6) Why was there so much confusion in the White Staff & State Departments for the two weeks after the attacks?
7) Why did the French Ambassador have more security than Amb. Stevens?
8) Why did you not cancel your television spots to meet with Mr. Netanyahu?
9) Why did you not support the people of Iran more during their 2009 uprising?
10) If you had to do it all over again, would you keep the Afghan pull out date a secret?
There are so many more questions that can be asked; but won't. Maybe he will answer them when he writes his book after leaving office.
Ironside, I'll answer your first question so you won't have to wait on the debate - Ambassador Stevens was there because in May 2006, The Bush administration removed Libya from the list of states sponsoring terrorist organizations and restored full diplomatic relations. Full diplomatic relations most often included reciprocal embassies. And Ambassador Stevens' mission there was to represent U S interests - just like every other ambassador in every other country.
Walkie, to answer number 7, the French ambassador needs more guards to cover his inevitable retreat. As to # 8, the President also did not meet with King Abdullah of Jordan as well as others. Is # 9 rhetorical? You might as well ask Hugo Chavez why he didn't do more to support Occupy Wall Street protestors.
A quick survey of conservative pundits* reveals that most consider Romney's Libya comments a gaffe and hope that he will step back from any foreign policy positions. Romney would be wise to stick with the economy because he quickly gets in over his head when he ventures into any discussion about foreign policy.
* Murdoch news archipelago: Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard
The point being made, Bryant, is that the ambassador was not in his Tripoli embassy but in the Benghazi Consulate, for reasons unknown, without adequate U.S. government security, on the anniversary of 9/11/01.
Because he had repeatedly requested increased security from the State department for weeks before the 9/11 attack, and had been repeatedly denied it, he had been forced to hire local Libyan security, which, so it seems, notified the terrorists of his whereabouts thus setting up this whole mess.
Not quite sure how you still manage to relate this back to the Bush administration but you guys just don’t give up.
#2. Since when is the morning of September 11 the day before September 11? And since when does "we condemn" mean "we apologize"?
#3 (your second #3). They didn't. This was a fabrication that was swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the "ObamaNation" crowd. What a surprise.
#4. I'm curious: what sinister interpretation do you have? Because I can easily imagine any president saying this to any foreign leader about any contentious issue just before a (potential) re-election.
#5. You forgot to finish this question: "... and replace it with a more effective interceptor system (EPAA) that focuses on actual emerging threats and existing technology."
What I find curious is how House Republicans who shortfunded the State Department's requests for embassy security by almost half a billion dollars over the last couple years now express outrage over the State Department's inability to provide adequate embassy security. And with zero sense of irony or responsibility (see comments by Jason Chaffetz).
Since the upcoming debate will focus on foreign policy, Romney will probably not fare well. It would be irresponsible on his part to retrace the neocon philosophy that engendered the Iraq debacle.Chumminess with his old pal Netanyahu will play with the far right but not with the rest of the electorate.Bashing the Russians is counterproductive. We are in hock to the Chinese ,so all the China bashing isn't worth a hill of beans. He could scrape by by emphasizing the role of trade in foreign policy ,but he probably won''t. I would like to see him squirm.
I'm actually to the point that when I hear the "it's Bush's fault", I just start laughing. I mean, in what other job can you continue to blame your issues on the guy that held your position 4 years ago. I love it.
Sox, People blame Bush because they have an understanding of cause/effect relationships. People will blame Obama after he leaves office for some of the policies that he set in place. It's really not that hard to understand.
As far as the job analogy is concerned, workers are often blamed for circumstances beyond their control.
Sox, just because some hyperpartisan says someone blamed Bush for something here doesn't make it so. All Bryant said was that Stevens was in Libya because, and I quote, "the Bush administration removed Libya from the list of states sponsoring terrorist organizations and restored full diplomatic relations," which usually entails reciprocal embassies. The only way you can view this as "blaming Bush" for anything is if YOU think we should not have restored full diplomatic relationships with Libya, in which case, it would be YOU assessing blame on Bush.
In any case, is it really your belief that the influence of eight years worth of a President and his policies would never last as long as four years after he leaves? And I would note that his policies have been vigorously defended by GOP senators and congressmen, though rarely invoking his name, throughout Obama's presidency.
Thanks, pus. I was in no way "blaming" Bush for anything. As to why the ambassador was in Benghazi, maybe he was secretly meeting with Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad negotiating peace in our time.
Bryant - my apologies. I mis-interpreted your comments as "Bush's Fault". I think that's the downside of print sometimes (combined with I"m a little quick draw to call BS on that whole line of thinking). Looking back, I realized I read too much into it.
Regarding my belief on policies, I think it's definitely possible for a president's policies to last four years after he leaves, expecially if the incoming President does little or nothing to address the faulty policies. I do, however, think there comes a point to where the new President loses that line of "excuse" as he was hired to address / fix any issues he believes to be faulty - regardless of party. I think should Romney win, he should be held to the same standard.
Sox, apology accepted. I, too, often read into a blog things that are not necessarily there.
I feel the Bush doctrine is antithetical to what I as an American believe. We have no right to take preemptive military actions when there is no clear and present danger to our homeland. (Just the same as we have no right to torture combatants for any reason. We are Americans and we should never stoop to the level of others.) But I hear the same Bush Doctrine noises coming out of the current administration - though not very loudly - about Iran and it's nuclear program. The last thing we need is another foray into the Middle East.
Interesting to see how the left wing of this blog apes the tactics of its progressive heroes in grown up politics by such ploys as diverting a relevant topic of which they have little awareness to a string of unrelated nit picking nonsense.
Bryant - there is no doubt that you and I are miles apart on our ways of thinking. No big deal, but I do have a hard time grasping your thought process. With Iran, for instance, at what point do you conisider them a clear and present danger? Now? When they've built a nuclear weapon? WHen they've launced a weapon against someone else? WHen they have launced directly at us?
How do you define "clear and present danger" in a situation like this?
Like I said, I honestly don't think we're anywhere close on military strategy (which would probably make us a good President / VP team!) But I don't understand taking preemptive strikes off the table.
If Sox is really serious about preventing the cataclysmic events that would follow an Obama second term then he/she will stop pandering to the self-righteous (antithetical? gimme a break!) attempts of the left, even in this minor blog site, to divert from the real agenda intended by the Obama-progressives.
And If you have not learned of what will happen if Iran is left to Obama then check back what happened with Carter, his precursor in tragedy, and learn by repeating history.
And if YOU are serious about "preventing the cataclysmic events that would follow an Obama second term" then you would realize that you must convince people to vote for Romney and not for Obama. Accusing someone of "pandering to the attempts of the left" when you have no idea who that person is or what they think, just makes you sound like a jackass and does nothing to help your political position.
You have no hope of convincing people to see the world through your eyes if you have no idea what it looks like through theirs.
As I sound like a jackass I bray for your forgiveness.
However, I know no more about a person than whatever they choose to reveal of themselves in these blogs, and Sox, who generally appears to lean more to the right, behaved, in this case, more like a RINO by unnecessarily apologizing for his/her perfectly justified earlier statement, after a scolding from the left.
This is pandering. No offence, just an observation.
Passin', I will put my "little awareness" of the topic of Iran against yours anyday. And, just because I thinj the Bush Doctrine is a misguided policy does not mean that I am "the left" (whatever that phrase symbolizes for you).
Sox, I apologize for getting off-topic. As to Iran's nuclear program, 20 years ago, Netanyahu claimed that Iran was four or five years away from a nuclear weapon. After the intelligence failures which led to 911, the cherrypicking presentation of flawed intelligence reports which resulted in the invasion of Iraq, and the lack of intelligence that resulted in the embassy attack in Benghazi; why should the American people believe Iran is 1) trying to develop nuclear weapons? 2) has any intent to use them against anyone if they get them, 3) are getting closer to the capability.
Krushev said, "We will bury you." But he had no intention of trying to do so in a head to head battle. Iran's secular and religious leaders may make the same claims about Israel but deep in their hearts they know, Israel and the US reaction would inflict unacceptable destruction upon Iran. I simply do not accept a preemptive strike against a Middle Eastern target as in the American people's best interest.
Bryant, I would be happy to accept your challenge on the “topic of Iran” though it will have to wait a while as I will be out of town for a few days.
However, I cannot resist bringing Netanyahu’s “claims” a little more up to date than your example, and at the same time respond to your 3 points. His recent address to the UN gave a detailed report of the nuclear weapons development progress made by Iran and defined a “Red Line” beyond which it could not effectively be stopped.
The Red Line is expected to be reached around March of next year, a little breathing space that was created by the recent Israeli strike (Aug. 17) that took out the cables dedicated to supplying power to Fordow, Iran’s newest and most important uranium enrichment complex. This houses around 2000 centrifuges, about one third of which are up and running, and is built deep inside a mountain, intended to provide immunity from conventional air attacks.
The reason why more centrifuges have not yet been brought on line, and why the other enrichment plant at Natanz had to be shut down for emergency repairs, is thought to be due to the effectiveness of the Stuxnet attacks, (the CIA has been operating a sabotage campaign code named “Olympic Games” since the Bush Era, - something else that you can blame Bush for.)
I find it hard to understand how anyone can still not believe that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons (Unless they also believe the earth to be flat and phlogiston to be the fuel of the future).
.....And you cannot compare Kruschev, a realist who accepted the philosophy of MAD, with the Ayatollah Khamenei, a religious fanatic who believes that he will sit alongside of Allah if he dies in the process of killing unbelievers.
Passin, get real. First I do not "blame Bush" for everything. I blame him for things for which I believe he is responsible and which negatively impacted the United States.
Second, updating me on Netanyahu is unnecessary. But the fact remains that twenty years ago he claimed Iran was four or five years away from a nuclear weapon. A claim which was obviously untrue.
And, phlogiston is what I use to power my time machine. So there!