Platitudes and broken promises
Obama’s foreign policy record is flawed, but Romney hasn’t made the case for change.
Whistleblower revelations of terror threats before the slaying of the U.S. ambassador to Libya likely influenced, if not forced, last week’s decision by the Obama administration to declare the attack on the consulate in Benghazi a terrorist act.
To continue to wait for the results of an FBI investigation could only have raised the political heat on President Barack Obama, who has enjoyed a foreign policy edge over his Republican challenger in public opinion polls.
Continue reading this editorial.
October 7, 2012 - 8:04 AM
When has Obama ever mentioned Afghanistan during this campaign? That is Obama’s war, he orchestrated the surge as well as the pullout date. Now that casualties have reached 2000, he avoids it altogether.
Leading from behind, throwing Israel under the bus, total pullout in Iraq, date certain pullout from Afghanistan, negotiations and sanctions with Iran have not impeded her development of atomic weapons, and ignoring the Syrian civil war, have all resulted in a failed Middle East policy.
Russia and her ally Iran now control the Middle East due to Obama’s disengagement from the area.
The Middle East is burning and Obama fiddles!
“….but Romney hasn’t made the case for change.”
He doesn’t really have to, the “news of the day” does that for him.
And if the “news of the day” was as biased as some people here, Romney could doubtless win with his lies and distortions because apparently only Obama’s lies, distortions, mistakes and failures matter…to some.
Others, who have been paying attention for the past 30-40 years seem to be harder to convince. Those lies, platitudes and to be broken promises ring just as hollow for a very good reason.
When you want people to jump out of a frying pan, you do not ask them to jump into the fire because it is “better”. Romney has literally and figuratively nothing to offer.
I find it curious that the RTB would write the above editorial before Romney’s VMI foreign policy speech. I suspect the editors had little interest in what Romney would say today.
Some interesting excerpts:
“The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.”
“The relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The President explicitly stated that his goal was to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded.”
“In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy…”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-foreign-policy-speech-vmi-obama-virginia-military-institute-libya-2012-10#ixzz28kN7Hh3D
The RTEB was quick to tell Romney what he should do about foreign policy. Let’s see how the editors react to what Romney said he will do. I am sure they will find it inadequate!
Pretty sure the RTEB opinion on his foreign policy is not the only one Romney and his supporters need to consider:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-delusional-foreign-policy
“Mitt Romney’s delusional foreign policy”
“Absent true policy differences, the Republican nominee’s fantasy of American power reveals a fragile grasp of global realities”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-candidate-of-omni-directional-belligerence/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-candidate-of-omni-directional-belligerence
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/even-after-big-speech-romneys-foreign-policy-remains-vague/
Again, you have to give even people in a frying pan a good reason to jump into the fire. Romney does not.
This sums up the result of Obama’s disengagement in the Middle East which ultimately resulted in the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in a planned terrorist attack in Bengahazi.
ABC NEWS reports that Ambassador Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August.
The request for continued deployment of the security team by Libyan Security Officer, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, says:
“Given the unstable security environment, projected staffing increases, lack of physical and technical security upgrades in place and continued high volume of VIP visits, Embassy Tripoli requests an extension” of the Security Support Team for four months…”
But ultimately the request was denied and the security team left and “they just had to make do with less security,” Wood told ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-team-commander-says-ambassador-stevens-wanted-his-team-to-stay-in-libya-past-august-2/
The blood of the Ambassador and the three other Americans are in Obama’s hands!
The War on Terror is not over!
Oh, was the embassy in Tripoli attacked too? Funny how you chose NOT to add the rest of the story in your link.
“…the embassy’s Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST’s tour be extended past August, and the official maintained there was no net loss of security personnel. The Regional Security Officer “asked for a number of U.S. shooters because of the pending SST redeployment and he was at that number,” said the senior State Department official, who asked not to be identified because of the ongoing internal investigation.
The State Department issued a statement Monday, saying, “The SST was enlisted to support the re-opening of Embassy Tripoli, to help ensure we had the security necessary as our diplomatic presence grew. They were based in Tripoli and operated almost exclusively there. When their rotation in Libya ended, Diplomatic Security Special Agents were deployed and maintained a constant level of security capability. So their departure had no impact whatsoever on the total number of fully trained American security personnel in Libya generally, or in Benghazi specifically.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-team-commander-says-ambassador-stevens-wanted-his-team-to-stay-in-libya-past-august-2/
#7 “Oh, was the embassy in Tripoli attacked too?”
Oh! Now I understand, it was not Obama’s fault, it was all the dead Ambassador’s fault for leaving Tripoli. Is that the new Obama administration lie? Give me a break!
Picking nits as usual to get out of responsibility. Disgusting!
It is not clear why Ambassador Stevens left Tripoli, maybe he felt unsafe without adequate security and hoped being in seclusion at Benghazi would be safer on 9/11.
The Ambassador’s whereabouts was leaked to al Qaeda sympathizers by the same Libyan government that the Obama administration had depended on for his security.
The blood of Ambassador Stevens in on Obama’s hand and the voters will see that!