« Advice from Marc Andreessen | Main | Sufi Islamic sites being destroyed »

September 17, 2012

Comments

I'd like to hear someone like Romney tell them there are 7 billion people on earth. You can't fly into a violent rage every time one of them says something critical of your religion. It's time to grow up.

As far as I know, no Muslim nation ever rioted over the works of Ibn Warraq, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, or Ayan Hirsi Ali. They must have SOME concept of the difference between responsible criticism and insults for the sake of doing it.

What they don't seem to get is the First Amendment, and that it's not up to Obama to stop free speech.

"It will be the major story going into the elections."

Except, it doesn't help Mitt Romney.

He's not a foreign policy expert; in fact he has less formal foreign policy experience that Barack Obama did as a Senator working on nuclear nonproliferation.

Also, this story ain't new. Crazy Muslims have always acted this way toward the US, and your over-excitement about further violence on their part is incredibly foolish, not to mention grotesquely cynical.

You must have a short memory. Remember when crazy Muslims were killing Americans in Iraq by the dozens per week? My point is, Americans are ALREADY well-acquainted, perhaps even numb to crazy Muslim behavior overseas, including its regularity and predictability. As such, they aren't likely to hold Barack Obama personally responsible for it any more than they hold him responsible for Nidal Hasan's crazed religious violence.

If Mitt Romney had a military background, or had some unique geopolitical insight -- such as opposing the Iraq War, for instance -- he MIGHT be able to leverage overseas turmoil to his electoral advantage. But he is incredibly weak in this area, as evidenced by his avoidance of Afghanistan in his RNC speech as well as his inexplicable failure to show gratitude to the military personnel who carry out national defense policy.

So he lacks both foreign policy stature *and* apparent interest. In effect, he is and has simply coasted as a junior partner to the neoconservative establishment every step of the way, from the warmongering to the actual wars, neither breaking from them nor sticking his neck out and leading as a champion for the neocon cause.

Hell, Mitt can't even play the trusty old, evangelical-pleasing war of religions card because he's not a Christian. Joseph Smith favorably likened himself to Mohammed to boot.

Because of these realities Romney is flailing. Witness his transparently self-serving attack on Obama over the death of the Ambassador. Its purpose wasn't to advance the neocon agenda -- American hegemony in the Islamic world -- it was simply to seize a chance to reinforce a losing (and false) narrative -- that Obama "apologized" to Muslims.

It was laughably untrue, incredibly crass, and betrayed Romney's insecurity in his chances at winning the campaign.

Now you're making the same dumb mistake that Romney did. You can't hold present conditions (bad economy, crazy violent Muslims) against an incumbent when those conditions are acknowledged by the electorate as having existed prior to his presidency and were in fact objectively worse.

It just doesn't work and is stupid politics.

"You can't hold present conditions (bad economy, crazy violent Muslims) against an incumbent when those conditions are acknowledged by the electorate as having existed prior to his presidency and were in fact objectively worse." -- Patrick

That's not true at all. The situation is measurably worse now than 4 years ago. It's measurably worse now than even 2 years ago. Obama allowed several pro-western (or at least secular) governments to be overthrown in the "Arab Spring".

Now that the Islamo-fascists are in charge they're whipping up an anti-american frenzy to solidify control and topple other secular leaders such as Assad of Syria. Obama should have taken action against the Arab Spring before it gathered momentum. Instead, he helped them overthrow Khadaffy. Carter did the same thing to the Shah.

Destructure,

No, it's not "measurably" worse, because, aside from the tragic death of US diplomatic personnel, Americans aren't being killed on a regular basis in the Arab world, as they were when George W. Bush had tens of thousands of them there.

You're confusing Arab political unrest for domestic political give-a-fuck. Egypt could go through continuous coups and it wouldn't matter very much to average Americans so long as our risk is minimized. George Bush maximized our risk in Iraq, Obama minimized it in Libya.

The background to all of this, of course, is the recognized baseline instability of Arab states, and the American electorate judges a president in how he handles that reality.

Nobody is faulting Barack Obama for having diplomatic personnel in Libya. And, point in fact, Mitt Romney himself supported the military action in Libya.

I highly doubt he or George W. Bush would have done much to save Mubarak, too.

These events certainly undermine the idea of Obama as some great healer and messiah who legitimately earned his Nobel Price Prize through successful diplomacy (rather than on the basis of just being black).

A white person can't tell dark-skinned people to grow up. That would just validate the whole 'colonialism' meme that Edward Said built his career on, and which blacks have been exploiting here for 40 yrs. under the name "white privilege." The only people who can tell anyone to grow up are women -they're licensed to condescend to men this way. Muslims would rather be Droned than talked down to.

OT. A new beat up about Romney. I actually think people will agree with his comments though:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… These are people who pay no income tax. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100181483/this-video-could-kill-mitt-romneys-chances-of-becoming-president/

Short of a stock market crash or $10 gasoline by November, Romney is doomed

Since 2007-ish voters have completely lost interest foreign policy. Unless it concerns China or Mexico, where the focus is on domestic issues like protectionism and immigration restriction, Nobody Cares. Obama could nuke Saudi Arabia voters would mostly be concerned about how it affects gas prices.

"You can't hold present conditions (bad economy, crazy violent Muslims) against an incumbent"

The attacks on our embassy make Obama look like the low-IQ moron he is because

1) he did little to protect our embassies even after getting warnings of increased threats against US diplomats.

2) He caused the crisis by overthrowing allied Muslim dictators and letting the prole Muslims vote in Muslim terrorist parties.

The whole fiasco makes Obama look incompetent, which he is, because he inherited low IQ, mental instability, and psychopathic cognitive traits from his African father, with whom Obama's mother foolishly race-mixed with.

It just doesn't work and is stupid politics."

So true. Glad Barry and Co. got rid of Qaddafi. Things are great these days!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU

It will help Romney, so much that it might even be a close race. However Romney is such a weak candidate that he needs all of the help that he can get. Romney was one of the least electable candidates that ran for the nomination, but the out-of-touch urban center-left elite that controls the Republican party didn't realize this or didn't care. Yeah Romney will do better in NY, CT, NJ, MA, RI, DC, UT, and ID than a typical Republican would, but so what? None of those are swing states. Romney = Bob Dole. Obama is also unelectable so that's why it is unlikely that 2012 will resemble the Clinton vs Dole landslide.

"Obama minimized it in Libya."

LOL.

There's no way Libya is going to be a positive for Obama. He killed an allied dictator in Libya who was keeping a lid on his local terrorists.

Without Gadhaffi, Libya has turned into a Muslim terrorist sinkhole. Libya went from being a non-threat to fiasco, and you think this makes Obama look good? Libya makes him look like the moron he is.

Obama is (Hotair and Ace of Spades and Glenn Beck have this, Andrew McCarthy warned of it a year ago) planning to release the Blind Sheikh to Egypt, to stop the protests.

Basically, he bends over to whatever the Muslim Mob wants and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. Since he is one. A Muslim Brother, basically. That's his background, all his College pals from Occidental and Columbia.

And it will HELP him. HS the problem is, most Americans (well they're not really Americans but you get the point) WANT to surrender and appease Muslims. Blacks and Hispanics HATE HATE HATE this country and are on the side of Muslims. Coastal Elites do too. And so, frankly, do about 70% of White women ages 18-45 or so. They really HATE HATE HATE this country based on the beta maleness of its White men. See, Sweden. Denmark. Norway. Germany, England. France. Spain. Italy. Beta males = female HATE HATE HATE for the native culture and people.

If you want to fight to keep your freedom, and punish those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, then Romney is your man. That's about 40% of the population at most, White guys who are not the Coastal Elite. EVERYONE ELSE cannot wait to surrender. And have weakness abroad and tyranny at home. They can't wait to surrender, like all those women rushing out to symbolically surrender to an Alpha reading "Fifty Shades of Gay" or whatever.

PZ Myers refers to this map which shows the most dependent states are Republican in the South compared to those in the North. However, he seems to overlook that those in the North have low African-American populations?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/09/17/is-it-time-to-bury-mitt-yet/comment-page-1/#comment-458455

Patrick: "neocon agenda -- American hegemony in the Islamic world"

That's not quite right. The purpose of Bush's Freedom Agenda was empowering liberalism - not American hegemony - in the Middle East as a viable alternative to autocrats and Islamists. Of course, a liberally reformed Middle East would benefit the US. And if you want to make the connection that the US is the hegemon of the liberal world order, so be it.

Bush explained his strategy here: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html.

Note that Bush explicitly rejected the (political science) realists who claimed that siding with the autocrats is America's best bet and liberal reform is unattainable in the Middle East.

Also recommended: http://thomaspmbarnett.com/globlogization/2010/9/18/blast-from-my-past-mr-president-heres-how-to-make-sense-of-o.html

Though the Arab Spring happened under Obama, Bush was smart enough to realize the days of the Middle East autocrats were numbered. Bush also knew that without sufficient Western aid to boost the liberals, the likeliest successor to the crumbling autocrats would be the Islamists. Bush's Freedom Agenda could not guarantee liberal victory, but Western help at least gave the liberals a chance against the Islamists.

The Obama administration shares Bush's liberal goals with the Arab Spring, however Obama withdrew the Freedom Agenda and has declined to help the liberals competing with the Islamists, with predictable results.

So yes, Obama has assumed less risk than Bush, but has also precluded the associated rewards of Bush's risks.

As far as casualties in Iraq, by the start of the Obama admin with the success of the COIN 'Surge', US casualties in Iraq were way down. It looked like we had turned the corner there. Afghanistan, no longer Iraq, was where the most killing was happening ... and that's where Obama sent the troops. The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that a liberalized Iraq would have had substantial influence in the Middle East. A liberalized Afghanistan, which was always a far more unlikely prospect than a liberalized Iraq, has little influence on the Middle East.

The comments to this entry are closed.