Romney hits Obama on foreign policy failures

Like I said - the differences between each individual instance be it Syria, Libya or Iraq are staggering. That you are unable to understand this does'nt surprise e, it reminds me of the American tourist asking if he can see London from Hawaii.

That makes no sense, and doesn't answer the question. The liberal way - confuse them with what you pretend to know, when you actually know nothing.

bass4funkOct. 10, 2012 - 08:01AM JST As if Europe is in a fantastic situation politically and economically. Amazing!

What is so amazing to you? We are. You, guys, don't have any choice. You have choice just like in Russia. You have been given two people to choose from, where one is a Romney/Putin/Bush type and the other is the one who can't do anything, but to continue what the former one had started. Even Greece with Spain have better elections. And the economy is irrelevant. Look at China.

"so which is it - are we involved because of the President's 'wise' decisions, or are we not involved? For you it seems to be just a matter of how you wish to spin it for the most favorable light."

Like I said - the differences between each individual instance be it Syria, Libya or Iraq are staggering. That you are unable to understand this does'nt surprise e, it reminds me of the American tourist asking if he can see London from Hawaii.

@Konsta

I guess, the US might want to consider building a European style democracy, for a change, instead of a two-party system. It seems that the Republicans can not give birth to anything better than a clone of Bush, and the Democrats are not able to change anything. The choice is between prolonged crisis and the return to Bush' times. And one might think that it is Japan, which is in political stagnation, heh.

As if Europe is in a fantastic situation politically and economically. Amazing!

@Mirai

Why should he? That's what taxes are... Both Romney and Obama are going to tax you; you're voting on who >the tax money goes to:

True.

Difference is, is that with Obama, he'll tax me and the rest of the country in oblivion as we are already seeing. I don't see Obama taking these high gas prices seriously either. At least with Romney, I know he's not going to tax me out of existence and he's NOT going to stand for these high oil prices.

@Tumb

Go on YouTube and search for his FoxNews interview with O'Reilly. He wanted to go after OBL but was refused the option.

Search informations before posting, please. Not the first time.

Believe me, I already did, that has nothing to do or having it done, period. Of course, I saw that interview. The point is, he could have overrode the option and for some reason he did, he was President at the time, therefore whether he got OBL or not is irrelevant at that point. He didn't get him. That is the result.

Americans have seen Obama's foreign policy plan: Bow deeply and turn over the Middle East to the American-hating terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood. I prefer Romney's plan because the Neville Chamberlain approach of appeasment and "hope" is not a strategy.

RR

Huh?

You:

More rubbish. It is the neighbours supplying the weapons, mostly the Saudi's not the US. Not getting involved in Syria is a very wise move from Obama,

You a few posts up from that:

The screaming from you guys in pathetic attempts at politicizing the attack in Libya is particularly poignant, especially as Obama more or less financed last years revolution from behind the scenes, supplying just about 100% of the ordinance the Brits and French dropped on Gaddafi's forces.

so which is it - are we involved because of the President's 'wise' decisions, or are we not involved? For you it seems to be just a matter of how you wish to spin it for the most favorable light.

The screaming from you guys in pathetic attempts at politicizing the attack in Libya is particularly poignant, especially as Obama more or less financed last years revolution from behind the scenes, supplying just about 100% of the ordinance the Brits and French dropped on Gaddafi's forces.

What about the Israeli/Pal conflict? Which position is the multi-choice Romney using today?

Well, frankly I'm not sure about the President's stance as well. He seems to just refuse to meet and talk to the Israelis at all. Funny way to act towards an ally.

The difference between instigating an invasion and supporting an internal uprising are so staggering that nothing I ever post will get through to your clamshell mind.

Now that's outright funny. For years conservative administrations backed and funded anti-communist uprisings, and for years liberals decried that we were 'supporting, harboring and instigating' war and destruction. So it's only okay if your side does it eh? What are your staggering differences? Arming and supplying a rebel force to do your dirty work (essentially kill them off so we don't have to risk our own) is as old a war itself. Now you're claiming that as the liberal way?? Well I'll be double-dipped in chocolate sh___! I've now heard it all.

The inconceivability of listening to left wingers whine on about the policies of a previous administration that have apparently left their choice incapable of doing anything of much good for the country in four years of effort is maddening.

Oh, and Tiger,

I repeat, if you can show me how him proposing to increase defence spending, cutting taxes or any of the recent suggestions on his middle east policy either differ from that of his predecessor Bush, or have roots in any sane line of thinking in light of the recent past - then buddy, Iet's hear 'em......

" So 'getting Bin Laden' (again, I seem to recall reading this was the result of years of intelligence - your boy just gave the word to go) "

Rubbish - mission failure would have effectively ended his presidency. It was political poker of the highest order.

"and supplying the weapons to kill in Syria is the strongest arguments for successful foreign policy?"

More rubbish. It is the neighbours supplying the weapons, mostly the Saudi's not the US. Not getting involved in Syria is a very wise move from Obama, the problem may get a damned sight worse when Assad end up on the front of a pick-up truck. Again, lessons learnt from Iraq, inter religious slaughter with the Christian population and other minorities decimated....

Are you trying to prove my point about how insane Romney's Syria comments are?

What about the Israeli/Pal conflict? Which position is the multi-choice Romney using today?

"Really? Oh, and since you like to harp on Bush being a 'killer' because of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you don't give the same label to Obama for - as you say - "supplying just about 100% of the ordinance the Brits and French dropped on Gaddafi's forces" which inadvertently kills civilians as inevitably happens in war in Libya? The liberal cry - hypocrisy and blame George Bush. It isn't working anymore - time for you lot to go."

The difference between instigating an invasion and supporting an internal uprising are so staggering that nothing I ever post will get through to your clamshell mind.

The irony of listening to extreme right wingers that surely voted for Bush, that don't want to hear a word mentioned about the man - as Romney runs on an amazingly similar platform is pretty damned hilarious to the rest of us, and another reason the Republicans will be out there howling from the wilderness for the foreseeable future.

Notalotofsense - not sure what you're on about. The only ones I called lunatics are the 9/11 conspiracy theorists - who for the most part are the more loony fringe of the liberal world. Where in my narrative did I say anything about water-boarding, bombing or shooting anyone? This story is about Romney's attack on the President's foreign policy. Madverts went with the typical blame Bush liberal parrot, and I called him/her on it. I don't think that referencing the previous administration is good practice in defending the failures of the current administration. That's all. If by that you mean the previous administration's policy of waging war after we were unjustly attacked - well, again then you are doing the same thing. Besides, water-boarding isn't exactly foreign policy but rather a discussion of the rules of military engagement and information gathering.

To that point, again Madverts my point is not to go into great lengths on how I might think Mitt's foreign policy would differ from the previous administrations, but rather a simple disgust at the idea that rather than address Romney's points on how he might handle foreign policy matters under his administration if he were elected, you just start talking about George Bush.

The subject isn't Obama's foreign policy, it is Romney's - which as far as I can see is a mirror image of the sabre rattling lunacy we saw from the Bush years. Describing my post a "rant" without having the decency to address even one sole point is what is telling, TigermothII.

Actually the subject is Romney's assessment of the failure of the Presidents foreign policy (or a better term might be it's ineffectiveness). Now you might consider George Bush's foreign policy to be failure as well - and likely a far more epic failure in the sense that war is never a desirable outcome. Fair enough. But statements like:

Like I said, you'd be better polishing that argument no one believes that you didn't really vote for Bush twice like many others posting on this thread (heh, all but one under new identities), than suggesting today's Republicans have anything other than more lunacy on offer as foreign policy.

just show that rather than take on Romney's foreign policy vision, or rather than address the failure of your candidate to really have an effective foreign policy these past four years, you just starts the old Bush, Bush, BushBushbush.......

Very annoying, and not effective argument. So 'getting Bin Laden' (again, I seem to recall reading this was the result of years of intelligence - your boy just gave the word to go) and supplying the weapons to kill in Syria is the strongest arguments for successful foreign policy? Really? Oh, and since you like to harp on Bush being a 'killer' because of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you don't give the same label to Obama for - as you say - "supplying just about 100% of the ordinance the Brits and French dropped on Gaddafi's forces" which inadvertently kills civilians as inevitably happens in war in Libya? The liberal cry - hypocrisy and blame George Bush. It isn't working anymore - time for you lot to go.

SerranoOct. 09, 2012 - 10:24PM JST @Konsta - European style democracy like Greece or Spain?

Like Sweden of Finland, for example. I don't really orient myself on what Obama's people are saying or not saying. Honestly, one should not even be a rocket scientist to be able to make a pairwise comparison. Romney has already said so much, that he will meet troubles everywhere he goes in foreign politics. He says aggressive things, because he doesn't yet know the real state of affairs, which Obama knows. If he will become the future US president and realize how things really are, he will not be allowed to do things as he said, but will do things, which should be done and with whom they should be done. Yet there is already a stamp on his front of an aggressive leader, who is going to disregard opinion and stance of the others, opponents and allies alike. He will end up like Bush, hopefully without creating another war, thousands of dead and a disaster state in Iran or somewhere else.

Tigerlily,

but because they're all a bunch of lunatics, the focus must be on the ME

OK to bomb, shoot, waterboard and extraordinarily render (Orwell would have been damned proud of that phrase) them then.

Ever stopped to consider what they (or indeed the rest of the world) think about you? Not that it matters, of course. Just dismiss them as Rumsfeld did with 'Old Europe'.

"So in other words, judging by your entire rant, you can't do what was asked and put aside the George Bush thing to give the real merits of the President's foreign policy."

The subject isn't Obama's foreign policy, it is Romney's - which as far as I can see is a mirror image of the sabre rattling lunacy we saw from the Bush years. Describing my post a "rant" without having the decency to address even one sole point is what is telling, TigermothII.

On the contrary, Obama's foreign policy has been a relative success compared the W. The screaming from you guys in pathetic attempts at politicizing the attack in Libya is particularly poignant, especially as Obama more or less financed last years revolution from behind the scenes, supplying just about 100% of the ordinance the Brits and French dropped on Gaddafi's forces. Despite that involvement, over 60% of Libyan's have a positive view of the US, and they even rallied around to kick out the Islamic nuts responsible for the attacks on the embassy themselves. Compare that to Iraq or Afghanbistan and get back to me......

Obviously you can't show me any substance on Romney's foreign policy, because like every other policy from team Romney, substance is a reoccurring missing element;

But if you can show me how him proposing to increase defence spending, cutting taxes or any of the recent suggestions on his middle east policy either differ from that of his predecessor Bush, or have roots in any sane line of thinking in light of the recent past - then buddy, Iet's hear 'em......

So in other words, judging by your entire rant, you can't do what was asked and put aside the George Bush thing to give the real merits of the President's foreign policy. I find that very telling, if not somewhat tiring. Folks are starting to wake up to the idea that at this point placing blame on past administrations will not get us to the point we need to be.

And again, you ignore all and give the President full credit for the total of the Bin Laden raid. Naturally there was no effort or planning until he entered office. We could be reminded that Slick Willie Clinton's denuding of our intelligence agencies during his tenure helped to ensure 9/11 planning was something of a surprise (except for the lunatic conspiracy theorists on the left of course) - but rather than lay blame, we move forward. You seem to be hesitant to do this. Curios or telling?

"Oh come on - can we drop the George Bush thing now?? It's for years later, let's just judge the President on the merits of what he has - or has not accomplished, shall we?"

Agreed, let's put our hands on our ears and see who can scream "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" the loudest when it comes to being honest about the hand Obama was dealt - and I'm not just talking the Middle East here, I'm talking about the mess left by the worst American president in modern history.

"You speak as if focus shouldn't be on the Middle East - well, I would actually agree, but because they're all a bunch of lunatics, the focus must be on the ME because that's where the greatest threat lies."

The whole world doesn't revolve around the Middle East, unlike the empty foreign policy Mitt has suggested. Romney's comments about "the Syrians that share our values" couldn't be more ridiculous, even coming out of the mouth of a Republican. This is the exact same mental sickness that deluded itself into thinking Iraqi's would be throwing BBQ's in honour of the invading troops, and finally being able to express their secret desires to hold monster truck extravaganza's and play baseball.

"I like the way it was a 'ballsy night raid' under a liberal administration; if it were done by a Republican president there would be outrage that we went into another country without their real permission, and horror that we killed him without trial."

We saw "it done" by a Republican. Hello? He ordered the ground invasion with hundreds of thousands of boots of one nation and promptly let Ossma get away, and then he amazingly invaded another country, one that had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden, against the advice of usual allies and all common sense with another few hundred thousand boots on the ground. And all this action with borrowed money that you've yet to pay back I'll add, bloating the deficit once more.

Obama, on his attempt, used 30 boots and a couple of pretty cool choppers.

'Nuff said.

"Why should we be silent about foreign policy since it quite obviously plays such a big part in our world standing, and why shouldn't the President be brought to task for his foreign policy being so lacking? "

I've outlined why Republicans should be silent for the minute. Until you have a candidate that isn't offering more W Bush as Governer Romney is, then you should be hanging your heads in shame on foreign policy. Not only on how said deranged Republican foreign policy has weakened the US at home and abroad, but how many hundreds of thousands of lives it has cost across the board.

Blame - the standard strategy for losers if you ask me.

Ha - then why do liberal keep blaming Bush? Oh, guess you answered that here.

Oh come on - can we drop the George Bush thing now?? It's for years later, let's just judge the President on the merits of what he has - or has not accomplished, shall we? You speak as if focus shouldn't be on the Middle East - well, I would actually agree, but because they're all a bunch of lunatics, the focus must be on the ME because that's where the greatest threat lies. Ignoring it - much as the President currently does to Israel will not make it magically go away. I like the way it was a 'ballsy night raid' under a liberal administration; if it were done by a Republican president there would be outrage that we went into another country without their real permission, and horror that we killed him without trial. I sort of doubt Obama had very much to do with it, except to say 'go'. If you want to believe the President is unable to do anything because of 'Bush's mess' then why is the converse not true that something as lengthy as tracking down Osama was magically done totally under the current administration?

Why should we be silent about foreign policy since it quite obviously plays such a big part in our world standing, and why shouldn't the President be brought to task for his foreign policy being so lacking? Whether Democrat or Republican, that is an issue and an important piece in having a decent President.

Oh, and Old Hawk, I missed your point on it being Obama's fault that Iran is building the bomb.....

I hate to break into that tough ole bubble of classic Repub Denial there, but the Iranians fired up their nuclear program in earnest sometime in 2005. You remember, when the US was floundering in its' own made quagmire in Iraq next-door, effectively taking the credible threat of force from the table as the US took its eye off the ball.

Like I said, you'd be better polishing that argument no one believes that you didn't really vote for Bush twice like many others posting on this thread (heh, all but one under new identities), than suggesting today's Republicans have anything other than more lunacy on offer as foreign policy.

"Pretty effective at what, sparking riots? Getting ambassadors killed? Watching Iran build a nuclear weapon?"

President Obama sparked riots? Got an ambassador killed?

You see this is the exact sort of deranged comments I would expect from you Romney supporters, rather than the obvious successes, notably the Chuck Norris fantasy Obama denied and still has you peeing on, your own Cornflakes in despair when he bagged Osama in a ballsy night raid. Not to mention pulling out of the Republican made mess in Iraq or his attempts to extract you from another costly and failed mistake in Afghanistan.

Judging by Romney's speech, where whole continents like Latin America or Africa were utterly ignored, or where Russia and China only briefly got a mention, clearly foreign policy for the inexperienced Mitt is simply contained to the Middle East.

After the abject disaster of the last Republican president, you would think that a modicum of good grace and integrity would be for you Republicans to be silent when it comes to foreign policy.

Madverts:

Romney is secretly working for the Democrats, it's the only answer for such a moronic outburst on a sitting president who's foreign policy has actually been pretty effective.

Pretty effective at what, sparking riots? Getting ambassadors killed? Watching Iran build a nuclear weapon?

@Konsta - European style democracy like Greece or Spain?

And are you saying that re-electing Obama would prolong a crisis? But Obama is saying things are getting better. And you're saying Romney is a clone of Bush? The Obama people aren't saying that.

I guess, the US might want to consider building a European style democracy, for a change, instead of a two-party system. It seems that the Republicans can not give birth to anything better than a clone of Bush, and the Democrats are not able to change anything. The choice is between prolonged crisis and the return to Bush' times. And one might think that it is Japan, which is in political stagnation, heh.

"How is this possible? Isn't Obama a great president, and isn't Romney clearly a bad choice?"

It's hard to tell what goes on in the heads of the faithful, listening to the victims in the Romney camp.

When Obama is doing well, the polls are biased along with the lapdog media.

Blame - the standard strategy for losers if you ask me.

"Some national polls showed the candidates once more neck-and-neck"

How is this possible? Isn't Obama a great president, and isn't Romney clearly a bad choice?

This from the muppet who goes to foreign countries and keeps putting his foot in his mouth... plonker!

"“In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets,” Romney said."

The man is clearly off his head. Syrians that share his values? It's bad enough offending traditional allies with his incompetence, let alone letting off sound bytes akin to equally unhinged Bush-era delusions that the US would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators.

Romney is secretly working for the Democrats, it's the only answer for such a moronic outburst on a sitting president who's foreign policy has actually been pretty effective.

Gee, VRWC, I guess it depends on how you define "victory." Gaddafi is gone with no American deaths and minimal cost while the majority of Libyans remain so pro-American that the American ambassador apparently felt safe enough to visit areas with minimal security.

Security Team Commander Says Ambassador Stevens Wanted His Team to Stay in Libya Past August

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News.

The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-team-commander-says-ambassador-stevens-wanted-his-team-to-stay-in-libya-past-august-2/

Really wish Obama would walk back on his "income redistribution remarks."

Why should he? That's what taxes are... Both Romney and Obama are going to tax you; you're voting on who the tax money goes to:

Romney = the rich and corporation or Obama = people who really need it.

Tatanka.

Respect begets respect. If some crank in the Middle East made a movie featuring Christ as a rent boy, how would that go down (no pun intended) in Middle America?

Laguna, are you calling the current debacle in Libya a "major foreign policy victory"?!? The Stevens family may not agree with you.

Gee, VRWC, I guess it depends on how you define "victory." Gaddafi is gone with no American deaths and minimal cost while the majority of Libyans remain so pro-American that the American ambassador apparently felt safe enough to visit areas with minimal security.

Compare that to Iraq. Would you as an American feel comfortable traveling anywhere in that country, despite the hundreds of billions America spent there (not to mention the appalling death toll)? Look at how Wikipedia describes the American Embassy in Baghdad:

The Embassy of the United States in Baghdad is the largest and most expensive of any embassy in the world. At 440,000 square meters it is nearly as large as Vatican City. It also employs 15,000 people and cost $750 million to build.

Steven's death was a tragedy; Romney's response to it has been farce. "Quiet diplomacy" a la Teddy Roosevelt is what is called for now; Romney's chest-thumping would only lead to very expensive counter-productivity.

"Under Bush, Qaddafi (sp) had renounced all weapons of mass destruction. THAT was a victory. The current situation is chaos."

Quick, Libya NEEDS to be invaded by America!

RomeoRll: How many? Is Libya already a US colony?

We only have to wait for the VP debate, I reckon. VP Biden is on record as the ONLY Obama cabinet member to have OPPOSED the operation to kill Bin Laden. That's gonna take some 'splaining, I think.

Laguna, are you calling the current debacle in Libya a "major foreign policy victory"?!? The Stevens family may not agree with you.

Under Bush, Qaddafi (sp) had renounced all weapons of mass destruction. THAT was a victory. The current situation is chaos.

Bass4funk: Clinton and 1998

Go on YouTube and search for his FoxNews interview with O'Reilly. He wanted to go after OBL but was refused the option.

Search informations before posting, please. Not the first time.

Another shoe has dropped in the Benghazigate scandal -- adding more fuel to the speculative fire about why the Obama administration seemed so motivated to coordinate a dishonest cover-up after the fact.

The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya said that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Wood told CBS News when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/10/08/bombshell_us_security_team_removed_from_benghazi_prior_to_attack_over_stevens_objections

Can't wait for their next debate when Obama (sans teleprompter) will try to defends his administration's foreign policy edicts that kills U.S. diplomats.

RR

Romney wrote in April 2011 in response to Obama's stated call for Qaddafi’s removal:

It is apparent that our military is engaged in much more than enforcing a no-fly zone. What we are watching in real time is another example of mission creep and mission muddle. In an op-ed in today’s Boston Herald, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton rightly notes that Obama has set himself up for “massive strategic failure” by demanding Qaddafi’s ouster “while restricting military force to the limited objective of protecting civilians.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265372/mission-muddle-libya-mitt-romney

He was not alone in Republican opposition to Obama's aid to Libyan rebels; he is also not alone in being completely wrong about it. Being on the losing side of a major American foreign policy victory, though, apparently is not enough to dissuade Romney from questioning Obama's patriotism:

It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

Despite Romney's plethora of foreign bank accounts, few Democrats would go so far as he did above; many would, though, point out that what Romney says is based far less on objective reality than on polling numbers and appearance. Angering the Russians and alienating the Palestinians simply for good press copy is absolutely dangerous and utterly irresponsible.

Ruck Unger at Forbes has more on Mitt's dishonesty here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/10/08/romney-foreign-policy-speech-brings-more-lies-and-reversals-in-positions/2/

Romney's plan to fix the unemployment problem seems to be conscript the 47% who make up America's underclass into the military, dress them in uniforms, train them and send them off to fight wars, where Haliburton and friends stand to profit nicely.

@SenseNotSoCommon: given a choice, which would you rather be, hated or respected? By Obama apologizing to everyone in the Middle East our enemies have seen this as a sign of US weaken -- they definitely don't like us there and the events of last month has shown we are not respected or feared. Do you want 4 more years of the same?

Is Mitt's idea of foreign policy to rub everyone (except Likud) the wrong way?

As for the unelicited revealing during a TV debate of plans to do away with one of America's few positive cultural icons, Sesame Street, is this the behavior of a strategic negotiator, or a reactionary muppet?

Let's hope that the US chooses NOT to have Big Bird for Thanksgiving, but gives a most deserving and juicy turkey a good roasting.

Mr Romney might beat Bush Jr in saving the desperated Arab people if he keep his words in actions! You know he is a Mormon and I respect their views and values when saving people out of havocs!

The president has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months,” Romney declared.

mr Romney, the middle east NEEDS you, Syrians want you, send US and Nato troops to Damacsus to 'POLICE' that part of the world, you will being 'GREATER' than Bush Jr has 'achieved' in Iraq ten years ago! There you go! I wish you good luck and by the way, keep your words and 'MEAN' it! No blank cheque, dont let your supporters down! Obama,Hillary were cowardices and a shame of America! America should get deep involvement in Syria, the business over there is where the 'future' of Americans is to be! The Syrian lives were too important than America's domestic problems and the Syrians will show their greatest 'GRATITUTES' to america's messiahnic rescue 30 years later maybe! Personal I hate all american politicans but I perfer the Republicans, they were 'my' friends in some kind of way!

War war war...it feeds the economy. Romney is so supportive of assisting Israel in its time of need. (Not needed)! First, how many Israeli troops were helping us fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? Second, Doesn't Israel have enough of their own nuclear missiles (built by guess who) to go to war if they think it'll be necessary. Obama is smart to play it cool instead of just getting into another waste of tax payer money.

@bass

Have to agree re. Clinton.

@Sushi

how could ANYONE in Washington "protect" an American stationed overseas against an angry mob? Increase security at the embassy? I'm sure security was strong enough considering the anticipated threats at the time.

Ahhh, sorry, but NO, it wasn't.

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-consulate-light-security-154745943.html;_ylt=A2KJjb2ZlnNQISEARIDQtDMD

Actually, it was almost below standard. So once again, the WH and the left want to spin it as if they did everything they could.

Typically conservative mentality. So this is somehow a problem when your boy GWB was DIRECTLY responsible for starting two wars that resulted in the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans, and that's 'OK'?

Started and Obama leading with Afghanistan, saying that was the REAL war we need to fight and root out Al Qaida. NOT only did your President kill people innocent and terrorists, but he used drones and decimated the areas that we can't even get a DNA sample. So in essence, you're saying bombing hundreds of them into oblivion is more acceptable, right?

@luca

By the same token, George W and the Republicans are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, given the lack of action after clear warnings.

The same then should be said about Bill Clinton who had a clear chance with snipers to take OBL out in 1998 but opted out. He should get the blame as well.

Not at all. How many times has the U.S. embassy over there in Syria been attacked by angry mobs?

U.S. pulls envoy from Syria over safety concerns

The United States has temporarily pulled its ambassador out of Syria as a "result of credible threats against his personal safety," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Monday, accusing Syria of "incitement" against Ambassador Robert Ford.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-24/middleeast/world_meast_syria-us-ambassador_1_ambassador-robert-ford-hama-imad-moustapha?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

Sail - "You've got to be kidding."

Not at all. How many times has the U.S. embassy over there in Syria been attacked by angry mobs?

Feel free to enlighten us - how could ANYONE in Washington "protect" an American stationed overseas against an angry mob?

There called Marines, Washington deploys them all the time for Embassy duty.

Increase security at the embassy?

On the Anniversary of 9/11 in the middle east? Seems to pretty much a no-brainer.

I'm sure security was strong enough considering the anticipated threats at the time.

You've got to be kidding.

@bass

So NO, Obama didn't kill anyone directly, but indirectly his actions and the actions of the White House or lack of contributed in getting this man killed.

By the same token, George W and the Republicans are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, given the lack of action after clear warnings.

“I know that America is going to come back, because I’ve seen the heart of the American people,”

I read an interesting article, maybe by Fareed Zakaria but I can't remember 100%, talking about Republicans and their talk of "coming back" and yadda yadda yadda. The comments try to appeal to a certain type of voter who has a nostalgic memory of the US. They try to sell you on the notion that the US is "gone" and it's the candidates job to "get it back" for everyone. Unfortunately, the statements work best if you don't think of things like racism. The crowds are mostly while, middle aged people. The more I hear Republicans talk about this the more I have to wonder what it is exactly they would like to "return" to.

At least Romney's "remarks" didn't get people killed...

Did you even read the article.............see below

“In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets,” Romney said.

Now do tell how the above wudnt get anybody killed?????

Hey Mitt you twit! Regarding Syria I have 2 words for you!

Bush, IRAQ!

Nuff said!

Barak Hussein Obama is directly responsible for the security of government employees

The man's name is "Barack", with a c. Strange how you pointedly include his middle name (trying to make some kind of point?) but can't even get his first name right.

Sail - "The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That's its most basic function."

I've got no problem whatsoever with that. What I do have a problem with is folks like you who appear to want to blame your president whenever anything goes wrong.

Feel free to enlighten us - how could ANYONE in Washington "protect" an American stationed overseas against an angry mob? Increase security at the embassy? I'm sure security was strong enough considering the anticipated threats at the time.

Seal Team Obama? C'mon.,.....

Bass - "So NO, Obama didn't kill anyone directly, but indirectly his actions and the actions of the White House or lack of contributed in getting this man killed."

Typically conservative mentality. So this is somehow a problem when your boy GWB was DIRECTLY responsible for starting two wars that resulted in the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans, and that's 'OK'?

What are you talking about?

Seems like the conservative crazies are out in force today....

When the State Department denied the request for extra security in Libya -- that's what I mean by getting Americans killed. I took a dose of reality -- which is -- Barak Hussein Obama is directly responsible for the security of government employees and he failed to do so by taking his soft, friendly approach to Muslims in the Middle East. Valerie Jarred can have Secret Service protection but not our ambassador in a war zone...

@bass4funk "I must have missed that news..."

And you must have missed 9/11, if you're grasping for a case study in missed warnings. You are asking for accountability now when you were surely singing a different tune a decade ago. The example of one top diplomat killed in a high risk country deserves hyper-scrutiny of missed warnings? How about the people who ignored intelligence briefings such as "Al Qaida Determined to Strike in the U.S." keeping their jobs for years after the worst terror attack in U.S. history.

I'm sorry, was the president acting as an embassy guard that day?

I must have missed that news...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/white-house-defends-changing-rhetoric-on-libya-attack/

48 hours heads up, even when the government of Benghazi contradicted what Susan Rice said about the spark of the riots were because of the video mocking Islam. So NO, Obama didn't kill anyone directly, but indirectly his actions and the actions of the White House or lack of contributed in getting this man killed.

Sushi,

On of President Obama's answers at last weeks debate.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That's its most basic function. And as commander in chief, that is something that I've worked on and thought about every single day that I've been in the Oval Office.

Except he already is..he's walked back the 47% remark

Really wish Obama would walk back on his "income redistribution remarks."

Tantanka, and Obama's did?

What are you taking?

At least Romney's "remarks" didn't get people killed...

Tatanka - "so what does she call Obama's for getting an ambassador and three embassy personnel killed"

Most intellectually lazy post of the week so far.

Obama got an ambassador and three embassy personnel killed? I'm sorry, was the president acting as an embassy guard that day?

I must have missed that news...

Who was forced to eat his words at the opening of the London Olympics?

Expressing legitimate concerns about the British citizens security and safety was just so undiplomatic.

"apology tours"

Tatanka has a short memory. Who was forced to eat his words at the opening of the London Olympics? It wasn't MSNBC that coined the phrase "Mitt the Twit."

If Romney can't even handle basic pleasantries at international sports events, what will he do in situations that require serious diplomatic skills? Lapse into French?

At least Romney won't go on any "apology tours"

Except he already is..he's walked back the 47% remark

At least Romney won't go on any "apology tours" after he is elected President. Madeleine Albright called Romney's foreign policy "dangerously vague" so what does she call Obama's for getting an ambassador and three embassy personnel killed? Hey, a bump in the road, I guess...

And now Mitt-meister is playing the "I'm -the - bigger - warfare-statist" card. Foreign policy is (another place) where both candidates are nothing but wrong, not only for the nation but also for the world. Who's the biggest bully for the bully pulpit.

Bring in on, punk.

And he want's to re-start the Cold War. What a visionary. And supply arms to the chaotic and disorganised fighters in Syria who share America's values. Good luck with that one.

“I know that America is going to come back, because I’ve seen the heart of 53% of the American people, the other 47% don't matter”