb up 0

  88. richtaylor365 *

    Romney is the answer. Romney will inspire more love by………how exactly?

    Whooossshhh!!, that was the sound of you missing the point entirely.

    The whole ‘but but Obama said everyone would be happy!??’ argument is so incredibly lame.

    What’s lame is the fact he (and most of his followers) actually believed the nonsense. Even today, riots are breaking out in his past homeland (you know, where he first tried Fido on a stick), the arrogance of him and the ignorance of his followers, astounding. That “hope” narrative sure has taken a beating.

    Thumb up 2

  89. AlexInCT

    The protests did start from them. I think the WH is trying to push that the LIbya attack was from the film, which the Libyan government thinks is not true. They think it was a pre-planned attack.

    I totally believe the “protests” where pre-planned Hal. My point was that it ALWAYS seems to be that the reason they did it is not presented by them, but by leftists looking to lay blame on us. Case in point the WH blaming this movie nobody cared about until it became a convenient scapegoat to beat us into apologizing to them for having the temerity of pointing out they are fucking evil monsters.

    Remember all the Nazi crap from the felt about Boosh? Well, team Obama just had the producer of the movie dragged into the legal system by authorities, brutally violating his constitutional rights, and the most of Team blue and the players on the left are ecstatic that he is gonna get it. Can you imagine the message send to these murderers? Kill Americans and you can have the leftist US government violate the constitution and do your dirty work of intimidating and silencing anyone that dares point out how vile Islam is for you. Fuck, we are so going to pay for this stupidity. These assholes learned absolutely nothing about Carter’s treatment of Iran.

    Fucking idiots are in charge right now. Maybe they should start raid-slamming their reset button. This or the next time it might work differntly.

    Thumb up 2

  90. AlexInCT

    If the current protests by hardliners in some Middle Eastern countries are evidence of a failed Obama foreign policy, then what did tens of millions of moderates out on the streets over the entire world in protest against possible war in Iraq say about Bush’s foreign policy? Nothing I bet.

    How many people got killed protesting Boosh’s plans? There is a moral/reason for that question. Brutal and evil islamists didn’t kill any Americans because they knew Boosh would send troops to kick their ass. Wish we could ask Osama if he would have preferred Al Gore was president when his boys brought the towers down. I suspect I would get an emphatic “YES”. Obama? They see him for the pussy he is. Not only do they kill an ambassador, but they get him to prosecute someone for making a movie and force us to apologize to them for the movie. Think about that: they kill people, we apologize for a fucking movie. If that’s diplomacy, I think we can do without more of it.

    Thumb up 0

  91. Xetrov

    I’ve got a question for anyone – What would the Media be saying if Bush was still in the Whitehouse and all of this (riots, dead Ambassador, largely ignoring the crisis to campaign, ignoring warning signs, insisting it wasn’t a coordinated attack despite evidence to the contrary, etc.) was going on?

    Thumb up 0

  92. CM

    Whooossshhh!!, that was the sound of you missing the point entirely.

    This close out from an election I think it’s entirely appropriate that any criticism of Obama (no matter how valid it is) is accompanied by consideration about what a Romney administration would mean.
    If the protests “clearly points to a hubris and arrogance of this man and a failed foreign policy” then what alternative policy would have avoided these protests, and what will Romney do to avoid them in the future?
    One one hand you appear to be criticising Obama for daring to say things that make it clear that the US govt doesn’t agree with the sentiment expressed in the video, and on the other hand apparently there is some logic which says that taking a firm line on hardliners will make these protests (and other actions) less likely. Is it because you believe in the “a show of strength is the only thing they understand” school of thought?

    What’s lame is the fact he (and most of his followers) actually believed the nonsense. Even today, riots are breaking out in his past homeland (you know, where he first tried Fido on a stick), the arrogance of him and the ignorance of his followers, astounding. That “hope” narrative sure has taken a beating.

    Wow, you’re bringing up the “Obama ate dog” thing now? Really? How is that even remotely relevant? Why not remind us that his middle name is Hussein as well?
    I don’t for a second believe that “most” of those who voted for him believed that if he became President the complex and long-term issues in the Middle East would all be solved within four years (or even eight) to the point where there wouldn’t even be protests. There was no such thing as the “Arab Spring” in 2008.

    Thumb up 0

  93. CM

    How many people got killed protesting Boosh’s plans?

    The success or failure of a foreign policy is dictated by how many people get killed in protests? WTF?

    There is a moral/reason for that question. Brutal and evil islamists didn’t kill any Americans because they knew Boosh would send troops to kick their ass.

    Stevens was killed because Obama won’t do anything about it?
    Why haven’t there been 3.5 years of slayings all over the place then?

    Wish we could ask Osama if he would have preferred Al Gore was president when his boys brought the towers down. I suspect I would get an emphatic “YES”.

    Being a Democrat, obviously the answer would have been yes.
    We don’t know what Gore would have done. Nobody thought Obama was going to be as much of a hawk as he has been. Romney’s campaign has almost gone out of their way to avoid foreign policy and talking about the wars (to the point where they got barely a mention at the GOP convention, and certainly not a single mention from Romney).
    IMO Gore would likely have gone into Afghanistan, but not into Iraq.
    Who are ‘his boys’?

    Obama? They see him for the pussy he is. Not only do they kill an ambassador, but they get him to prosecute someone for making a movie and force us to apologize to them for the movie. Think about that: they kill people, we apologize for a fucking movie. If that’s diplomacy, I think we can do without more of it.

    That’s not diplomacy, that’s you doing what you always do – create your own narrative using your own set of ‘facts’.

    Thumb up 1

  94. Iconoclast

    Jesus Christ, what kind of blinders do you have to have on?

    I guess I screwed the pooch by overstating my case. The point I was trying to get across was that 9/11 was a result of lax Democrat policies (treating acts of war — terrorism — as criminal cases instead of acts of war). I undermined my argument by mentioning Embassy bombings and overseas military bombings leading up to 9/11, for which you seemed to be implicating Bush instead of Clinton. But no civilians were killed by terrorist attacks within the United States proper after 9/11 until the Fort Hood massacre, which took place on Obama’s watch. One civilian was killed and a number were injured.

    It is not unreasonable to expect a higher level of danger in overseas posts in potentially unfriendly nations, or less secure nations, as compared to the US proper. But civilians were killed/injured while on a domestic military base, where we would expect danger to be lower, at least in terms of a terrorist attack.

    And if you are going to argue that there is nothing special about being in the USA proper in terms of being secure from terrorism as compared to being overseas in the ME, well, who would be to blame for that?

    Thumb up 3

  95. Thrill

    I don’t for a second believe that “most” of those who voted for him believed that if he became President the complex and long-term issues in the Middle East would all be solved within four years (or even eight) to the point where there wouldn’t even be protests. There was no such thing as the “Arab Spring” in 2008.

    Well, Obama himself believed that the Muslim world would like us on the day he was inaugurated. He really believes that all he has to do is show up and everything will get better, just because he wants it to. This is true of his domestic and foreign policy, really.

    He also thought he could fix the economy in three years too!

    The presence of protests doesn’t necessarily indicate a failure of foreign policy, no. However, Obama’s foreign policy in the Mideast has been based on:

    1. Improving America’s image in the Muslim world
    2. Promoting democracy by supporting the Arab Spring (eliminating two dictatorships, one of which was pro-American and the other through the use of unauthorized military force)

    If those were goals, it’s hard to see how the Administration’s foreign policy is successful by any measure based on what’s happening now.

    I personally don’t expect any US president to solve the problems of the Middle East, not that any one could. What I do expect is that a president’s foreign policy serve the interests of the United States. How do you make the case that current events indicate that the Obama Administration’s foreign policy is succeeding?

    Here’s the guy who pulled out of Iraq, supported the overthrow of two brutal dictators, snubs the Israeli Prime Minister, refuses to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and flies to Cairo to offer the fullest love for the Muslim world in his first year of office and he’s apparently amazed that people hate us anyway.

    An ambassador is dead and our diplomatic missions are under siege around the Muslim world and you want to argue about whether or not this is a failure of Obama’s diplomacy? Are you kidding?

    The only conclusion one can come to is that Obama really believes he can do all of the bullshit his followers think he can do. I guess you think that Muslim extremists just need four more years to get to know Obama and how good and pure he is. Only then will they love the US, am I right?

    Thumb up 1

  96. Section8

    I’ve got a question for anyone – What would the Media be saying if Bush was still in the Whitehouse and all of this (riots, dead Ambassador, largely ignoring the crisis to campaign, ignoring warning signs, insisting it wasn’t a coordinated attack despite evidence to the contrary, etc.) was going on?

    Bingo

    Not to mention how many soldiers are getting killed each week in Afghanistan? You better believe if he were still in office we’d be having specials on the news every night about why we’re even still there with a nightly death toll count and every leftist site would be talking about what profit motive there is behind it. It would all be about the oil, or a pipeline to oil, or we can drill to get oil, or to open a transport to ship oil, or whatever. So, was Bush great? Hell no, but it’s sad that what defines competence over ineptness is simply the public’s willingness to talk about it at any given moment. Doesn’t matter if jack shit has actually changed or not.

    Thumb up 4

  97. Thrill

    It’s okay for Obama though. He loves the celebrity aspect of the job and, sorry to say, he’s good at it. It’s governing that he has no use for. Unfortunately, the American people are perfectly fine with those lowered expectations.

    He’ll go on talk shows and sparkle and make funny jokes while our embassies burn and the economy goes “forward” over the cliff. And America will love it.

    Thumb up 3

  98. Hal_10000

    Case in point the WH blaming this movie nobody cared about until it became a convenient scapegoat to beat us into apologizing to them for having the temerity of pointing out they are fucking evil monsters

    Uh, no. The White House was not the one that started in on the film. The protesters were. That they were fed that line is the point.

    Remember all the Nazi crap from the felt about Boosh? Well, team Obama just had the producer of the movie dragged into the legal system by authorities, brutally violating his constitutional rights, and the most of Team blue and the players on the left are ecstatic that he is gonna get it

    See my link in the other post. The man was a convicted felon who violated the terms of his probation. In what country do we not bring him in (by local authorities, not feds)?

    I’ve got a question for anyone – What would the Media be saying if Bush was still in the Whitehouse and all of this (riots, dead Ambassador, largely ignoring the crisis to campaign, ignoring warning signs, insisting it wasn’t a coordinated attack despite evidence to the contrary, etc.) was going on?

    The Right Wing woudl be saying the exact opposite as well. But a lot of the coverage would be the same, actually. You’ll recall that the last time this happened was over the Danish cartoons and the media didn’t blame Bush for that.

    Thumb up 0

  99. Hal_10000

    According to new reports, there WAS no demonstration in Benghazi before the attack. I have no idea why the Obama people want to pretend there was.

    PS – Thinking about it some more, I do agree the media would be focusing more on Bush’s policies if these attacks happened under Bush. For example, if eight women had been killed in a drone strike, they might be talking about that. Maybe. CNN’s article today said something like maybe this is about more than a film.

    Ya think?

    Thumb up 0

  100. CM

    Well, Obama himself believed that the Muslim world would like us on the day he was inaugurated. He really believes that all he has to do is show up and everything will get better, just because he wants it to. This is true of his domestic and foreign policy, really.

    I think the overwhelming vast majority of Muslims certainly prefer Obama over Bush. That the nutjobs are still nutjobs is somewhat beside the point.
    I don’t believe Obama thinks all he has to do is “show up”. That’s an ODS narrative, no better than the equivalent BDS narratives.

    He also thought he could fix the economy in three years too!

    That’s just not true.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/28/obama-repeatedly-averred-_n_775429.html

    If those were goals, it’s hard to see how the Administration’s foreign policy is successful by any measure based on what’s happening now.

    This is based on the faulty premise that his foreign policy was meant to ends in complete world peace in 3.5 years. Anyone who thinks tranforming an entire country from dictatorship into a modern functioning democracy, and particularly in a country where religion plays such a significant role, isn’t being serious.

    What I do expect is that a president’s foreign policy serve the interests of the United States. How do you make the case that current events indicate that the Obama Administration’s foreign policy is succeeding?

    The case is that the US is far better served having as many of these countries moving towards democracy. The ‘Arab Spring’ potentially moved that along at a far greater pace than anyone would have expected, and we’ll see if that’s a negative or a positive. But I’m with Kimpost – democracy is the inevitable position. Some countries are managing the inevitable transition slowly, some aren’t managing it at all and have had it foisted on them. Pretending that these protests are evidence of some sort of failure is ridiculous in my view. It could be seen as evidence that extremists are being squeezed out of power in their own countries, which is a positive thing. I would go so far as to claim that this is actual evidence of that, but it COULD be. Many of these nutjobs aren’t going to modify and work to be part of a system, they’ll kick and scream until they can’t do it anymore.

    Here’s the guy who pulled out of Iraq, supported the overthrow of two brutal dictators, snubs the Israeli Prime Minister, refuses to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and flies to Cairo to offer the fullest love for the Muslim world in his first year of office and he’s apparently amazed that people hate us anyway.

    That’s another carefully constructed Michael Moore style narrative – it doesn’t even remotely accurately describe Obama’s foreign policy or actions.
    I don’t believe he’s “amazed” that people in the world still hate the US.

    An ambassador is dead and our diplomatic missions are under siege around the Muslim world and you want to argue about whether or not this is a failure of Obama’s diplomacy? Are you kidding?

    A few were under attack for a short while.
    That’s correct, I don’t necessarily believe that what’s happened over the last week is a “failure of Obama’s diplomacy”. Or his foreign policy.

    The only conclusion one can come to is that Obama really believes he can do all of the bullshit his followers think he can do. I guess you think that Muslim extremists just need four more years to get to know Obama and how good and pure he is. Only then will they love the US, am I right?

    Not even remotely. But then even suggesting that is good evidence that you’re not interested in understanding any arguments being made.

    Thumb up 0

  101. Thrill

    Really? You have no idea why the Obama Administration and its supporters would want to downplay the fact that it was coordinated and even forseeable?

    It’s not like they have to worry about any journalists making a stink about it either.

    Thumb up 3

  102. richtaylor365 *

    This close out from an election I think it’s entirely appropriate that any criticism of Obama (no matter how valid it is) is accompanied by consideration about what a Romney administration would mean.

    Well, we know that he would not preface his presidency with self serving proclamations that he can walk on water. We know (OK, hope) that he would at not abandon our principals or apologize uselessly, he certainly would use the “The video did it” defense, and he would not project a message that if you burn our embassies and murder Americans, the first reaction of his administration will be to blame Americans for provoking the violence.

    Wow, you’re bringing up the “Obama ate dog” thing now? Really?

    Oh come on, it was a joke, if you are going to go all lemon sucking stick up the butt, then I don’t want any attempt at humor from you, ever.

    Thumb up 1

  103. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  104. richtaylor365 *

    Sorry, I didn’t pick up on the fact that you were joking (in the middle of all the anti-Obama stuff, it didn’t quite flow in a way that would suggest you were joking).

    So, “Fido on a stick” was not clue enough for you? Next time I will bracket them with smiley’s or add a rim shot.

    I love the fact that this issue is largely about free speech and I have 6 posts hidden. That’s humour right there.

    Good point, but I would get the same treatment (along with some death threats and some not so flattering explanations of sexual acts with members of my family) if I played at the kos sandbox.

    Thumb up 0

  105. Thrill

    I think the overwhelming vast majority of Muslims certainly prefer Obama over Bush.

    But so what? “Being liked” shouldn’t be a substitute for a foreign policy and Obama is failing even at that.

    I don’t believe Obama thinks all he has to do is “show up”. That’s an ODS narrative, no better than the equivalent BDS narratives.

    I can think of at least three examples off the top of my head, including the one I cited. You also have his failure to personally influence the location of the Olympics and his opinion that the Democrats were basically lucky to have him in 2010.

    The self-reverence Obama has simply blows away everything the APA thought it new about narcissistic personality disorders.

    That’s just not true.

    It is true. “One-term proposition”, bitch.

    This is based on the faulty premise that his foreign policy was meant to ends in complete world peace in 3.5 years.

    There’s the strawman type of argument you’re so well-known for. I don’t actually know what Obama’s foreign policy intended to achieve. My own belief is that it should further America’s national interest and you’re obviously as hard pressed as I am to explain what interest has been served by Obama’s foreign policy in the Arab world.

    The case is that the US is far better served having as many of these countries moving towards democracy.

    Why? What difference does it make? And why is any of it worth aiding in the overthrow of allied governments and waging illegal wars?

    I don’t believe he’s “amazed” that people in the world still hate the US.

    Oh? So he wasn’t surprised when our Cairo embassy was overrun and an ambassador was murdered?

    That’s correct, I don’t necessarily believe that what’s happened over the last week is a “failure of Obama’s diplomacy”. Or his foreign policy.

    I’m sure you don’t. Nevermind that it all happened in the wake of the instability that he himself aided and encouraged. I can only point out that our Cairo embassy was doing pretty well before Obama undercut Mubarak, Shah-style.

    But then even suggesting that is good evidence that you’re not interested in understanding any arguments being made.

    A true believer indeed. I know it’s painful, but you have to face the truth that Obama sucks.

    I don’t see how the last week is evidence of a failure in foreign policy.

    You’re right. Obama is a fucking genius for getting our ambassador killed. Obviously, the plan is to build world sympathy. All it needed was a human sacrifice.

    When you destabilize nations on purpose and then wonder why civil disorder is resulting in your diplomatic missions being attacked because radicals are taking advantage of the instability that you caused, you’re doing foreign policy wrong. Or maybe you think that getting the ambassador killed was a good thing. Hard to say with you autistic people.

    I love the fact that this issue is largely about free speech and I have 6 posts hidden. That’s humour right there.

    Oh, your speech is free. It just sucks, like the Obama Administration. Me down-voting your posts is how I exercise my free speech. Since you like democracy so much, you should appreciate seeing it action when we vote to remove your sucky posts from being visible on the thread.

    Thumb up 7

  106. Mississippi Yankee

    This seems to argue that Obama should be elected, no?

    WRONG, and I have the feeling that you know that.

    This seems to argue that Obama should be elected, no? Why would we want a President who inflames the Arab street, which you argue is Romney?

    At this point I’m not sure if you are being willfully ignorant or have developed Kimpost’s habit of being a contrary vagina.

    No where did I say WE wanted to inflame the Arab Street with our election. In fact it has always been Al-Qaeda that benefits from an agitated Arab populace. ALWAYS!

    Obama DOES NOT incite hate and fear in amongst poor and angry muslims. THIS is why he is a poor recruitment tool for Al-Qaeda. Just like Kerry was NOT Al-Qaeda’s choice in 2004. Bush was their Boogy Man then. THEY NEED SOMEONE TO BLAME!
    It’s not America’s opinions I’m discussing here it’s AL-Qaeda’s mind-set.

    TO THEM a republican in the WH, one that isn’t bowing and apologizing to their target audience, will further THEIR agenda much better and A LOT longer then a 13 minute film.

    Just one more point, please note how CM understood, exactly what I was saying in his comment @ September 14, 2012 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm (UTC -4)

    No question, AQ is hoping for Romney, who will bring the failed neo-con foreign policy team with him. Obama just isn’t a very good recruitment tool. Just as AQ was hoping Bush won a second term.

    Yet today has decided to fellate you as yours is the much less conservative meme. That and I’m still not sure you’re not being obtuse on purpose.

    Thumb up 3

  107. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  108. CM

    He really believes that all he has to do is show up and everything will get better, just because he wants it to. This is true of his domestic and foreign policy, really. can think of at least three examples off the top of my head, including the one I cited. You also have his failure to personally influence the location of the Olympics and his opinion that the Democrats were basically lucky to have him in 2010.

    Guess you won’t be supporting Romney then, if you feel that strongly about it:

    Romney:

    My own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back and we’ll see — without actually doing anything — we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.

    Thumb up 0

  109. balthazar

    Good point, but I would get the same treatment (along with some death threats and some not so flattering explanations of sexual acts with members of my family) if I played at the kos sandbox.

    No you wouldnt, you would have been banned already.

    Thumb up 3

  110. repmom

    I’m just pointing out the irony of having posts deleted and hidden just because people don’t like what I’ve posted.

    They’re not deleted. They’re still there to be read. Has someone’s been actually deleted that I’m not aware of? Must have been good reason for it.

    It is a free country. Therefore, JimK has a right to do what he wants with his blog, including hiding comments that get voted down. You, CM, have the right to start your own blog, and do – and say – anything you’d like.

    And yes, I know you said you didn’t need to be reminded of it. I did anyway.

    I will add that I think some down-vote you just because it’s you, but they still have that right to do so.

    Thumb up 0

  111. AlexInCT

    The success or failure of a foreign policy is dictated by how many people get killed in protests? WTF?

    Are you really this stupid CM? The issue is that your foreign policy has a major hole in it when the god damned “protests” lead to killing. It’s a clear indication that the people doing the killing neither respect you nor fear retrebution. It’s defenitely better to be feared than to try to be liked, and as we clearly see now, fail miserably at that.

    Stevens was killed because Obama won’t do anything about it?

    Yes, Stevens was killed because these assholes felt the risk of pissing off the US by killing an ambassador was negligible. I am not sure they considered in their wildest dreams that these bozos in the WH would not only do absolutely nothing to show strength of any kind, but then double down by pissing all over the constitution when they actually went after the guy that made the movie they are trying to scapegoat in order to deflect attention from the fact they are incompetent and that what is going on is above their pay grade. Bin Laden kept going after thw WTC because the weak ass response to his efforts made it onvious nobody was serious about stopping him. As I already said: he definitely would admit to wishing Gore was president when he finally succeeded for the same reason, if he was stilla round to point that shit out.

    Why haven’t there been 3.5 years of slayings all over the place then?

    It took them some time to find the right place to pull that stunt after they figured out this guy was a pussy? Anyway, the question to be asked isn’t why it took 3 ½ years, but why they thought they could do it period. Of course, you want to run away from that as hard and fast as you can, kind of like the WH did when they blamed the movie instead of their ineptness, but it ain’t gonna work.

    It looks like the promises made by the messiah have all fallen flat. Things are now going into seriously dangerous territory. I experienced the Iran crisis first hand. Saw what it did. Obama is about to outdo Carter in triplicate by letting Libya, Egypt, and likely Syria all go the same route. But hey, the important thing is to cover his ass because unless he wins the election, he has no way to keep the “fuck up America train” going for another 4 years.

    Thumb up 0

  112. Hal_10000

    Reading a little more info on the film. Apparently, it was a release a while ago but got no attention. So these guys notified Arab Media and said it was doing to be in theaters on September 11. So, yeah this was staged … by the film-makers. What a bunch of assholes.

    Still doesn’t have anything to do with Benghazi though.

    Thumb up 0

  113. CM

    Has someone’s been actually deleted that I’m not aware of? Must have been good reason for it.

    Yes, and yeah right, of course there must have been

    Are you really this stupid CM? The issue is that your foreign policy has a major hole in it when the god damned “protests” lead to killing. It’s a clear indication that the people doing the killing neither respect you nor fear retrebution.

    It’s not my foreign policy Alex. No foreign policy stops protests leading to killings. Some people will kill irrespective of fear or respect.

    It’s defenitely better to be feared than to try to be liked, and as we clearly see now, fail miserably at that.

    I don’t agree that the policy can be accurately described as “being liked”. So ‘failure’ of that doesn’t work either. I also don’t agree that being feared is any sort of intelligent foreign policy. Unless the plan is to withdraw from the world.

    Yes, Stevens was killed because these assholes felt the risk of pissing off the US by killing an ambassador was negligible.

    Sorry but that makes no sense. How many embassy attacks, and attacks in general, occured when Bush and Cheney were kicking down doors?

    It took them some time to find the right place to pull that stunt after they figured out this guy was a pussy?

    It took them 3.5 years to work out Obama was a pussy , even though the ‘Apology Tour’ occured almost immediately? And throughout the huge instablity during the entire ‘Arab Spring’ there were no opportunities? C’mon man. That’s very very weak.

    Anyway, the question to be asked isn’t why it took 3 ½ years, but why they thought they could do it period. Of course, you want to run away from that as hard and fast as you can, kind of like the WH did when they blamed the movie instead of their ineptness, but it ain’t gonna work.

    Running away? I’m here, engaging on the issue. WTF are you talking about?
    Why they thought they could do it? Who knows. You’re guessing, same as the majority of us.

    It looks like the promises made by the messiah have all fallen flat.

    You mean the repeated promises about how things would take time, it wouldn’t happen overnight?
    Do you criticise Bush for his agressive actions even though he promised “no nation building”?
    Are you keeping track of all Romney’s promises, so you can hold him to account when he starts breaking them?

    Things are now going into seriously dangerous territory. I experienced the Iran crisis first hand. Saw what it did.

    You were in Iran in 1979?

    Obama is about to outdo Carter in triplicate by letting Libya, Egypt, and likely Syria all go the same route. But hey, the important thing is to cover his ass because unless he wins the election, he has no way to keep the “fuck up America train” going for another 4 years.

    Or perhaps instead of covering his ass some people are being slightly more calm and realistic and objective than people with severe ODS. It’s certainly a possibility to consider.
    But ok, follow through on this – in your view what is going to happen in Libya, Egypt, and Syria? And what should the US Govt do about stopping it?

    Reading a little more info on the film. Apparently, it was a release a while ago but got no attention. So these guys notified Arab Media and said it was doing to be in theaters on September 11. So, yeah this was staged … by the film-makers. What a bunch of assholes.

    And they had the trailor translated into Arabic so it could be put on YouTube and seen by the intended audience.

    …there have.

    “Brutal and evil islamists” are more likely to kick things off when they know they’re going to get a violent response. Because the violent response is exactly what they want. It’s what they rely on to keep recruitment going. Which is what MY has pointed out a couple of times already in this thread. So “Brutal and evil islamists didn’t kill any Americans because they knew Boosh would send troops to kick their ass” is garbage.

    Thumb up 0