Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney will deliver a foreign policy speech today at VMI in Lexington. Expect to see the above video aired all over Virginia as soon as the speech is given.
Foreign policy is obviously Romney’s weakest area. His worst misstep in this arena so far was during the attack in Benghazi.
The accurate statement would be “Obama’s worst mistake was during the attacks in Benghazi”. This is a no-brainer. The administration knowingly lied to the American people for weeks during and after the attacks, concocting an absolutely ludicrous story about a youtube video to push a “politically-correct” agenda when they knew full well that it was a terrorist attack. Not everybody out here is stupid….sorry.
Maybe that’s why you support Romney…another ready fire aim kinda guy. That is incredibly dangerous in today’s world, especially dealing with foreign policy.
Since you were there and saw the whole thing, they probably should have called you about it. NOT.
Your statement is just ludicrous.
Except that the administration is now agreeing with Slow, as are many news outlets.
The administration DID lie about the Benghazi attack.
@Moon-howler
Like I said, sorry, but everyone who isn’t a hyper-partisan liberal didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. However, maybe you’ll get lucky and enough people are “Honey Boo-Boo” enough to give Obama a second term?!?!
@Cargosquid
Not really. Now why would they say that? What a crock.
Let’s stop trying to make political hay out of a still volatile situation. Stop saying the administration lied. Do you want me to say that you lied?
If you think someone lied, call them out by name. If I were going to criticize the administration I would say that too many people were making statements early on that ended up conflicting, based on incomplete information.
Mitt Romney was totally out of line in what he said about it.
@SlowpokeRodriguez
I hope you’ll enjoy his second term. Does that mean we won’t have to listen to 4 years of your whining?
Cargo, you are trying to obfuscate and blur the lines between 2 separate incidents: Cairo and Benghazi. If you go back through the time line, you will see the error. It is the same one bill O’reilly got called on in the rumble.
Do not tell me that some of the people on the street in Egypt weren’t stirred up by incendiary rhetoric and video. Of course they were.
Yes, lets act reflexively and not with calm and facts. Worked out well in Iraq…..NOT. I don’t know all the facts, they are still coming out. But I do know this, the subsequent uprising by Libyians against the militias was fabulous. THAT kind of reaction is what we want to promote. Had impulsive Romeny shot his mouth off, its very possible that seed of sanity could have been extinguished. I find it interesting that the big story of the Libyian people has been completely ignored by certain people on this blog. THAT is a shame, it really is. How does comprehensive change happen in the middle east, by supporting THOSE people who rise up against the violence. but maybe some people here are so anti muslim that they are incapable of acknowling that reality.
So Cargo, here is how both Moon and I feel, the adminstration did not lie, they waited for the facts before they made a statement. Here is the crux of the matter, you can’t find any positive aspects of this administration and its old. At least with the Iraq war and tax cuts we could debate policy. But you don’t debate policy, you and slow, simply throw out anti obama statments that resolve nothing. It’s old. Take it elsewhere. If you want to debate policy you are welcome here, but throwing constant stink bombs at will, well, take your bombs elsewhere.
Was there lack of security at the consulate, possible, was their confusion during the violent outbreak, yes. It it worthy to understand the events to determine what, if anything, can be improved to protect our diplomats, absolutely. However, your diatribes do nothing to promote valuable conversation and we are simply tired of it.
Same odds as you not whining if Romney wins.
Romney invoked the memory of GEN George Marshall and quoted him often in his speech at VMI. He also talked a lot about U.S. commitment to Israel and how he’d make it stronger while Obama makes it weaker. In weaving together his various remarks about the wisdom of GEN Marshall and what a friend Israel will have in Romney, Romney failed to mention that as Secretary of State Marshall was the leading opponent of recognition of Israel. Marshall argued that there were a lot of communist amongst the Jews, that conflict would be inevitable and the U.S. should not get involved, and that we had stronger interests in Arab oil than in the creation of a Jewish state. Marshall even threatened that if President Truman recognized Israel Marshall would vote against him in the next election. [In the Palin version of this historical moment GEN Marshall then ran out of the White House, jumped on his horse, and rode through DC ringing a bell and firing a musket into the air yelling “the Russians are coming to take our guns, the Russians are coming.”]
http://goo.gl/BYDNh
@Moe
more cognitive dissonence. It does seem that Romney wove together some rather conflicting ideas, doesn’t it.
I was busy wondering why his hair was glistening.
Sounded to me like Romney was criticizing Obama for not doing more to help transitional governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. These governments are dominated by sharia law so it is odd to hear Romney support sharia law in the Middle East. We should continue foreign aid to these countries because we have a stake in these countries’ transition, so I agree with Mr Romney on that point.
Liberals
Liberals made his hair glisten? How very interesting.
Moe, don’t let pesky facts get in the way of Romney, it sooooo inconvienent!
Giving props to the man who adamantly opposed one of the main premises of your presentation is a tough tightrope to walk; like quoting Paula Deen in admiration during a talk about the virtues of Weight Watchers.
No, liberals care why his hair is glistening.
That’s all you got, huh? I can live with that.
These posts remind me of the wisdom of the Eastern Fathers: “Contradiction and contentiousness come from deceit, a companion of unbelief and haughtiness.” The Philokalia
Was Romney eligible for service when his country needed him?
Moe makes a good comment. The others about cowboy diplomacy miss the mark totally as te Administration had to admit it misled. So not seeing it for what it was is pretty partisan.
If your going to beat Romney for going to VMI (where I want to send the little ones) I’d beat him up for wanting to be the CIC without ever having worn the uniform.
@Moon-howler
Where did I mention Cairo?
It is now known that the administration knew that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack within 24 hours. Yet both Obama and Clinton continued to push that the ambassador was killed by demonstrators for 6 days.
They lied.
There, I called them out by name.
I did not mention Cairo.
@Elena
Apparently you have reading comprehension problems. I argue policy quite often. But that is always discounted and I’m told that I’m just filled with hate. As you are apparently doing NOW. The fact that the administration obfuscated the true nature of the attack in Benghazi and its complete failure to secure the consulate has been revealed by numerous news outlets. I am discussing the policy of falsehood that this administration has followed. I am discussing the manner in which, when I discussed their replies to protests, they did not forthrightly state that Americans had the right to free speech, that the gov’t supports the right to free speech, and that no one has the right to advocate violence in response to that free speech, and finally, that any attacks on embassies would be met with force.
It appears that any criticism of policy is just labeled :hate” and disregarded.
But then, I expect that. Because that’s how any criticism of this administration is handled and any criticism of o liberalism is handled. It seems to have infected this blog. It didn’t use to be this way.
Funny, even though I followed this case fairly carefully, I don’t quite recall it the same way. What I see in front of me is a reinvention of facts. However, I don’t make it a practice to go around calling people liars.
I see spin and fault finding rather than an attempt to discover the truth.
I basically just think you are full of crap.
You obviously have your own special version of what really happen and you have your own facts beamed in to you.
@Elena
And Elena, the above quote was all I said at first. THAT is not a diatribe.
My #22 is a diatribe in response to your statement.
Military Times Poll: Romney 66%, Obama 26%
Romney sought 4 deferments for the Vietnam War Draft – 3 for academic purposes, and 1 because his Church needed him. Missionaries for the Mormon Church were granted deferments. I do not know if other religions were eligible for deferments.
@pat i think it depends on what year the deferments were granted. deferments changed from year to year back then.
Of course Romney will never endure the ration of crap Bill Clinton took for not serving. Funny. Bill Clinton is about 6 months older than Romney. Bill Clinton was also enrolled in college, first undergraduate then graduate school. Under normal circumstances, the older people had easier draft deferment rules than those who came later.
Shame on Clinton. Good boy Romney.
I smell a hypocritical rat. Funny that there are simply two different standards being applied here.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who didn’t try to get out of that mess is nuts so I am glad both of them escaped going to fight someone else’s war.
Once again, Cargo from his home, sitting behind a computer, has more knowledge than many who possess a Top Secret clearences!
Cargo, do tell, how is that you know so much more than our officials!
Slow, for some bizarre inexplicable reason, the military voted republican, always has and this poll is no different. you’d think after the Iraq debacle they might have altered their opinion about who is looking out for them.
Don’t need a TS/SCI to read NY Times.
“It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday. “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”
Romney may be a pinko liberal but on this point he smacked your guy but good.
The point is, no one knew what the story was during the middle of it and Romney should have kept his UNAMERICAN yap shut and not criticized anyone in the middle of a crisis. He was responding to the Cairo embassy response, not Benghazi. Pure chronology of who knew what when bears this out.
The administration still doesn’t know all the details behind the Benghazi attack. The crime area has been too compromised.
I have no respect for Romney because of his inappropriate remarks. In my opinion, he is unfit for office because of his words. I might feel differently if he had walked it back. He hasn’t and he wont.
More importantly, some of you on here back him up for calling the President of the United States disgraceful in the middle of a crisis, when no one knew any of the real facts.
That behavior certainly detracts from your veracity. It tells me anything to destroy Obama. Anything.
Ron Paul?
The military will vote for Romney because he will increase defense spending.
Pains me to say this, but there is truth in this. Ron Paul is the right answer, but if you can’t have Paul, Romney is second choice. Obama? Uhhh.No.
@Elena
How do I know so much? It was on the news, even those that support Obama. How did you miss it? Even MSNBC was running that the administration knew that it was a terrorist attack within 48 hours, even while the State department was still blaming the attacks on “demonstrators.” And then, finally, the admin ADMITTED that it knew.
And again, I was talking about Benghazi. I was not talking about Romney or Cairo. We had that discussion. I was commenting PURELY on Slow’s statement about Benghazi.
I watch msnbc and I don’t recall them calling it a terrorist attack. Now, who gets to determine a terrorist attack? A TV station? I don’t think so.
If you think back to incidents before Obama, you will recall that not everything was immediately declared a terrorist attack, even thought it ultimately was. The term was used very judiciously.
If someone starts firing shells at you, is that terrorism? How does that differ from say the battle of Iwo Jima? Was the London Blitz terrorism?
Are all attacks terrorism?
Hiding explosives in your underwear is terrorism. Parking a howitzer in front of your compound and firing away…maybe…maybe not.
The jury is still out on exactly who was involved.
And if you think that stupid video wasn’t a part of getting the average unemployeed Joe on the street out to protest, then I have a bridge for sale. To dismiss that video is about as stupid as dismissing The Satanic Verses as a cause for a hit to be placed on Salman Rushdie. It doesn’t take much to set off unrest.
All of this talk is to be dismissive of the President. It made me sick when it was at Bush and it makes me sick that it is at Obama.
What has infected this blog? Hatred and rudeness for starters. We have witnessed enough vitriol and have been treated rudely enough that I simply not longer care. Logging on to the blog is about as stimulating as turning on Fox and friends. I know whats there before I even see the screen.
It really does make me sick. Basically I log on to make sure that there’s not something on here that is going to get me sued.
The Obama administration has admitted Benghazi was a terror attack. The only difference was one of timing. I do not know what this argument is about.
The real argument is over the defense budget. If he wins, expect Romney to increase defense spending, with subsequent increases to the deficit. Expect Romney and his neocons to employ our military throughout the Middle East. If that’s what you want, and you don’t care about deficits, Romney is your man.
I would like to change the word “admitted” to “determined.”
Romney plans to spend huge amounts of money on defense spending.
What happened to Starry? It’s point is something I really agree with.
“I watch msnbc and I don’t recall them calling it a terrorist attack. Now, who gets to determine a terrorist attack?”
I provided a quote showing the White House Press Secretary admitting it was a terrorist attack. If you wish to refute the White House that’s on you but it’s not a FoxNews thing.
huh? I said that not Starry. I questioned who get to determine when something was a terrorist attack or not. The United States government will make that determination, not the press or other countries, if it is against us. MSNBC is part of the press and I don’t think they get to make that determination. They don’t have all the facts nor is it their job to do so.
Last I checked the White House Press Secretary spoke for the White House. Do they have cross signals? You betcha. Remember CJ on West Wing?
@Moon-howler
Its the cover up that always gets you. Here its not so much the initial “determination” as much as how that determination failed in the face of the on the ground facts. What that failure then unleashed was some serious investigation work that I don’t think the Administration anticipated or bargained for — from CBS. Now its more about what the Ambassador asked for, what he warned agaisnt, when, and who said no to more security and then actually reduced the security going into the 9/11 anniversary. Its a question of competence.