Romney Reaction Blunder

In recent comments made by Republican Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, he was quick to criticize the Obama administration, and is quoted, “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”. Although this comment was a bit out of line and pre-mature, it does in fact show a high level of commitment the presidential hopeful has in redefining our role in the continued war on terror. I believe that Romney was quick to react out of pure passion and anger over a situation that could have been avoided through more aggressive diplomacy.

The Nation, an ultra-left wing publication, has recently written, “Why did Romney issue the “disgraceful” comment? Because he’s seeking the votes of Islam-hating Christian extremist nutcases”. I must admit, this comment made me burst out in laughter. Do they truly believe that Romney would put votes on the line by attacking a sitting president during a national tragedy just to secure ultra-right wing votes? As if the “Islam-hating Christian extremist” were actually contemplating voting for Obama. What a Joke! It seems that their charge of Romney, using this tragedy for political gain, swings both ways. Romney has toned down his recent rhetoric and understands the importance of supporting the presidency during times of American despair. We need to move on and support the candidates that we feel are going to bring the United Stated back to a position of economic and social leadership, not prevaricate on misinterpreted political blunders, which can be linked on both sides on the fence.

The Libya Effect

Let’s first take a moment to recognize Christopher Stevens, our late Ambassador to Libya. He was killed when the U.S. Consulate was attacked in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. Steven’s is widely known for his role in the U.S. involvement of coalition support of the recent rebellion which toppled the Gaddafi regime. Steven’s was an American patriot and will be remembered for his dedicated service to the spread of American democratic values.

This unfortunate event will be a defining moment for the presidential campaign and will set the course for the next phase of American diplomacy in the Middle East. In recent remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she stated, “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be”. This admission only further explains a comprehensive lack of effective regional Middle Eastern doctrine. The Obama administration is at a perilous fork in the road. On one hand, the security of American foreign assets has been breached, bringing a need for decisive action requiring a change in the administrations “laissez faire” policy approach. On the other hand it is only to be expected that a sitting democratic president does not want to enter into conflict 2 months before an election. The question becomes how President Obama can allow the slaughter of innocent Syrian people, the development of a nuclear Iran, alienation of our Israeli allies, and the resurgence of anti-American rhetoric in Egypt. There is only one answer that fits the puzzle, President Obama must believe that because his predecessors were unable to solve the peace process and effectively spread American capitalistic values in Islamic fundamentalist societies, the only option left would be to befriend those who despise the entire existence of western civilization in its entirety. After 4 year of an Obama presidency we are left with Islamic fundamentalist who now have the audacity to believe that they can openly attack American and allied interests without recourse because our president wants to undermine the security of the American people only to gain favor of those who accept benevolence and return hatred.

 

Christopher Stevens
U.S. Ambassador to Libya
RIP April 1960 – September 2012

Obama: Israeli Dissident

The White House declined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request on Tuesday to meet U.S. President Barack Obama. This will be the first time in the history of the Obama Presidency that the Israeli Prime Minister, when visiting the United States, has been declined an audience with the president. When looking at the face of this decision you can’t help but interpret the negative effects this has on the Iranian security threat to Israel and its western allies. It is quite ironic that this announcement comes days after the controversial democratic convention platform change to include God and the disputed Israeli capital city of Jerusalem. Haaretz, an iconic Israeli newspaper, recently published an article by Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya is quoted, “The White House’s response marks a new low in relations between Netanyahu and Obama”.  You must ask yourself, how President Obama can decide on one hand to indirectly support Israel by advocating a drastic and unprecedented democratic convention platform change and on the other hand slap the Israeli leadership in the face by denying an audience.  The answer lies in the political game play to allure the independent conservative swing vote by using artificial and temporary campaign platform adjustments.  Obama must realize that the conservative movement is shrewd enough to see through this political game play.  We can see an Islamic enthusiast from afar.  Obama has campaigned on “change”, but what I see is a repeat failure of the Carter administration’s attempt to solve the Middle East peace process conundrum.  To put our domestic economy and security at stake to attempt to solve a thousand years of dissidence within an eight year presidential stretch is irrational and outright egoistic.  If you give Iran an inch they will take a mile.  Don’t let Obama use devil advocacy to sway your vote.