What Ticked you off Today - The political offshoot

[prfsnl_gmr]

I think the nation would be better served if you and I engaged in the next foreign policy debate...

I will send you a PM to avoid derailing the thread any further.

[Stark]

I'd rather you just move it to another thread, as I believe it is an important public discussion to have.

[dsheinem]

No, it really does come down to "what does this administration know about the attack on Americans." If he does not refer to it as a terrorist attack, then a). Our intelligence community has failed to understand what happened b). He is covering things up for some reason or c). President Obama has not been given correct information by others in the intel community or the administration.

Because of the repetition of claims that the attack originated from the protests about an awful video from the likes of our U.N. ambassador as well as our secretary of state, president, and other officials, despite the evidence having pointed to terrorism, what is going on? That is why people are examining his language so closely. And if President Obamq had said the attack was an act of terrorism and then blamed it on protests, exactly what does this signify about how our intelligence serving ces and this administration is operating?

I know, it sounds like we are nitpicking a minor point, but it does have importance.

On two occasions on two days after the event the President referred to it in context as "an act of terror". Romney said he didn't do so and he was absolutely wrong (and Crowley was correct when she pointed that out).

It was later called different things by different people as new and conflicting information came in. I don't see a problem with that, other than the White House didn't do much to stay "on message" about the terminology used. Big whoop.

To my mind, terrorism is not 100% preventable or knowable, and to pretend otherwise is insnae. There is no "Bin Laden determined to strike US" smoking gun here, and I think Romney would do well to move on since his campaign needs to be lobbying for the small percentage of remaining undecided voters and firming up his base on the most divisive issues - and I don't see this discussion as doing much of anything to help him on either point.

On the other hand, it is a nice distraction for Romeny since it allows him to avoid discussing his lack of foreign experience and his absolute bumbling trips abroad earlier this year. Maybe that's the angle, but I still don't see how it nets him votes.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I'd rather you just move it to another thread, as I believe it is an important public discussion to have.

Maybe...but I really do have to get back to work! If people are still talking about this later tonight, I will try to post some more thoughts on it.

[Ack]

9/20/2012 Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed that the White House had not declared the attack to be a terrorist attack.

As for preventing terrorism, no, we cannot stop things like the assassination of local embassy workers, like what tecently happened in Yemen. But here we have an ambassador assassinated, a consulate overrun and gutted, a safehouse which came under concentrated mortar fire, and a long list of prior events and security requests which fell on deaf ears.

As for foreign policy experience, Romney had just as much as Obama when he came into the presidency, DS.

[MrPopo]

As for preventing terrorism, no, we cannot stop things like the assassination of local embassy workers, like what tecently happened in Yemen. But here we have an ambassador assassinated, a consulate overrun and gutted, a safehouse which came under concentrated mortar fire, and a long list of prior events and security requests which fell on deaf ears.

Didn't Iran 1979 prove that you don't even need organization to fuck with our embassies? Just get people pissed off and they'll do something about it.

[dsheinem]

9/20/2012 Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed that the White House had not declared the attack to be a terrorist attack.

As for preventing terrorism, no, we cannot stop things like the assassination of local embassy workers, like what tecently happened in Yemen. But here we have an ambassador assassinated, a consulate overrun and gutted, a safehouse which came under concentrated mortar fire, and a long list of prior events and security requests which fell on deaf ears.

As for foreign policy experience, Romney had just as much as Obama when he came into the presidency, DS.

Again, I acknowledge that people in the Administration were calling it different things and were off point as to the terminology, but I frankly don't care. It isn't a big deal to me, and I am guessing it isn't a big deal to most.

Romney has less foreign policy experience than Obama did when he came into office since he was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unless you want to count the Olympics or foreign investments as foreign policy experience, I think Romney has jack shit.

Even if I were to concede that the Administration seriously fucked up in Libya and could have somehow done more beforehand, I really don't see that incident as defining his foreign policy. He's getting us out of wars, not into them, he's taking out terrorists with strategic strikes, and he's working more with more allies to resolve conflicts than his predecessor. All of that is a big plus in my book.

[Ack]

I would argue that instead of getting us out, he has spread us around. We are now conducting operations in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, etc. We ended up militarily involved in Libya, even if only from a logistical point. We have taken what was considered an ally, Egypt, and now have it resting . somewhere in a void. Israel seems to feel neglected, and we have commited several gaffes with Britain. As for enemies, North Korea is once again turning to its nuclear program, Russia is kicking out American-backed organizations like Radio Liberty, Iran has made progress towards a nuclear arsenal, our relationship with Pakistan seems even worse defined. A botched ATF program has at least temporarily damaged ties with Mexico. Japan and China are at loggerheads over an island, with Panetta saying we will back Japan no matter what. Turkey's people don't want war with Syria, but their admin seems intent on hostility, and we may end up pulled in there, while weapons being given to rebels are instead being funneled through to Jihadists. Iraq is helping Iran avoid our economic sanctions.

[dsheinem]

I would argue that instead of getting us out, he has spread us around. We are now conducting operations in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, etc. We ended up militarily involved in Libya, even if only from a logistical point. We have taken what was considered an ally, Egypt, and now have it resting . somewhere in a void. Israel seems to feel neglected, and we have commited several gaffes with Britain. As for enemies, North Korea is once again turning to its nuclear program, Russia is kicking out American-backed organizations like Radio Liberty, Iran has made progress towards a nuclear arsenal, our relationship with Pakistan seems even worse defined. A botched ATF program has at least temporarily damaged ties with Mexico. Japan and China are at loggerheads over an island, with Panetta saying we will back Japan no matter what. Turkey's people don't want war with Syria, but their admin seems intent on hostility, and we may end up pulled in there, while weapons being given to rebels are instead being funneled through to Jihadists. Iraq is helping Iran avoid our economic sanctions.

There's a mix of truth, suspicion, and debatable opinion in here. For example, I don't know that we did or should have much to do with what Egypt is going through, how "damaged" our ties are with Mexico, how much of a role the US should take in North Korea or Iranian development at this point given their continued utter failures to get anything close to a nuke, etc. I don't know if I buy that "Israel feels neglected" either.

I see less unilateral action and less general interference in foreign affairs by the USA under Obama foreign policy. I prefer his think first, act later stance over the Bush doctrine and am willing to take the defeats with the successes as I think there are far more of the latter. I don't have any idea what Romney would do, and that frightens me.

[mjmjr25]

I would argue that instead of getting us out, he has spread us around. We are now conducting operations in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, etc. We ended up militarily involved in Libya, even if only from a logistical point. We have taken what was considered an ally, Egypt, and now have it resting . somewhere in a void. Israel seems to feel neglected, and we have commited several gaffes with Britain. As for enemies, North Korea is once again turning to its nuclear program, Russia is kicking out American-backed organizations like Radio Liberty, Iran has made progress towards a nuclear arsenal, our relationship with Pakistan seems even worse defined. A botched ATF program has at least temporarily damaged ties with Mexico. Japan and China are at loggerheads over an island, with Panetta saying we will back Japan no matter what. Turkey's people don't want war with Syria, but their admin seems intent on hostility, and we may end up pulled in there, while weapons being given to rebels are instead being funneled through to Jihadists. Iraq is helping Iran avoid our economic sanctions.

While disappointed when Mr. Obama won 4 years ago, my saving caveat was that if nothing else, at least some of the international condemnation that had been present (misguided as it was) would at least let up. Mr. Bush was firm in his stances and while he was at times cocky, he was consistent, which is respectable.

President Obama has been overmatched since day one - unsure on whether to condemn his attorney general or even his...minister. He has wanted to emulate some of Mrs. Clinton's more hawkish takes on the Iran and North Korea issues, while wanting to make sure that everyone still likes him. It is sad when our president thinks he's running for international prom king when in truth his only concern should be US short and long-term security, both physical and financial. His failure to understand this has led to him accurately portrayed as overmatched and uninformed on facts on the ground foreign policy.