The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Foreign Policy Debate: Please proceed, Governor.

    By Oxy Mora on Sat, 10/20/2012 - 6:25pm |

    I don't think there are many who think Romney won't take another bite at the Benghazi apple on Monday night. After all, the host of the original 47% soliloquy is giving another fundraiser there in Boca Raton so why shouldn't Romney double down on his Libya attacks, even though he put his foot in his mouth the first time around on both accounts,

    But after reading David Frum's Daily Beast column this morning, I wonder if the stage isn't set for a broader critique of Obama's foreign policy in the Mideast. The broader argument of course is whether the entire strategy on the Arab Spring has been correct.

    Romney faces some risks trying to revisit his Lybia attacks---for example, what Susan Rice did or didn't say on the talk shows five days after the consulate was overrun.. I judge the favorable outcome of another Romney attack on Obama's Libya situation as not much better that 50-50, especially in light of the recent document dump by Congressman Issa.

    When Darrell Issa released 160 pages of cables and other documents a day ago he complicated Romney's narrative and painted the Republican Party as a group of dangerous foreign policy gun slingers. The characterization of Romney as "Shoot First and Aim Later" goes double for Issa. In the obvious attempt to  undermine Obama's credibility on "security", as evidenced by the tragedy in Benghazi, Issa not only proved that Susan Rice was properly quoting contemporaneous talking points by the CIA, but Issa also managed to expose the actual names of Libyans who have been working with the U.S.---putting their lives in danger.

    It seems that "Shoot First and Aim Later" may be a common Republican failing with respect to dealing with sensitive matters of foreign policy. Whether the document dump might also compromise part of the investigation is unknown, but how does the exposure of U.S. secrets help?

    Obviously, Obama needs to reiterate that the buck stops with him, that security needs to be strengthened and what we need to do going forward. All of the ancillary charges by Romney about how much security was ordered, whether it was for Tripoli or Benghazi, how many Al Qaeda were there, whether it was planned or not and how far in advance of the uprising in Egypt it might have been---to all of these attacks there are plenty of counter punches. For example (as others have pointed out) if the attack was planned, why weren't the front gates blown with a car bomb, why were ordinary looters hanging about and why weren't the perpetrators prepared to blow the main file safe?

    Obama should answer the questions of the American people, looking into the camera. (I wonder if he called the Ambassador's mother and apologized for his use of the word "optimal"? )

    Even though there are risks associated with a stepped up attack on Libya by Romney, my guess is that he will still attempt it---both by virtue of his personality and for the simple reason that if he doesn't attack on the disaster scenario that the right wing media has scripted for him, they may skewer him.

    I think Obama has a big opportunity to correct something he is currently being pummeled for---not being more specific about his vision for the future. To me the narrative for the future is obvious 1) follow our democratic values, including women's rights, in both our domestic and foreign policies 2) ensure an economy which will never again be bankrupted by wars paid for on credit cards 3) envision an effective military which keeps us safe but doesn't starve our domestic priorities. 4) have the 1% take a recess while the great middle class, the great engine of prosperity for all, catches its breath and catches up by virtue of an increased share of income as well as fair pay.

       

    Comments

    Administration denies report by NYT that they have agreed to talks with Iran. 

    Then puts out statement that they are prepared to have talks depending.

    Is there some strategy here, or is this a clustermuck? 


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 10/20/2012 - 9:31pm

    I do not know what this means.

    I am betting that the cloud over talks in the WH message is intended for Iran; not Mitt.

    The two nations are already talking; just as we have in the past through 'channels'.

    Hell, I was watching the CEO of Iran kissing Akmadinajad or however you spell it a year or two after w bush claimed we 'won' the war! ha

    We were having talks with the Chinese before Nixon ever showed up per third party ambassadors.

    I would prefer to see President Obama wait and let Mitt scream and yell about apologies and speaking with the enemy for a few minutes and then just lay the bastard out citing Mitt's new 'advisors' like Bolton and Wolfawitz and all the rest of the fascists who brought us to war ten years ago!

    It would be so much fun to see Barry get a little angry at the neocons.

     

     

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 10/22/2012 - 3:00pm

    While I can't count on DNC and Obama to perfectly capitalize on Romney's blunder here or the GOP opportunism, it is clear that they do not know how to conduct foreign military matters. They make mountains out of mole hills for either fear and ignorance or fear and willful manipulation. If they know better, that would be worse, but let me first assume we don't know what they're talking about. They meaning Peter King, Mike Rogers, and the advisors around Romney who continue this lark about AQ and masterful attacks that have Nothing, and I mean absolutely Nothing to do with their friends er..Pam Geller's...er....the film...what film?

    1. The lack of knowledge of what occurs on Arabic blogs, not even extremist blogs, simply blogs that are about radical right wing Americans can tell you about what Terry Jones was up to on Sept 11. Just like I pay attention to particular sectors of the web for various reasons, many watch the right wing in America. Read Arabic and you can keep up, use a translator and you can do the same. Do nothing and you're ignorant.

    2. Cairo isn't as far from Libya as ignorant Americans think. It is especially close when you're on the internet. It doesn't take long to hear that protesters in Cairo have breached a wall. That event isn't being talked about by Right Wing because clearly the event was called for, even though the organizers say clearly they didn't want the wall breached. They were doing so in protest to IOM film.

    3. Abu Khattalah has stated the protests in Libya were related to reaction of IOM film. There was an opportunity for him to claim alignment with AQ in Reuters interview and that didn't happen. He said local brigades involved. He denied organizing but discussed involvement after the fact. Either way, a good venn diagram shows GOP narrative is concocted from either paranoia and whiskey or ambition, perhaps a mix of the two. Even if he's adopted the narrative to cover tracks of precognition, there is no evidence of advanced knowledge in the public sphere.

    4. Discussions about levels of security seem perfectly legit. I know when I found out about the events, I have close friends in the general theatre who could have easily been in Benghazi. I checked to see if all was well and after a round of checks I did specifically and with full mindfulness pause before asking about the private contracting going on in the area. I wanted to pause and remember that people who were trying to protected the Consulate need a moment before we second check the corn in their shit. This was before any assumption about the level of security available to the Consulate in a post-Qaddafi world.

    5. The narrative of GOP: Sophisticated because?
    What makes the GOP see this as sophisticated? This eludes me. First, the use of RPGs may seem sophisticated to an idiot like Joe Walsh who has zero military experience, but to a militia member, one of the dozens of militias in Libya, it has been a second way of life for a long time. Civil war in Chicago doesn't quite resemble civil war in Benghazi. Sophisticated hasn't emerged from anything I've seen in the Consulate attack. Mere numbers from a local militia could have taken the Benghazi compound.

    What would complex look like? hitting their safe house first. Hitting a vehicle in transit. Any of these items would have shown some sophisticated response. Looking at a freaking calendar is not complicated, well not for a Benghazi militia member, maybe for a Republican.

    Sophisticated. This term really bugs me when I read it from journalists who claim to know what they're talking about. They cover bombings from a cart view. "today this occurred" then Lindsey Lohan. That isn't a very deep knowledge even if they thought about it twice as long.

    6. Calendar event: Wolf Blitzer and Mike Rogers had a blow fest on the show the other day. Bulfie was self-congratulating in concluding that this was tied to 9-11. The moron didn't realize that this wasn't very hard to conclude. If he would actually do some journalism he would say, "In July, a film was uploaded by..." stop by discussing how groups in mideast pay attention to these activities in their blogs, react to it and organize. He'd have told you about the Grand Mufti reaction on September 9th and the planned protest in Cairo...on the 9th! But no...wanna know what he reported on the 9th? He was discussing SEAL authors book and other items, not about what the Grand Mufti was saying in Cairo. His interest in Cairo is zero until a headline bursts.

    If he'd been paying attention, Terry Jones had planned a Mohammed Trial day. this is rather provokative, but we ignore Terry Jones, now don't we. In America, they love to say ...Freedom of Speech. But they never include...Freedom to criticize that shit.

    Terry Jones and the extremists who feed off him are two parts of a coin that nobody seems ready to talk about. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who even sought to blame Jews and Israeli's for his anti-Muslim hatred, and all the Pam Gellers who feed the anti-muslim narrative of extremists....they are like perfect copy writers for Al Qaida. Who needs Adam Ghadan when you have Pam Geller!

    Last:
    Americans don't understand Libya or many other regions of the world. The very simplistic news they are getting fed offers no distinction for the viewer to learn about the many groups vying for power and a stake in a new country. This isn't simply about "islamic extremist" garbage. This is about local politics, again.

    With just over a week until American Elections, the GOP effort to fan the flames on this issue, the same way they did with Fast and Furious will likely not get a quick deep look by the average citizens. It will require too many details. But if in the coming days more information comes clear that the GOP are flat wrong, that would be enough to disarm their nonsense on Libya.

    If I were them?
    I'd admit we were wrong about the timeline and are willing to focus on security of the delegation. This leaves room for criticism on who could have protected the delegates in Libya.
    Second. Show that they understand POTUS doesn't assign embassy protection, though POTUS can examine embassy and consulate protection. After a while, it is handled by StateDept via contracts. If you want that changed, talk about it honestly. That would require admitting Libya is chaotic and it isn't up to America how many troops they want to bring in. That is arrogant policy and amounts to an invasion. They should evaluate what could have been done to protect that ambassador and be sober about it.

    Fanning the flames polishes the gold on the medals of those who seek to drive the US out of Libya. The GOP isn't very bright about this obviously.

    And before the Democrats get too giddy. They haven't a very good tact on any of this either. They start following the GOP out of political fear. Get a damn backbone and that doesn't happen so easily.

    Film? What Film?


    by Michael McCollum (not verified) on Sat, 10/20/2012 - 9:39pm

    Agree "With just over a week until American Elections, the GOP effort to fan the flames on this issue, the same way they did with Fast and Furious will likely not get a quick deep look by the average citizens."

    How about O pulling an etch-a sketch move, and going bellicose War President?

    "Enhanced interrogation has led us to several terror cells in the region, and we plan to take them out with advanced tactical weapons fired from space platforms..... The weapon system and formal protocol for use are under review and are classified top secret. We will not seek any permission slip from the UN to defend ourselves or our people."

    He then says he will work across the aisle for emergency Congressional approval. Romney would be speechless, as would the punditry. Generals would be back on the networks talking weaponry, just like the heydays of shock and awe.

    Would this give O a bounce in the polls or what?

     


    by NCD on Sat, 10/20/2012 - 10:55pm

    Thanks, NCD. How about something along the lines of "Today we have sent ground troops into Syria to secure chemical weapons."


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 9:58am

    Zapping terrorists with secret weapons in space is very Reagan, sending in ground troops is George W., we tried that, it didn't turn out well. This is all snark of course, but with our useless TeeVee press and punditry, who present all the Republican fantasies as legitimate policy, why not use all the tools in the Presidential toolbox? 


    by NCD on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 10:57am

    Michael, thanks for commenting. That's a lot to digest. I think your point about the proximity and ease of transmission from Cairo to Benghazi is extremely perceptive and one I have not seen commented on much heretofore.


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 10:04am

    the republican sycophantic trolls have been grasping at straws and it seems the one labeled Benghazi is hitting the nerve they're looking for ... they're getting the knee-jerk reaction they need to reframe the debate in their terms.

    it doesn't matter the facts they're using to frame the argument have flaws ... it's the flaws that they believe are true and debatable/arguable.

    i find it amazing there are people allowing a political party to politicize an event where people died just to score points ... the attack on the embassy and deaths are not issues to be used to as a political football ... it's not a game.

    Obama could very well lose the election on the pivotal point republicans claiming he's weak willed using the embassy attack as their weapon of choice.


    by Beetlejuice on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 7:46am

    Thanks, Beetle. This so called leak to the New York Times about the status of agreements with Iran has upped the ante for this debate. Looking at the closeness of this election, as per A-Man on his new post, this debate will either stop the erosion in fragments to Romney and solidify Obama's small lead, or make the election even more of a jump ball than it is already.

    The NYT article changed the wording of its original post---which just adds to the confusion. Nevertheless, is there anyone who thinks the first question tomorrow will be on anything other than Iran?

    Romney has in his stockpile the fact that security in Benghazi was not enough to prevent the deaths of four of our people there. He also has the potential weapon of accusing Obama of "leaking" the information about the Iran talks to bolster his claim that his Administration has made progress. The success of these two attacks will be pivotal to Romney's success in the debate overall. I hope Obama comes out swinging on both counts. I assume the surrogates will fight this out on the morning talk shows, which I won't be watching.

    If Obama at least comes to a draw on the security issue and wins on the issue of political motivation in terms of the so called leak---which is in essence rank speculation with no facts to support it--- he stands to make a very strong case of firm and balanced leadership vs the leading with one's chin philosophy of Mitt Romney.

    With the increased importance of this debate, I think Obama's tie-ins to domestic policy become even more critical. I think Obama has not taken the opportunity to challenge Romney's core message---that he's a job creator. I want Obama to refute this core message and I think he has an opportunity to do so as part of any discussion on China. How the f#$k can Romney, exhibit A for closing plants and outsourcing jobs to China, claim any credentials for job creation?

    I don't agree with the thought that Obama should refrain from getting "hot". Not getting hot means losing even more of the white male vote---if that's possible.

     


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 10:26am

    Very interesting blog! Where are you getting your election day/night coverage? The Atlas Project is going to have great election night coverage with a clips service, results updates, night-of analysis, and state-by-state digests. Check them out: atlasproject.net.


    by CTW (not verified) on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 8:46pm