Ryan: Obama’s foreign policy is unraveling before our eyes

posted at 10:41 am on October 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

What a difference a month makes in politics. At this point in September, Democrats bragged about Barack Obama’s big advantage in foreign policy over the Republican ticket, which they scorned as the least-capable major-party ticket in that area in decades. John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama himself all attacked Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on foreign policy at the Democratic National Convention, and pundits wondered whether Democrats could successfully change the narrative of the election from the economy to foreign relations and national security — including me. Now, both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have gone on offense, and the administration’s the side looking lost and unable to competently deal with crisis abroad.

First, Paul Ryan attacked Obama on the collapse of American strategy in the Middle East and north Africa in an exclusive interview with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace.  Ryan wouldn’t take the bait when Wallace asks if the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up, but attacked Obama’s “policy of weakness”:

Ryan called President Obama’s foreign policy, “one of weakness.” He added, “We’re seeing the ugly fruits of the Obama foreign policy unravel around the world on our TV screens. Syria, you’ve got 20,000 dead people. Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. The Middle East peace process is in shambles and we have our flags being burned all around the world. Russia is thwarting us at every stage in the process. This is a weak foreign policy with terrible results which makes us less safe.”

Wallace said there isn’t a big difference between Romney and Obama’s foreign policy plans, and when it comes to Iran, Romney’s red line seems to be about where Obama’s line has been drawn. Ryan said the difference is that the president’s policy lacks credibility. He stated, “The president has moved his rhetoric a bit to look more like ours, and that’s good, but the problem is it’s built upon a mountain of non-credible actions.”

He said, “When you hesitate, when you don’t speak with clarity, when you don’t project your confidence in American values, it projects weakness and equivocation. When you gut the military, as the president’s proposing to do, that shows that we’re weakening our resolve or weakening our military.”

This morning, Mitt Romney followed suit with a Wall Street Journal op-ed emphasizing the weakness of Obama’s “smart power” diplomacy and foreign policy:

Disturbing developments are sweeping across the greater Middle East. In Syria, tens of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power, and the country’s peace treaty with Israel hangs in the balance. In Libya, our ambassador was murdered in a terrorist attack. U.S. embassies throughout the region have been stormed in violent protests. And in Iran, the ayatollahs continue to move full tilt toward nuclear-weapons capability, all the while promising to annihilate Israel.

These developments are not, as President Obama says, mere “bumps in the road.” They are major issues that put our security at risk.

Yet amid this upheaval, our country seems to be at the mercy of events rather than shaping them. We’re not moving them in a direction that protects our people or our allies.

And that’s dangerous. If the Middle East descends into chaos, if Iran moves toward nuclear breakout, or if Israel’s security is compromised, America could be pulled into the maelstrom.

We still have time to address these threats, but it will require a new strategy toward the Middle East.

The question now isn’t whether Obama can distract from the economy by shifting voter focus to foreign policy.  It’s now whether Romney and Ryan can avoid distracting from the economy with these attacks on Obama’s foreign policy, or whether they can succeed in creating an attack on Obama’s competence that now exceeds domestic policy.  Voters will still have the economy primarily on their minds when they go to vote, and the poor performance of Obamanomics will be the big issue — whether the recovery has been sluggish because of what preceded Obama or whether his economic policy is just incompetent.  Demonstrating Obama’s incompetence on foreign policy could go a long way to proving Romney’s point on Obamanomics, as long as it doesn’t overshadow the point.

Be sure to watch all of Ryan’s interview with Wallace below.


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But a fair number of voters are willfully blind. And the media are busy sweeping Barry’s ineptness under the rug or make excuse for their one.

bayview on October 1, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Won’t this be considered electioneering for the most part? If the media is, at best silent, the public will interpret nothing but campaign rhetoric.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Since the Louse in da House is in reality incompetent, R&R have their work cut out for them during these up-coming debates, they have to focus on so much and I hope every topic will be discussed.

Economy Jobs Foreign Policy and on and on…

Found this funny tidbit on Unemployment:

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 8.1%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 8.1%.

ABBOTT: 8.1% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 8.1% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 8.1%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 8.1% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 8.1% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how Obama gets it to 8.1%. Otherwise it would be 16%. He doesn’t want you to read about 16% unemployment.

COSTELLO: That would be tough on his reelection.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have Obama’s supporters stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like the Obama Economy Czar.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Obama.

http://www.economicnoise.com/2012/08/18/abbott-and-costello-economics/

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

wont work.
and by the way, I am a supporter of the arab spring, so count me out to try and spin that we would better off with despicable dictators like kaddafi in the middle east.
bush was right in trying to spread democracy and obama just continued that policy.
of course, the really better solution is just abandon the middle east hateful quagmire.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Rome burns, but for the MSM it’s “Nothing to see here, move along.”

Red Creek on October 1, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

LOL

WisRich on October 1, 2012 at 10:55 AM

We still have time to address these threats, but it will require a new strategy toward the Middle East.

Ryan, what is the alternative? if the sugestion is to abandon the middle east, that will be great! if its back to the bush years policy of imposing democracy by force? than hell no! if its supporting dictator in fear of extremists, its also a no!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The beauty of this is that it further supports a narrative of this guy has no clue what he is doing. Univision is about to hurt the administration with hispanics and the public never bought the WH lies on Libya. Having your ambassador killed is never a good thing – as is having AQ flags flying over your embassy compounds.

It supports a narrative of incompetence – where does Obama go to hide?

Zomcon JEM on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Ryan: Obama’s foreign policy is unraveling before our eyes

To be followed by…

Ryan: Obama’s socialist/Marxists policy is unraveling before our eyes.

LoganSix on October 1, 2012 at 10:57 AM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Abandonment would be a disaster – you cannot stick your head in the sand anymore.

Zomcon JEM on October 1, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Problem is, those wackos in the Middle East have or will have nukes and effective delivery systems so no adult president will be able to ignore the region.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM

wont work.
and by the way, I am a supporter of the arab spring, so count me out to try and spin that we would better off with despicable dictators like kaddafi in the middle east.
bush was right in trying to spread democracy and obama just continued that policy.
of course, the really better solution is just abandon the middle east hateful quagmire.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Wow, you make it very difficult to decide whether you are just plain evil, incredibly stupid, or painfully naive.

1) There is no Arab Spring, that is a media fiction designed to obfuscate the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of Al Qaeda) is forming the vassal states of the new Islamic Caliphate.

2) Islam prohibits democracies or republics.

3) Bush was an idiot for not understanding Islamic theologies political significance in the Middle East.

4) There are zero simple or easy solutions for dealing with 7th century barbaric hoards attempting to build an empire through violent bloody conquest.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Old/busted:
 

but what about other people that don’t have your principles? you would you want to impose your principles on them?
 
nathor on August 21, 2012 at 8:43 PM

 
New just-over-a-month later hotness:
 

and by the way, I am a supporter of the arab spring…
bush was right in trying to spread democracy and obama just continued that policy.
 
nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

rogerb on October 1, 2012 at 11:01 AM

where does Obama go to hide?

Zomcon JEM on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Depends on where Beyonce and Jay Z are chillin this week…

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:02 AM

It supports a narrative of incompetence – where does Obama go to hide?

Zomcon JEM on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

in foreign policy, obama defeats where:
-lack of victory in Afghanistan but the killing of bin laden will save face of our retreat.
-the embassy sack in bengazhi, which, despite all the noise, its but a drop in the bucket of the thousands already dead in Iraq and Afghanistan.

real defeats of the obama policy might come in syria or from a nuclear iran, but that probably wont happen before election day.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Come on, it’s not that bad.

In fact Ambassador Stevens will tell you that things are really looking up.

Bishop on October 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM

It supports a narrative of incompetence – where does Obama go to hide?

Zomcon JEM on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Behind the apron of the media.

antipc on October 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

The point is, Barack Obama is incompetent, not merely “wrong” about the economy. He’s a shill who doesn’t know what he’s doing and we continue to employ him as leader of the free world at our peril.

He doesn’t merely own the economy. He owns his Presidency. A pernicious disaster across the board.

The self-titled “smartest man in the world about everything” doesn’t actually know much about much of anything. That’s the point.

IndieDogg on October 1, 2012 at 11:07 AM

bush was right in trying to spread democracy and obama just continued that policy.
of course, the really better solution is just abandon the middle east hateful quagmire.
nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

vacillate much?

VegasRick on October 1, 2012 at 11:07 AM

if its back to the bush years policy of imposing democracy by force? than hell no! if its supporting dictator in fear of extremists, its also a no!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

No one has been imposing democracy by force. It sounds like you’ve been listening to too many incoherent moonbat critics who don’t even have a clue about why they hate Bush. What next, mutters about “no more blood for oil?”

tom on October 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

was the ambassador murdered, or was he assassinated???

ted c on October 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Old/busted:

but what about other people that don’t have your principles? you would you want to impose your principles on them?

nathor on August 21, 2012 at 8:43 PM

New just-over-a-month later hotness:

and by the way, I am a supporter of the arab spring…
bush was right in trying to spread democracy and obama just continued that policy.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

rogerb on October 1, 2012 at 11:01 AM

you forgot to quote this:

of course, the really better solution is just abandon the middle east hateful quagmire.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

yeah, if we are to intervene, its better to support democracy than dictators, but I still think its better not to intervene at all.

and by the way, supporting democracy is respecting other ppl decisions even if:

other people that don’t have your principles

because the alternative is

you would you want to impose your principles on them

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Come on, it’s not that bad.

In fact Ambassador Stevens will tell you that things are really looking up.

Bishop on October 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Dear Diary,

Getting settled in here in wild Benghazi. Obama Hussein says they’ll send us some real security once he gets back from partying in Vegas. The current guard barbecues a mean goat but every time I turn my back he keeps unlocking the windows and testing his lighter under the US flag in my office…

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:10 AM

nathor is an idiot… ’nuff said… :-)

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 11:10 AM

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Funny in a ‘dark’ way…

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Projection is getting too obvious with these guys. Whatever they claim is the opposite of the truth.

Somebody claimed the 47% vieo was supposed to be the October surprise but they had to try to diffuse the Libya/Egypt breaking story.

Somebody appears to be right. h/t Rush Limbaugh.

DanMan on October 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM

was the ambassador murdered, or was he assassinated???

ted c on October 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

That is a question you will never ever hear the Obamanation Administration even attempt to address. The potential ramifications of the later answer would send Hillary, Jarret, Rice, Powers, Axelrod and Obama himself scurrying for cover faster than turning on a light in a cockroach infested kitchen.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ryan: Obama’s foreign policy is unraveling before our eyes

…but the MSM’s seeing eye dog is at the vet…getting neutered!

KOOLAID2 on October 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I would have to argue that Ambassador Stevens was assassinated and that is the word that should be used here.

ted c on October 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM

We should spread democracy while simultaneously abandoning any such attempt.

O_o

Bishop on October 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ryan is incorrect.

obama’s policy is being unveiled before our very eyes.

Weaken America at all costs
Weaken Israel at all costs
Strengthen all anti American/ Israel countries and terrorist organizations in the world:

..black panthers
..cair
..islimeic brotherhood
..Al Qaeda
..Hamas
..African National Congress
..Russia
..China
..Central America leftists

Philo Beddoe on October 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM

assassination
NOUN
1.
murder: the killing of somebody, especially a political leader or other public figure, by a sudden violent attack

ted c on October 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM

you would you want to impose your principles on them

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM

If it keeps them from blowing me and my country up, Damn straight. Fear of quick and total destruction is a good motivator for fanatical Muzzies not to mess with civilization.

Playing touchy-feely or look-away with suicidal nutjobs who want to blow themselves up is a fools game.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM

No one has been imposing democracy by force. It sounds like you’ve been listening to too many incoherent moonbat critics who don’t even have a clue about why they hate Bush. What next, mutters about “no more blood for oil?”

tom on October 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

no, comparing libya to iraq, you see a people that rebeled against the dictator and we supported them in their rebellion. many libyans are now thankful to the US in ways never before seen in the arab world despite the killing of the ambassador. because in the end, who save then where not other arab nations or al qaeda, but nato air power. we were the only ones that did not let them die.

in iraq, we invaded(boots on the ground) with little support and entered in a sectarian quagmire. only the kurds really supported us while the sunnis and part of the shias hated us!
I really dont want america sucked up in another iraq ever again!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I have a feeling that if we ever got to hear the real story of Amb. Stevens, he might have been someone who could have really made some headway in that part of the world. He really is getting lost in this story.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM

It supports a narrative of incompetence – where does Obama go to hide?

Zomcon JEM on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

To the UN

Vntnrse on October 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I think we should have established a base there. Just like we did in Japan and Germany.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM

assassination
NOUN
1.
murder: the killing of somebody, especially a political leader or other public figure, by a sudden violent attack

ted c on October 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Define Ambassador Stevens death as an assassination and now you absolutely have to ask and answer two utterly damning questions.

1) Why was Ambassador Stevens Assassinated.

2) Who ordered that assassination.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM

This morning, Mitt Romney followed suit with a Wall Street Journal op-ed emphasizing the weakness of Obama’s “smart power” diplomacy and foreign policy:

Romney attack on Obama. This is good. More please.

AZfederalist on October 1, 2012 at 11:19 AM

http://www.economicnoise.com/2012/08/18/abbott-and-costello-economics/

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

LOL. That was great! That should become a SuperPAC ad.

AZfederalist on October 1, 2012 at 11:20 AM

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Funny in a ‘dark’ way…

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 11:11 AM

The sad thing is that I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Zero betrayed Ambassador Stevens knowing that a diversion towards incompetence on foreign policy would be preferable to the spotlight fully on the FUBARed Obungler economy.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:20 AM

wont work.
and by the way, I am a supporter of the arab spring, so count me out to try and spin that we would better off with despicable dictators like kaddafi in the middle east.
bush was right in trying to spread democracy and obama just continued that policy.
of course, the really better solution is just abandon the middle east hateful quagmire.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

If there was one country that was ripe for Democracy, it was Iran, seeing as prior to the Islamic Revolution, they were the most Westernized country in the Middle East. They tried to have an Arab Spring (or Persian Spring), and Obama hung them out to dry. And if there was one Arab dictator that we should have hung onto, it was Mubarek, who was the most reliably pro-American dictator of the rotten bunch, who also had a peace treaty with Israel.

Instead of encouraging a people’s uprising in Iran, and standing by Mubarek, Obama did the opposite, and in doing so, he acted against both America’s interests and Israel’s interests.

And having the Palestinians democratically electing Hamas as their leaders, is certainly not what Bush ever had in mind for the Middle East.

ardenenoch on October 1, 2012 at 11:20 AM

obama’s policy is being unveiled before our very eyes.

Weaken America at all costs
Weaken Israel at all costs
Strengthen all anti American/ Israel countries and terrorist organizations in the world:

Yup…and that has been his plan all along, most of it in evidence during his first run at the presidency, if one was willing to delve deeply into what of his background was available then, and there was more than enough information at that time to know he was anti-American and the hope and change he was promising wasn’t going to bode well for our nation.

hawkeye54 on October 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM

If it keeps them from blowing me and my country up, Damn straight. Fear of quick and total destruction is a good motivator for fanatical Muzzies not to mess with civilization.

Playing touchy-feely or look-away with suicidal nutjobs who want to blow themselves up is a fools game.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM

just no! my belief and I present you syria as evidence, is that muslims will kill each other way before they threaten us in any significant way.
I dont want our blood and treasure wasted of making them like us by force, especially when they are mostly a danger to themselfs.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM

And to date, the Obama administration/campaign’s entire sales pitch for their foreign policy has been: a) “We killed bin Laden” and b) “Romney sure does know a lot of neocons, doesn’t he?!?” Both arguments can be pretty easily countered, i.e. http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/28/if_obama_s_foreign_policy_has_been_so_successful_then_why_are_we_talking_about_romn

BGordon on October 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM

no, comparing libya to iraq, you see a people that rebeled against the dictator and we supported them in their rebellion. many libyans are now thankful to the US in ways never before seen in the arab world despite the killing of the ambassador. because in the end, who save then where not other arab nations or al qaeda, but nato air power. we were the only ones that did not let them die.

in iraq, we invaded(boots on the ground) with little support and entered in a sectarian quagmire. only the kurds really supported us while the sunnis and part of the shias hated us!
I really dont want america sucked up in another iraq ever again!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Well, at least you have now eliminated the painful naive possibility.

Libya was NOT a popular revolt, neither was Egypt or Syria. Now we see that you are either just plain evil (seems to be the leading possibility) or incredibly stupid.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM

1) Why was Ambassador Stevens Assassinated.

2) Who ordered that assassination.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM

yep. Define his killing as a “protest spun out of control” and it makes it just looks like a car accident where you can go “Woopsie!”…

ted c on October 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I think we should have established a base there. Just like we did in Japan and Germany.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM

i not sure its that important to have a base there. Also, one of the think that worked well in libya is that we have no visible boots on the ground and that help gaining the good will of libyans. having a base there would only help create anti american feelings in libya.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I really dont want americasucked up in another iraq ever again!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Pretty telling that you did not bother to capitalize America. Oh and by the way, your boy’s war in afghanistan, you know the good war, aint going all that great. Go bow down to the faded poster of obambi that you have hanging on the wall. All will be okay.

VegasRick on October 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM

What happened with the embassy in Libya should have been the final nail in Obamas re election coffin. But no one seems to care, and Obama is slightly inching ahead in the polls. What happened to this country?, Are people really that stupid?

Jack_Burton on October 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM

wont work.
and by the way, I am a supporter of the arab spring, so count me out to try and spin that we would better off with despicable dictators like kaddafi in the middle east.
bush was right in trying to spread democracy and obama just continued that policy.
of course, the really better solution is just abandon the middle east hateful quagmire.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

You’re obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

zoyclem on October 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Well, at least you have now eliminated the painful naive possibility.

Libya was NOT a popular revolt, neither was Egypt or Syria. Now we see that you are either just plain evil (seems to be the leading possibility) or incredibly stupid.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM

so what was it then?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM

If there was one country that was ripe for Democracy, it was Iran, seeing as prior to the Islamic Revolution, they were the most Westernized country in the Middle East.

ardenenoch on October 1, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Iran was the one place where a democracy might have had the chance of succeeding in the Middle East for the simple basic reason that prior to the Islamic Regimes take over Iran had 3000 years of being a Monarchy the last 40 of it as a Constitutional Monarchy. It has little to do with their being Westernized and everything to do with Islam not being a 1000 year old political institution in Iran.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:29 AM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM

When you wave your white flag be sure to hand them the bouquet before they saw your head off…. wouldn’t want to make a mess of the flowers.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

No one has been imposing democracy by force. It sounds like you’ve been listening to too many incoherent moonbat critics who don’t even have a clue about why they hate Bush. What next, mutters about “no more blood for oil?”

tom on October 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

no, comparing libya to iraq, you see a people that rebeled against the dictator and we supported them in their rebellion. many libyans are now thankful to the US in ways never before seen in the arab world despite the killing of the ambassador. because in the end, who save then where not other arab nations or al qaeda, but nato air power. we were the only ones that did not let them die.

in iraq, we invaded(boots on the ground) with little support and entered in a sectarian quagmire. only the kurds really supported us while the sunnis and part of the shias hated us!
I really dont want america sucked up in another iraq ever again!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with imposing a democracy, and absolutely everything to do with deposing Saddam Hussein. The Iraquis chose their own form of government.

To dismiss this as “imposing democracy” is just incoherent. There was no attempt to impose democracy. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, and we did the best we could to help them form their own government and leave.

And the end result, if you have a shred of honesty anywhere within you, was far more successful than turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

If you want to talk about meddling in other nations without a compelling national interest, then Libya was by far the bigger disaster, starting with the fact that Congress never authorized it, and continuing with the fact that we had no compelling national interest.

So Obama’s foreign policy is more meddlesome and dangerous than Bush, but somehow it’s still Bush’s fault?

tom on October 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I dont want our blood and treasure wasted of making them like us by force, especially when they are mostly a danger to themselfs.
nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM

You sir, are a moron.

VegasRick on October 1, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Pretty telling that you did not bother to capitalize America.

I fail to capitalize words all the time, includint my own nick, so get over it!

Oh and by the way, your boy’s war in afghanistan, you know the good war, aint going all that great.

he is not my boy and its true that we are “losing”

Go bow down to the faded poster of obambi that you have hanging on the wall. All will be okay.

VegasRick on October 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I will never ever have a poster of any politician in my wall!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:32 AM

If all of this is not really incompetence and actually is a plan – as I believe it is – Obama can’t defend it as a plan because he knows Americans will recoil at it. So calling it incompetent is just as good.

People will tolerate a lot from a President, but they will not tolerate incompetence.

rockmom on October 1, 2012 at 11:32 AM

You’re obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

zoyclem on October 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM

He is not even in the kitchen.

VegasRick on October 1, 2012 at 11:33 AM

rockmom on October 1, 2012 at 11:32 AM

The problem is that he is not being asked to explain it at all, as a plan or possible incompetence. I’d say it is being treated as “a bump in the road” not worthy of much mention.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM

i not sure its that important to have a base there. Also, one of the think that worked well in libya is that we have no visible boots on the ground and that help gaining the good will of libyans. …

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM

islamists are rising to power in Libya. You do understand that nothing America and Americans do, other than converting to islam and implementing sharia law will establish good will with them, right? If not, you do not understand the Middle East and the nature of the enemy we face.

AZfederalist on October 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I will never ever have a poster of any politician in my wall!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:32 AM

… but I’ll bet you have a dingy “Coexist” bumper sticker on your ancient microbus with the paint color listed on the registration as “Bondo.”

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I will never ever have a poster of any politician in my wall!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:32 AM

You should quit while you are behind. You only make yourself look like more of a moron with every post.

VegasRick on October 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM

One cannot spread democracy in the ME. It is pointless to even try.

If one is clued in to the “religion” of the koran and shari’a it is a hopeless endeavour.

Once the muslims begin to gain a foothold in any country, at first they abide by that nations laws, but not long after they make demands that their laws be followed…

On and on and on, it is the host nation in many and varying degrees that is FORCED to comply with every muslim demand…

No, sorry, democracy is incompatable with muslim beliefs…

Being PC has to stop!!

Muslims are always victims! And always offended and whining at the drop of a hat, Muslims are “offended” and go berserk.

Be forewarned.

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I have a feeling that if we ever got to hear the real story of Amb. Stevens, he might have been someone who could have really made some headway in that part of the world. He really is getting lost in this story.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Excellent point. I also feel so bad for his family having to hear all of this being played out by an evil administration, his campaign handlers and the complicit media. Every day is another horror show from the White House that the family has to endure.

tru2tx on October 1, 2012 at 11:38 AM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I was speaking of Iraq. I think it was too soon for Libya. Like I said up thread, I think Amb. Stevens was probably an important person for Libya, maybe their La Fayette but we didn’t protect him. And why is that?

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Libya was NOT a popular revolt, neither was Egypt or Syria. Now we see that you are either just plain evil (seems to be the leading possibility) or incredibly stupid.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM

so what was it then?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM

My guess – incredibly stupid.

VegasRick on October 1, 2012 at 11:41 AM

tru2tx on October 1, 2012 at 11:38 AM

At least they aren’t coming out and supporting Obama. Not that they don’t but I just don’t think I could stand hearing it right now.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 11:41 AM

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM

so what was it then?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Islamic version of the Bolshevik Revolution (which it is actually modeled after). An extremely small percentage of the population toppling the government through the use of incredibly violent means and atrocities. Libya has a population of 5.5 million, the number of militants that overthrew Moammar Gadhafi’s regime never exceeded 8000, the majority of whom came from a variety of other Islamic states with Yemen and the UAE supplying the lions share.

The Muslim Brotherhood organized, funded and tactically supported the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi’s regime and then used violence and extortion to gain a majority control of the new Government. The exact same thing they did in Egypt and are attempting to do in Syria, the exact same thing they will do in Afghanistan once we are going and in Iraq as well.

This is what the so called “Arab Spring” really is, it is the consolidation of vassal states by the Muslim Brotherhood for the express and intended purpose of forming a new Islamic Caliphate. In the highly likely event that you are unaware, Islamic Caliphates are not democracies nor republics. They are Islamic theocracy predicated monarchies.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with imposing a democracy, and absolutely everything to do with deposing Saddam Hussein. The Iraquis chose their own form of government.

To dismiss this as “imposing democracy” is just incoherent. There was no attempt to impose democracy. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, and we did the best we could to help them form their own government and leave.

here:

One of the rationales that the Bush Administration employed periodically during the run-up to the Iraq war is that deposing Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic government in Iraq would promote democracy in other Middle Eastern countries.[142][143] The United States also proclaims that monarchies Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the military ruled Pakistan are allies of America, despite the human rights abuses and subversion of democracy attributed to them respectively. As Vice President Dick Cheney argued in an August 2002 speech to the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, “When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace.”[144] At a 2003 Veterans’ Day address, President Bush stated:[145]
“ Our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is clear to our service members — and clear to our enemies. Our men and women are fighting to secure the freedom of more than 50 million people who recently lived under two of the cruelest dictatorships on earth. Our men and women are fighting to help democracy and peace and justice rise in a troubled and violent region. Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away in the heart and center of their power, so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America.

so one of the rationales(there were more), of the iraq war was the spread of democracy and bush did try to force allies lige egypt and saudi arabia to experiment democratic elections

And the end result, if you have a shred of honesty anywhere within you, was far more successful than turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egypt like tunisia are now struggling how to join democracy with islamism, and the 2 just dont combine. its a problem for them to solve. but supporting dictator will only delay the problem.

If you want to talk about meddling in other nations without a compelling national interest, then Libya was by far the bigger disaster, starting with the fact that Congress never authorized it, and continuing with the fact that we had no compelling national interest.

taking out an erratic regime that supported anti american terrorism is not reason enough?
nd by the way, iran and syria supported kadafi, I wonder why?
but still, yeah, we should not be involved, not only in libya, but the whole middle east.

So Obama’s foreign policy is more meddlesome and dangerous than Bush, but somehow it’s still Bush’s fault?

tom on October 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

the iraq war was bush fault, that’s for sure!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

How do you know it’s “unraveling”, Paul? Maybe it’s by design.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

My guess – incredibly stupid.

VegasRick on October 1, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I saw that pitch hanging right there in the sweet spot waiting to be hammered over the fence but didn’t want to deny SWalker the grand slam opportunity!

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Poor nathor. Bush’s fault! 9/11 never happened.

I would do a face palm but I’d best find a helmet to put on first….

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Islamic version of the Bolshevik Revolution (which it is actually modeled after). An extremely small percentage of the population toppling the government through the use of incredibly violent means and atrocities. Libya has a population of 5.5 million, the number of militants that overthrew Moammar Gadhafi’s regime never exceeded 8000, the majority of whom came from a variety of other Islamic states with Yemen and the UAE supplying the lions share.

The Muslim Brotherhood organized, funded and tactically supported the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi’s regime and then used violence and extortion to gain a majority control of the new Government. The exact same thing they did in Egypt and are attempting to do in Syria, the exact same thing they will do in Afghanistan once we are going and in Iraq as well.

This is what the so called “Arab Spring” really is, it is the consolidation of vassal states by the Muslim Brotherhood for the express and intended purpose of forming a new Islamic Caliphate. In the highly likely event that you are unaware, Islamic Caliphates are not democracies nor republics. They are Islamic theocracy predicated monarchies.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM

your analysis of libya is wrong. the revolution was widely supported by the population and many of the supporters really prefer democracy.
the islamic kaliphate will never happen, because they will never agree on the caliph. its an islamic utopia.most muslims, even fanatical ones understand this.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I really thought Barky would be a foreign policy expert given that he was born in Kenya and, schooled in Indonesia, and became a gay imam in Hawaii.

Dang.

CorporatePiggy on October 1, 2012 at 11:52 AM

was the ambassador murdered, or was he assassinated???

ted c on October 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

He was running through the consulate with a pair of scissors in his hand…

slickwillie2001 on October 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

you forgot…
 
nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM

 
Interestingly, it doesn’t seem to be me who is forgetting.
 

and by the way, supporting democracy is respecting other ppl decisions even if:
 

other people that don’t have your principles

 
because the alternative is
 

you would you want to impose your principles on them

 
nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM

 
I’ve seen some truly nonsensical posts, but that might be eligible for an internet award. Well done.

rogerb on October 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

One cannot spread democracy in the ME. It is pointless to even try.

If one is clued in to the “religion” of the koran and shari’a it is a hopeless endeavour.

Once the muslims begin to gain a foothold in any country, at first they abide by that nations laws, but not long after they make demands that their laws be followed…

On and on and on, it is the host nation in many and varying degrees that is FORCED to comply with every muslim demand…

No, sorry, democracy is incompatable with muslim beliefs…

Being PC has to stop!!

Muslims are always victims! And always offended and whining at the drop of a hat, Muslims are “offended” and go berserk.

Be forewarned.

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Sorry, you are mistaken. It is a subtle but profound point. Neither democracies nor republics are hopeless endeavors in the “MIDDLE EAST”. It is neither the geography nor the indigenous peoples that prohibit the adoption of any type of constitutional representative government, it is Islam that is utterly incompatible with any type of constitutional representative government.

Creating an environment in the Middle East that would allow any type of constitutional representative government to grow and flourish would require a level of testicular fortitude currently not in evidence from any Western Nation’s leadership. It would require the destruction, abolishment and complete banning of Islam in the Middle East.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

the iraq war was bush fault, that’s for sure!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Whether this is true or not, what difference does it make at this point. You have heard the old saying two wrongs don’t make a right? If we had a established a base in Northern Iraq, lots and lots of people would have been happy.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 11:57 AM

islamists are rising to power in Libya. You do understand that nothing America and Americans do, other than converting to islam and implementing sharia law will establish good will with them, right? If not, you do not understand the Middle East and the nature of the enemy we face.

AZfederalist on October 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM

not all libyans are islamists, but yeah, i agree that if they cannot see beyond their religious prejudices, they will allways hate us. if that happens, just look away and abandon the region, because they will first turn on themselves(sunni vs shia, salafis vs brotherhood) before ever bothering us on the other side of the world.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

What good is spreading democracy if the people wish to live by the laws of Islam? I wish one major politician would have the insight to recognize this. Spreading democracy in Islamic nations doesn’t solve anything, Islam is still the problem.

lowandslow on October 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Whether this is true or not, what difference does it make at this point. You have heard the old saying two wrongs don’t make a right? If we had a established a base in Northern Iraq, lots and lots of people would have been happy.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 11:57 AM

forget the bases, what I would really like is that RR2 explain what the hell is their policy? is it bush v2? a tilt to a ron paul policy? or more despite the rethoric, they would end up doing the same has obama.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Ambassdor Stevens was buried so fast that his coffin had windburns.

profitsbeard on October 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Old/busted:
 

if its back to the bush years policy of imposing democracy by force? than hell no!
 
nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

 
New hour-later hotness:
 

starting with the fact that Congress never authorized it, and continuing with the fact that we had no compelling national interest.
 
tom on October 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

 
taking out an erratic regime that supported anti american terrorism is not reason enough?
 
nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

rogerb on October 1, 2012 at 12:03 PM

What good is spreading democracy if the people wish to live by the laws of Islam? I wish one major politician would have the insight to recognize this. Spreading democracy in Islamic nations doesn’t solve anything, Islam is still the problem.

lowandslow on October 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

very well, I might agree, but, we should also not spread tyranny. if whole nations want to engage in self destructive political systems, let them! why should be our blood and treasure be sacrificed for them?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Part of the problem is expecting anything resembling democracy to evolve where the literal meaning of Islam is “submission.”

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I mean, are you really this stupid ???? Like between 10:52 am and 10:56 am uouhad an epiphany of sorts that made you change your mind? no wonder we are where we are at this poi t in the election cycle, america’s worst plague currently is the low information voters…couple that with the moochers and you havethe recipe for its coming disaster, Greece-style….

bush was right in trying to spread democracy and obama just continued that policy.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

if its back to the bush years policy of imposing democracy by force? than hell no!

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

jimver on October 1, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Old/busted:
 

taking out an erratic regime that supported anti american terrorism is not reason enough?
 
nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

 
New twelve-minute later hotness:
 

before ever bothering us on the other side of the world.
 
nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

rogerb on October 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Ambassdor Stevens was buried so fast that his coffin had windburns.

profitsbeard on October 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Sorta like Mary Jo Kopechne and the latest Kennedy victim. Democrats sure have a way of getting evidence six feet under as quickly as possible.

viking01 on October 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

‘You had’ that is…
‘At this point in the election cycle’…

jimver on October 1, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Pretty telling that you did not bother to capitalize America.

VegasRick on October 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM

English is obviously not that box of rocks’ native language. The other day he said he was an IT.

I’ll let you come to your own conclusion.

Flora Duh on October 1, 2012 at 12:08 PM

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM

your analysis of libya is wrong. the revolution was widely supported by the population and many of the supporters really prefer democracy.
the islamic kaliphate will never happen, because they will never agree on the caliph. its an islamic utopia.most muslims, even fanatical ones understand this.

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Nobody could possibly be this stupid, ergo you must be a democrat Moby and that would define you as just plain evil. The revolution was not widely supported, that’s why the United States and NATO had to overthrow the Gadhafi’s regime for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Gadhafi’s regime enjoyed the support of around 60 percent of the Libyan population, he may have been a horrible dictator by Western Standards, but by Middle Eastern Standards he was an incredibly popular leader. In the entire Middle East (not counting Israel) their is only one other leader that is more popular or has more support from his people and that would be Jordan’s Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein.

No, make no mistake about it you evil little ba$tard, Libya was overthrown against the will of the Libyan people by the Muslim Brotherhood who had Barack Insane Obama’s do their heavy lifting for them.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 12:10 PM

It would require the destruction, abolishment and complete banning of Islam in the Middle East.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I am wrong?

Ok I can accept that, but please tell me how you would abolish and ban Islam in the ME and any country they now reside in? They have over a billion followers who for the most completely believe their incompatable laws with the West…

Thirty Shariah Laws That Are Bad For All Societies…

1. The mosque and state are not separate.

To this day, Islamic nations that are deeply rooted in shariah, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, do not adequately separate the two realms, giving a lot of power to courts and councils to ensure that legislation does not contradict the Quran (never mind whose interpretation).

Most of the laws listed here come from this confusion.

2. Jihad may be waged against injustice or an unjust nation, as Islam defines the terms.

3. Jihad may be waged to spread Islam and force conversions – a holy war.

4. A captive in jihad may be executed, enslaved, ransomed for money, exchanged for other prisoners, or released freely.

5. A woman captive of jihad may be forced to have to sex with her captors (now owners).

6. Property can be destroyed or confiscated during jihad.

7. Jihad may be waged to collect spoils.

8. A second-class submission tax, called the jizyah, must be imposed on Jews and Christians (and other religious minorities) living in Islamic countries.

9. Slavery is allowed.

10. A male owner may have sex with his slave-women, even prepubescent slave-girls.

11. Slaves may be beaten.

12. Apostasy laws, including imprisonment or execution, may be imposed on anyone who leaves Islam (an apostate).

13. Blasphemy laws, including imprisonment or execution, may be imposed on critics of Islam or Muhammad.

14. Drinkers and gamblers may be flogged.

15. An injured plaintiff (a private citizen) has the options of forgiving or exacting legal and literal revenge – physical eye for physical eye.

16. The hand of a male or female thief may be cut off.

17. A highway robber may be crucified or his alternate hand and foot cut off.

18. Homosexuals may be imprisoned, flogged, or executed.

19. Fornicators may be flogged.

20. Adulterers may be stoned to death.

21. False accusers of sexual crimes may be flogged eighty times.

22. A woman inherits half what a man does.

23. A woman’s testimony in a court of law counts half of a man’s testimony, since she might “forget.”

24. A man may legally and irrevocably divorce his wife, outside of a court of law, by correctly pronouncing three times “you are divorced.”

25. A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, has sex with him, and then this second man divorces her.

26. Husbands may hit their wives.

27. A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

28. A man may simply get rid of one of his “undesirable” wives.

29. A mature man may marry a prepubescent girl.

30. A woman must wear a head covering and maybe a facial veil, according to sound traditions and authoritative classical law.

Compiling this list would not have been necessary if modern Muslim religious leaders and jurists argued that all of those laws have expiration dates – back in the seventh century. Instead, they are eager to impose those archaic laws today. They believe all of the Quran is universally and timelessly good.

Are all of these laws on the brink of being imposed on the West, by the next day? No, but many of them, especially the ones about marriage and family, can gradually be lobbied for and slowly make their way into our culture and legal system and advocated in school curricula, in the name of multiculturalism.

James M. Arlandson has written a book: Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity. He has recently completed a series on The Sword in Early Christianity and Islam.

The main thing to remember is that Mohammed’s word may never be changed – so it is rather pointless giving this too much consideration. Islam is full of booby traps to scupper anybody trying to modify, change or repeal any of the rules. To fret about this is crediting islam with some merit – it does not warrant even thinking about it. It is an alien, evil 7th century cult that is not compatible with civilisation. We have developed and formulated our laws and conventions/morals and ethics over thousands of years, for better or for worse. Just as in the islamic world, anybody wishing to live among us must comply with our rules – Period!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/james-m-arlandson-thirty-shariah-laws-that-are-bad-for-all-societies.html

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 12:12 PM

English is obviously not that box of rocks’ native language. The other day he said he was an IT.

I’ll let you come to your own conclusion.

Flora Duh on October 1, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Almost forgot, he also admitted he gets his news from watching Jon Stewart online because – he must have comedy with his news.

Flora Duh on October 1, 2012 at 12:16 PM

very well, I might agree, but, we should also not spread tyranny. if whole nations want to engage in self destructive political systems, let them! why should be our blood and treasure be sacrificed for them?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Because, if you paid attention, during these past 40 years, these countries exported their fanatical elements all over the civilized world, western Europe (ever been to France, UK, Germany??? are you aware of the muslim populations currently in these countries??) US, you name it…if these ‘nations engage in self destructive political systems’ (sic!), do you think their exports and implants over here will just sit quietly and watch it happen?? You don’t think they will engage in shenannigans over here too, if we get to a point of having failed states pretty much everywhere in the middle east…you are seriously either incredibly stupid or incredibly stupid, or both….

jimver on October 1, 2012 at 12:19 PM

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Would it really make a difference what they told you? You are going to believe that they will embrace W’s plan regardless. The funny thing is that we don’t know what W would have done, the circumstances are never the same.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM

but please tell me how you would abolish and ban Islam in the ME

Scrumpy on October 1, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Don’t go all liberal tactic on me and change the goal posts scrumpy.

We were talking about the Middle East, not and every other Islamic infested region.

As I said, the testicular fortitude to accomplish this simple does not evidence itself in any Western Nation at present. What would be required would be the exact same tactics employed by the British Empire when it destroyed the Cult of Kali.

1) Burn every single Mosque to the ground
2) Burn every Madressa to the ground
3) Kill every single cleric
4) Confiscate every copy of the Koran and burn them
5) Make it a capital offense punishable by death to own a copy of the Koran or to verbally exchange or instruct anyone in it’s teachings.

Kill Islam in the Middle East and it’s a snake and head thing, cut the head off and the body dies.

SWalker on October 1, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Ollie North has been on Fox this morning with a gentleman, he calls Chief, who is embedded with the Afghan police. I thought we had pulled everyone back.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Ollie North has been on Fox this morning with a gentleman, he calls Chief, who is embedded with the Afghan police. I thought we had pulled everyone back.

Cindy Munford on October 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM

60 Minutes refutes Obama deception on Al Qaeda being defeated

60 Minutes did a report last night on Afghanistan and one component of that was to expose how Al Qaeda has resurged in is working with the Taliban to fight ISAF troops. Not only did they interview a Taliban commander who acknowledged that many Al Qaeda soldiers are working for the Taliban, but that the U.S. military’s own reports from the battlefield are replete with references to Al Qaeda, whether it be about training camps or the fact that we’ve taken 25 Al Qaeda leaders out in one month. This seems to contradict Obama’s own statement at the DNC that Al Qaeda is “on the path to defeat.”

Flora Duh on October 1, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2