dagblog - Comments for "Foreign Policy Debate: Please proceed, Governor. "

I do not know what this

Richard Day — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:00:25 +0000

In reply to Administration denies report

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.

Very interesting blog! Where

CTW — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:46:11 +0000

In reply to Foreign Policy Debate: Please proceed, Governor.

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.

Zapping terrorists with

NCD — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:57:19 +0000

In reply to Thanks, NCD. How about

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?

Thanks, Beetle. This so

Oxy Mora — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:26:10 +0000

In reply to the republican sycophantic

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.

Michael, thanks for

Oxy Mora — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:04:06 +0000

In reply to While I can't count on DNC

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.

Thanks, NCD. How about

Oxy Mora — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:58:45 +0000

In reply to Agree "With just over a week

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

the republican sycophantic

Beetlejuice — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:46:07 +0000

In reply to Foreign Policy Debate: Please proceed, Governor.

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.

Agree "With just over a week

NCD — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:55:04 +0000

In reply to While I can't count on DNC

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?

While I can't count on DNC

Michael McCollum — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:39:15 +0000

In reply to Foreign Policy Debate: Please proceed, Governor.

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?