Posted on 09/26/2012 4:45:21 AM PDT by LD Jackson
Following the attacks on our embassies in Egypt and Libya, and the subsequent unrest, there have naturally been questions about the policies being followed by the Obama administration in the Middle East. Many of us had already questioned those policies, but Mitt Romney was quick to raise some of those same questions, after it became clear there was trouble brewing in the region. Even though he was castigated in the media for daring question the President during such a troubled time, Mitt Romney was not far off target. Here is a short video of a joint interview of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, while they were campaigning in Ohio. Romney didn't get all bent out of shape, but he made the point that President Obama simply doesn't understand what is happening in the Middle East. More after the video.
I found the video at Hot Air and Allahpundit had an interesting observation.
Cameron actually gives Mitt an opportunity to go for the throat at 3:15 by asking whether he thinks Obama’s “bumps in the road” comment is a case of him misunderstanding the Middle East or a knowing attempt to minimize what’s happened there this month to cover his own ass. Romney’s answer: It’s proof that Obama misunderstands. Not sure I’d have gone the same route but that fits, at least, with the thrust of Mitt’s message that O’s in over his head on all things presidential. More of this, please — while bearing in mind Ace’s point that the economy is still the silver bullet here.I know President Obama's supporters will claim he is a genius on all things presidential, but there are clear signs showing he is no such thing. He seems to have the attitude that he knows best on everything and refuses to give a lot of credence to his advisers. Remember how things transpired during the Arab Spring? Remember the perplexity we felt while trying to understand why President Obama would turn his back on the staunch ally we had in Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. The man wasn't perfect, but he was a big reason why the peace deal between Egypt and Israel has lasted for so long. It turns out that President Obama overruled his advisers on the situation, as seems to be quite the norm. This story comes from the New York Times, via Hot Air.
If this were Hollywood, the story of Barack Obama and the Arab Spring would end there, with the young American president standing with the protesters against the counsel of his own advisers, and hastening the end of the entrenched old guard in Egypt. In the Situation Room, Mr. Gates, Admiral Mullen, Jeffrey D. Feltman, then an assistant secretary of state, and others balked at the inclusion in Mr. Obama’s planned remarks that Mr. Mubarak’s “transition must begin now,” arguing that it was too aggressive.More and more, even the media is realizing President Obama's style of diplomacy just isn't working. It can not be successfully argued that they are, as the proof is on display for all to see. Even though the main focus of this election cycle has been, and should remain to be, the economy, I am glad to see Mitt Romney questioning the President's foreign policy. We already know Obama is weak on the economy and now his failures in the Middle East can be seen every time we watch the news and see the events unfolding in that region. There is nothing like making a point by stating the obvious and Mitt Romney should continue driving the points home that he made in the interview with Carl Cameron.Mr. Mubarak had steadfastly stood by the United States in the face of opposition from his own public, they said. The president, officials said, countered swiftly: “If ‘now’ is not in my remarks, there’s no point in me going out there and talking.”
John O. Brennan, chief counterterrorism adviser to Mr. Obama, said the president saw early on what others did not: that the Arab Spring movement had legs. “A lot of people were in a state of denial that this had an inevitability to it,” Mr. Brennan said in an interview. “And I think that’s what the president clearly saw, that there was an inevitability to it that would clearly not be turned back, and it would only be delayed by suppression and bloodshed.”
So “now” stayed in Mr. Obama’s statement. Ten days later, Mr. Mubarak was out. Even after the president’s remarks, Mrs. Clinton was still publicly cautioning that removing Mr. Mubarak too hastily could threaten the country’s transition to democracy.
Interestingly, the only material you post is that which you have written yourself:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:ldjackson/index?tab=articles
Almost as if you are here simply for self promotion.
Isn’t that odd?
Well, hell, SOMEBODY has to question Obamugabe.
The media talking heads take turns seeing who can grovel and kiss his feet in a more submissive manner.
“Question our leader?” they ask...”Never! Our criticism and disdain for failures are reserved for Republicans. We will never throw doubt upon the skills of our hero Zero!”
Actually, I have posted several that are on my blog that were written by other authors. I thought that was what this category was for, Bloggers and Personal.
You are generous with that designation.. "authors".
Why is it that there is no other source from which you can post but your own?
I'll answer that for you.
It's because you are only here to pimp your own damned blog.
That makes you a scummy blogpimp and nothing more.
So, does Bloggers and Personal not mean what it says? I’m not trying to argue, but I thought that’s what this category was for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.