Blazing Skirt continued (updated 29sep12)

George Rebane

I wonder if our UN ambassador Susan Rice will now resign after being told to go on five talk shows last Sunday and make a fool of herself.  Team Obama sure hung her out to dry.  The cause of last week’s murderous Benghazi consulate attack has again revealed how ineffective and feckless this administration is in doing its constitutionally mandated job.

After three days of ridicule, compounded by interviews and hearings, the administration today casually flipped and said it was “self-evident that it was a terrorist attack”.  I mused that it might have been a spontaneous outpouring of rage from Benghazi residents after getting word from Cairo about the denigrating video – see ‘Blazing skirt hits airwaves’.  But it was hard to pull together the part about all the RPG launchers and machine guns in the picnic baskets.

So the evidence now comes pouring in that this was a carefully planned attack by al Qaeda terrorists in Libya to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary.  And that Obama was just absolutely off-base and out of touch when he lit into Romney saying what the world already knew about that incident.  And even today Obama continued stonewalling on the Latino Univision interview about how pissed the Muslims really were about that video.  Moreover, in her wisdom Hillary ran an apology ad on Pakistani TV today to apologize for the video, distance the administration from it, but mainly to draw more attention to the anti-Muslim video and hope that the demonstrations continue.

But it all makes sense again and Occam will rest in peace when we consider the objectives of obamunism.  No matter that the attack was terrorism carried out by a resurgent al Qaeda that was supposed to by now be on its butt, the important thing is to keep the demonstrations going about the video.  The sheeple will quickly forget the instigating events and focus on the evening news of Islam in riot about the video.  Should things slow down a little prematurely, Hillary will run a couple more apology ads in Muslim countries, and the Big O will go on another TV interview and point out all those millions hating the US, not because of anything that he did(n’t) do, but because of that damn video.  The lamestream will, of course, fall in line and we’re off in a new misdirection with a significant flock of sheeple in tow.  Sweet.

[29sep12 update]  The Obama administration is now in complete disarray as to what it is putting out from all corners of its mouth (here).  Today one part of it finally admits that the Benghazi assault was an organized terrorist attack, planned before the video riots, by an al Qaeda (in the Maghreb) unit that is doing quite well in large swaths of Africa.  This gives lie to the claim that al Qaeda is on the run.

At the same time, the big O himself is still bamboozling along with his number one blazing skirt (Rice is number two) claiming the information is still "evolving".  All this while the FBI's forensic team assigned to investigate the attack has yet to set its foot in Libya for reasons cited as the country being 'too dangerous'.  What happened to our ability to fly the FBI in with a Seal team for security.  Time is of essence since much of forensic evidence if frangible.  If they wait too much longer, we'll be reduced to investigating the incident from perusal of history books.  But that again may be part of the playbook of an administration that does not want to find much of anything in that consulate compound.

In any case, we should never forget that the whole world knew within 24 hours that his was a very successful planned terrorist attack that our administration has been trying to dissemble since it happened.  Only Romney had the guts to call a spade a spade, and let the international community know that America was not filled with naifs.

Comments

[Steven Frisch]

Here is what Susan Rice actually said (thanks to Ryan Mount for digging it up, and I would encourage readers to go to the source news programs and listen for themselves):

“We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. I think it’s clear there were extremist elements that joined and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libya-based extremists or al Qaeda itself, I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

I ask, what would one have us do, jump to conclusions and make off the cuff statements before we know the facts? Like declaring "Mission Accomplished"!

[Russ Steele]

The DiploMad 2.0 has some thoughts on UN Ambassador Rice and the facts.

The facts now coming out plainly show that the Obamistas lied. Ambassador Stevens had no security other than that provided by some rag-tag Libyan detail. The misadministration lied about the role of the two ex-SEALs also murdered in Benghazi--contrary to what Rice stated on television, they were not part of the security arrangements and were in Benghazi working for a private contractor on something completely different. The murders were carried out by terrorists with a plan, with weapons, with good intel, and the attack was apparently masterminded by a terrorist, Sufyan Ben Qumu, released in 2007 from Guantanamo . . .

Note the similarity between the new Obama flag and the bloody finger prints on this Benghazi columns HERE.

[Russ Steele]

HERE is a better view of the Obama Flag and the hand prints on the column.

[Steven Frisch]

Unsourced blog opinion versus the direct words of the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

Dear readers hear it for yourself, "we'll wait to see what the investigation finally confirms, but that is the best information we have at present."

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/susan-rice-week-17248141

Watch Ms. Rice and decide for yourself who the adults in the room are.

[David King]

I blame the Nobel committee for creating an atmosphere of inept overconfidence.

[Todd Juvinall]

I listened to Rice. She totally pushed the video as is Hillary and now Obama in a ad running in Pakistan crying for those Muslim nuts to like us again. Why she was chosen, Rice that is, to give the Obama BS view is beyond me.

[Steven Frisch]

But, once gain, she did not say the things that the original post contends.

[billy T]

David King, that is funny. Look how the last two Nobel Peace prize winners have fared with the economy: Jimmy the Peanut Farmer and Barry the Community Organizer.

Steven Firsch: Ms. Rice (not to confused with Dr. C. Rice) made the Sunday morning circuit and utter many things all over every channel. Talk about shock and awe. Actually, she utter the same thing. It is not Obama's fault, it was spontaneous, we are sorry for practicing free speech in America. We are sorry for not following Shiria Law. America bad, offended Muslums good. Had nothing to do with 9-11.

I think the Blazing Skirt simply confused what she saw on TV with a movie. The old life imitates art sort of thingie. She backed down so fast I wonder if she has red flames on her black panties.

[David King]

billy T | 20 September 2012 at 09:24 PM

"...Jimmy the Peanut Farmer and Barry the Community Organizer."

Don't forget Al Gore, the.....whatever!

[Steven Frisch]

Can anyone out there actually show me specifically where Ms. Rice said that it was "spontaneous" without the qualifier that it was based on the information in hand at the time? or that we are sorry for practicing free speech? I need a specific references with sourced links to a video or a direct full transcript from a reputable source.

I hear a lot of opinion without facts, direct quotes or sources. Typical.

[David King]

Yeah Steve, I'll get right on it...after I exfoliate!

Look man, these guys are smart enough to leave an exit.

[Michael Anderson]

D. King wrote: "...after I exfoliate!"

As an invertebrate, isn't that something you'd want to keep to yourself? Privacy man!

[Steven Frisch]

OK so what you are saying Mr. King is that Ms. Rice actually did not say the things stated or insinuated above. Do I have that correct?

[David King]

Normally. Lol!

[David King]

Come on Steve, it was 9/11!
When I was over there, we were always warned.

[TomKenworth]

~ billy T | 20 September 2012 at 09:24 PM~

Barry Goldwater or Barry Pruett?

[George Rebane]

"What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet," Rice said on "Fox News Sunday." "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States."

(Susan Rice) also repeated the administration’s message that the attacks, which started Tuesday in Egypt and spread to more the 20 U.S. posts in the region, were “spontaneous,” not planned or timed for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/16/us-ambassador-rice-backs-administration-violence-sparked-by-anti-muslim-video/

[David King]

I don't get it George. Why is this so hard for these guys to accept? The ladies screwed up. Period!

[Michael Anderson]

Whooooops: http://www.theunion.com/news/2605458-113/lester-investors-lenders-gold

[MikeL]

I watch the Chris Wallace interview where Ms Rice said that the violence was due to the "hateful video" and was Spontaneous, but since she said this on Fox and we all know that Fox is a rightwing news outlet we therefore must believe that she actually said the opposite of what she actually said. Get it.... Mr Fish.

[Steven Frisch]

Perhaps there will never be a world again where people are capable of placing a sentence in the context of the surrounding sentences, or listen to an entire interview to place a a statement in context, to grasp its entire meaning. What we have from you is foreign policy in Twitter speak--one hundred and forty characters at a time.

I listened to the Fox Rice interview.....she places the statement in the context of the "best evidence we have at this time"....her response about 'being spontaneous' was in response to Chris Wallace's question about 'more than two dozen protests across the Arab world', not specific to Libya.

About Libya she said:

“The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack,” Rice also told Fox News. “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.”

In short she said exactly what she said on ABC.....I think that what happens here is that people say one thing, and you guys are so biased at this point that you hear something completely different.

[Michael Anderson]

What if everyone's right? What if many of the protests across the Middle East were spontaneous + the attack in Benghazi was planned?

[Russ Steele]

Steven @06:09

Rice said "the best assessment we have" Did they ignore the Libyan's warning three days before the attack? How can they continue to say it was spontaneous when the Libyan government were warning them of the attack days before it took place. Only in a liberal brain is this possible.

[Ryan Mount]

Q: Is Ms. Rice being disingenuous.
A: Probably not.

Q: Is she equivocating?
A: Yes to some extent, but probably because the administration is both hedging it's foreign policy incompetence (actually, what foreign policy short of hellfire drone strikes? Maybe they should fire hellfires at the embassies?) AND they have no idea what's going on.

Q: What's going on here?
A: The Obama Administration seems to be caught with their foreign policy pants down during an election year. So they're trying to soften the blow via equivocation over time hoping this slips out of people's memories and onto much more importance issues like whether Romney hates the lower 50%.

[Steven Frisch]

Ryan....I think it has more to do with an administration dealing with an evolving crises across several time zones trying to compile evidence and information, so they can chart a rational path out of a difficult situation....this is exactly what one would want the foreign policy apparatus of an administration to do......they have to be visible to show they are not frozen in place ....they have to update the people because we live in a free society....but they don't have all the information yet, nor the benefit of investigation, and they don;t want to make the situation worse, so they appear to equivocate, when in fact they are being careful. EXACTLY what we would want them to do.

The bottom line is that if this very same event happened to a Republican President (like perhaps GWB as it did on 911) the same people excoriating Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama would be saying that we need to get all the pertinent information and act from there. As a matter of fact, they did say just that after 911, and it took us a month to respond. What I find distasteful is that the issue has been politicized in the context of a US election....an opposition Presidential candidate is trying to gain political advantage form a foreign crises....not even Reagan did that after the Iran hostage rescue operation.....he waited weeks, then laid out an opposing foreign policy as an alternative.

[THEMIKEYMCD]

Presidents Aide on 9/11/2012- "Mr. President, our embassy's are being stormed and US diplomats are being murdered and dragged through the streets."

President's response- "Buy us some tv ads on middle eastern tv, I'll hit Letterman."

Lamestream media reporting the incident- "Romney is an ass"

[Ryan Mount]

I am willing to give the administration some benefit of the doubt. Some.

I am not interested in casting this as 9/11 part II. Nor 1979 Carter part II, as tempting as that might sound.

However, in the context of the national election, even the most partisan Democrat has to admit that this is not the best news for the Obama campaign. And frankly I think this reveals a very weak and absentee foreign policy. Mind you I am one of those who favor, unlike Mr. Rebane, a relative complete military withdrawal from global stage as impractical is that probably is.

But if we must be the world's policy and parent, the god damn it, we should act like it. The Obama Administration's arguable "lead from behind" strategy is stirring up conflict, and then around to keep the peace.

And no, I really don't believe the the video is really that responsible for all of this. To blame these insurrections on an idiotic, and admittedly grossly offensive video is to ignore 99.9% of the other elements that lead up to this.

[Ryan Mount]

> and then around to keep the peace.

and then NOT* around to keep the peace.

typo. sorry.

[THEMIKEYMCD]

Paul E, are you a John Hiatt fan? Which album would you suggest a guy get as an introduction to the man?

Check out Christopher Paul Stelling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9c9avEe4oY

[Steven Frisch]

I am not interested in casting this as 9/11 II or Iran II either, I used the examples to provide context about how candidates or the opposition party acts in a crises. And I agree that it is not good news.....I agree not enough attention has been paid to foreign policy......and I am with you on preferring a gradual withdrawal from large portions of the world stage....particularly the ME and south Asia...leaving forces in place to respond as needed. And I agree the video is not the cause.....the cause is the multi-decade conflict between the east and the west over control of the resources of the ME, particularly oil....amongst other parts of the 99.9% of things that lead to this type of event.

[George Rebane]

Rice's statement “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.”

This statement was known to the Libyan government to be untrue from the evening of the attack. Due to the Obama story line during this election that his foreign policy works, the pre-planned 9/11 organized al Qaeda attack had to be first denied and then connected with the fortuitous Cairo storming of our embassy grounds. Rice's words, taken in context regarding 'spontaneous', do not have any connotation that SteveF argues in his 609am. She did NOT use 'spontaneous' to refer to all the other attacks, she used it distinctly in the context of only the Benghazi attack as is clear in the written word and the video.

I believe that Obama was briefed immediately on the facts of the attack, which have now become public worldwide, and he told Rice to lie. And as of yesterday was still lying on the 'spontaneous' part to Univision. Given what we know now, and his record of lying, this clearly is the simplest explanation that covers all the observables. I also believe that the rest of the world is way past these last ditch defensive arguments with which leftwing acolytes are still trying cover President Obama's incompetence and/or perfidy.

[Ryan Mount]

People screw up. People are self-interested. People die because of it.

An Administration that's incompetent? Say it isn't true! Maybe we should invade Grenada again just for the hell of it to get our minds off of this? Maybe launch a few a cruse missiles into a third world pharmaceutical factory? Maybe re-runs of the first two seasons of American Idol to keep the drowsy emperors awake? (my apologies to Yeats). This is indeed no country for old men.

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20310

[Steven Frisch]

George....did you watch the Fox video posted above...Chris Wallace asks her, "This week there have been anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world...."

[Steven Frisch]

If ever there was an example of selective listening this is it...two people hear the same interview and hear two entirely different things. I personally think that since George hears everything coming from this administration through a filter of his belief system, he is incapable of actually hearing the words and their meaning. I am sure he thinks the same of me. But at least I have the actual words to support my case.

[TomKenworth]

When will Romney correct his statements about the 47%?

And apologize for slandering them?

Until then, this issue here is farm team minor league.

[George Rebane]

StevenF 911am - Yes, as reported, I watched the Chris Wallace program (it's on our DVR schedule), and cannot see how her answer is connected to the preamble of Wallace's question, when she uttered the here quoted answer.

It indeed shows the futility of attempting to reach a mutual understanding of not only what the woman said, but on the broader aspects of Obama's now ruinous foreign policy failures. There is not a single country, ally or enemy, with which our relationship has not deteriorated, with some catastrophically.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444165804578008411144721162.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444165804578005880751641560.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

While you and yours now attempt to parse Rice's words to suit the WH backstop narrative on this blunder, there are bigger things happening that Obama would rather not have us focus on as 6 Nov approaches.

And yes, absolutely, we all do hear everything through the filter of our belief system as I have made the case since launching RR. (Kahneman's recent 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' most recently summarized the extensive research in this.) I am glad that you at least recognize it others, but am not sure that you see yourself hindered in that fashion - be that as it may, the readers will judge for themselves your ability to walk on those waters. Nevertheless, your willingness here to expose the operation of your own filters enlightens us all.

[Paul Emery]

Romney supports his statements about the 47% Tom. There is nothing to correct. He might reverse himself tomorrow though. The man seems to have no firm convictions about anything. He's the jollo man. Different mold every day.

[Todd Juvinall]

PaulE, Romney 54%, Obama 46%

[Walt]

Just watching one more piece of "O"'s handiwork.
The space shuttle is just about to land in LA, never to
to take flight again. tear out another page out of the great achievements we, the U.S.A.have made. Now a huge step backwards
Thanks to Obummer.

[David King]

I don't know Walt, they seem to need more money for NASA's Muslim Outreach.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/nasa039s-muslim-outreach-al-jazeera-told-first

Charles Krauthammer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zin9RkGsXrY

[Paul Emery]

The wheels are falling off. If things don't pick up soon we'll see the Pubsters money going to Senate races. Thats when we'll know it's over.

“I mean I think even Gov. Romney acknowledged we didn’t have a good week,” Christie told WCBS 880′s Peter Haskell."

[George Rebane]

PaulE 710pm - From your constant celebration of Romney's impending defeat over the last few weeks, am I to assume that you will now give me much better odds for our next bet over the paltry Obama 3:1 bet that we have booked? Please let me know directly, and how much of my money you are willing to take.

[Paul Emery]

George

I made that bet when Romney had some chance of winning based upon Obamas weak record. However his pathetic campaign since then suprised even me and increased odds that he'll lose. You can't change horses or odds in the middle of the race.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 728pm - please reread my 725pm, nowhere have I asked to change anything about our current bet, that is locked in solid. What part of "our next bet" is confusing? There is nothing to prevent us from making as many bets on this race as we want. Do you want to make another bet?

[Paul Emery]

No I stand pat. There is always the chance of an October Surprise such as the so called Iranian hostage crisis. Still amazing to me that they were released the day Reagan was crowned.

[Russ Steele]

Paul@10:07PM

They were released because Reagan made it clear that he would take action, and the Iranian knew he was a man of his word. They knew he would kick ass, just like he did in Libya when our ships were attacked. A missile through the palace bedroom window. Reagan knew the strength of leadership and the Iranian's new it also, and caved before the action started. They had no idea what he would do, only that he would not allow them to hold our citizens hostage. That is not the case today, they know that Obama is a weak leaders and is not a man of his word. Obama's failed leadership will result in WW III.

[Paul Emery]

Here's Jesse Ventura's take on the October Surprise

"Reagan's people had cut a deal with Iran to keep the hostages beyond the presidential election to ensure that President Carter's negotiations with Iran failed and that he lost to Reagan. Like the political assassinations earlier, this was a continuation of an ends-justify-the-means mentality that will ultimately destroy our democracy altogether if we allow this attitude to continue. Also, let's consider how our "friends" so quickly become our "enemies." Is it all about what suits certain people in power? Who's really benefiting from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the demonization of Iran?"

Either way it all led to Iran-Contra, a disgusting chapter in American history.

[Todd Juvinall]

Iran Contra? A patriotic endeavor. LOL!

[Paul Emery]

Todd

This is what you support as a patriotic endeavor. Seperation of powers? forget itIt was totally unconstitutional. Imagine your fuss if Obama tried something like this.
This is my summary about how Reagan and the administration broke the law. It pretty much was a military takeover of the powers of congress. It wss a direct arms for hostage deal with an embargoed country. Totally illegal.

According to Robert Perry

"The scandal’s failure to achieve meaningful accountability for high-level lawbreakers can be seen as a key turning point in modern American history. In effect, it was the moment when the United States veered firmly back onto a path toward Empire after a brief side trip toward again trying to be a functioning Republic.

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/01/the-lost-opportunity-of-iran-contra/

Congress had forbidden the Reagan administration from supporting the Nicaraguan Contras, and the administration’s public stance was never to negotiate with hostage-takers, terrorists or Iran. In every case, the administration secretly broke policy and countered congressional directives by launching what was essentially a privatized foreign policy operation. The operation’s point men were the National Security Council’s Robert McFarlane and John Poindexter and NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North.

The scandal eventually implicated numerous and senior members of the Reagan administration, including President Reagan himself, Vice President George Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, and national security advisers McFarlane and Poindexter. While Weinberger and Shultz dissented from the policy decision, Weinberger eventually gave in by ordering the Department of Defense to provide the necessary arms to Iran and the Contras.

[Todd Juvinall]

PaulE, your ilk could not even make a conviction stick to Ollie North. Give me a break. Your buds were supporting the commies in Nicaragua and Reagan was trying to keep the monsters out of our hemisphere. Your democrat Congress was a sellout bunch of lefty nuts who cut off the money to defeat their pals in the jungle.

[Paul Emery]

And guns for hostages with an embargoed country (Iran) was OK?

[David King]

Todd, don't forget about George H. W. Bush flying back from a secret meeting at the Hotel Crillion in Paris on the SR71...Vroom! :)

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/usa3.html

[Michael Anderson]

Paul, criminal conspiracy doesn't count if you believe in God and Country. If your intentions are true, then everything is legal. It's only a crime if your enemy does it.

See how simple that is? And once America is reduced to a single conservative party, everything is going to be a lot simpler.

[Todd Juvinall]

Wasn't your hero Chris Dodd getting it on with that commie babe from Nicaragua? Yep, and guess who was banging the battle in our government for the commies? You lis are only outraged when it is a conservative trying to save the country from your ilk. You just love the cocktail parties the leftwingnuts throw so you can rub elbows woth the rich and famous libs. What a hoot! Sean Penn and Danny Glover are probably your house guests. Only libs could call saving freedom and act of lawlessness.

[Paul Emery]

What are you talking about? You are amazing. Certainly you in no way are a conservative in that you do not in any remote way support the Constitution.

[Todd Juvinall]

Of course I support the Constitution. Why are you being dense about the black ops. You support Obama's drones right? How about Gitmo, some say it is unconstitutional and you support the detention of the terrorist there, right?

[Todd Juvinall]

Oh, and please answer my questions in the post with Danny Glover. You never answer ours.

[Steven Frisch]

Yes....I do think that Paul likes cocktail parties!

[Paul Emery]

No way I support drones. 90% of the people killed are innocent bystanders. No I don't support Gitmo. Obama said he was going to close it and I hold him accountable.

Danny Glover? Who cares. That's your problem.

[David King]

How about Obama's hit list for Americans outside the U.S. Is that ok? Are you down with that?

[David King]

"Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will"

"Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve."

Are you guys baffled?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

[Paul Emery]

Nope No hit list.

[David King]

So, you're voting for Obama and his "Kill list" anyway?

Of course when voting, you have balance Obama's "Kill list" with Romney's dog on the car thing. Right?

[Paul Emery]

Nope, I'm not voting for Obama. I'm going third party.

[billy T]

Iran-Contra? Why not bring up Juan Corona why you are at it. Heard convicted ax murderer Larry Singleton was also charged with selling arms to the contras. So was Jeffery Dahmer.

Can't we look at this Libya thing in and of itself? The Ambassador was hunted down hours after and miles from the mobs in the streets. He was chased to the safe house after leaving the Consultant, that after leaving Tripoli. Big booms, big fires, big Humvee go boom and burn. Ambassador is dragged through the streets. Al Jadee TV says it was planned for 9/11 as revenge for Osama (Arab porn collector) Bin Lying's death. What does Iran-Contra have to do with Libya or Ms.(I did not touch Janet Reno that way) Rice? Oh, yeah, it was about a California made video. One of California's exports got them ahabs all in a tizzy.

We believe in free speech and tolerance of others' views here....guess that is why the Feds arrested the film makers. Hmmmm. Bet there are 30 high school film makers right now producing sequels.

We got a mess on our hands over in that forsaken part of the planet as usual. But, you can't paint it all with a broad brush. Libya has no strong or dominate political parties. Gaddafi planned it that way. Egypt is controlled by the peace lubbing Muslum Brotherhood. Syria is our friend per Hillary just one year ago. Guess she forgot to say Syria is Iran's puppet state. Jordan was OK and so was Lebanon until the PLO moved in there and trashed the best and most modern city in the region, Beirut. Then there is tiny Israel.

BTW, Nicaragua is welcoming American tourists and has the oldest standing Spanish Colonial buildings in Central America. Miles of unspoiled beaches and many wonderful eco-systems. Great place for nature lovers and cheap food. Sandinista know like the Yankee dollar.

[Earl Crabb]

Northern Ireland? Juan Corona? You forgot Clay Otis Smith, Billy T. The dimestore preacher who moved into his house and later his wife's bed told him to go to the river and kill the hippies. The tinfoil they put on the windowsills to keep the demons out didn't work as advertised, so only hippie blood would appease God.
He took a sickle and cut through a swath of campsites, killed a couple and wounded some others, none of them hippies. The foothills were terrorized for months, until they caught up with him in Brownsville, Texas.
And what would a Republican President do when all this democracy broke out in the Middle East? Would they have propped up Khadafy Duck and Hosni? Would they have thrown their support into one faction or other? Tough questions, indeed.

[billy T]

Sounds like Clay Otis Smith needed a hug. Bad food in Brownsville and the guards are mean. They need a big hug as well.

[Ryan Mount]

We don't want Democracy in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. We prefer despots and dictators. They're easier to buy off and they can do the dirty work of controlling their angry masses.

It's in America's interests to keep the rest of the world in a state of fear. The problem is when one of these jerk-offs decides to give us the middle finger. Iran comes to mind. Then we are forced to treat them like mini-me versions of the former Soviet Union and threaten them, at least in private or via insinuation, that we will happily melt their entire country into nuclear-made glass if they decide to do something stupid. Sure they might get off the first strike. The first one.

[George Rebane]

RyanM 620pm - Not while Obama is president.

[Michael Anderson]

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan: http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/aerospace-defense-blog/2012/09/marines-experience-their-worst-air-disaster-in-nearly-half-a-century.html?cmpid=EnlMAESeptember262012

[Gregory]

"We don't want Democracy in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. We prefer despots and dictators. They're easier to buy off and they can do the dirty work of controlling their angry masses.
It's in America's interests to keep the rest of the world in a state of fear."

Ryan, that's one of the most inane posts I've ever seen from you. Channeling one of your old profs at Humboldt State? Confusing populist demagogues with democratic ones? One could at least make a superficial case for that during the Cold War realpolitik days, but even that has evaporated. The US would much prefer a Turkish style democracy in all of the currently undemocratic middle east, but that isn't easy, and won't be happening.

This is dated but still applicable:
http://www.meforum.org/216/why-turkey-is-the-only-muslim-democracy

[Ryan Mount]

I'll grant the cold war-ish-ness of the statement, but I see little evidence anywhere of the USA encouraging real democracies; anything that would resembling anything in the West which I regard as faulty, but certainly better than say Saudi Arabia. The United States does not, perhaps for good reason*, trust the populations of developing countries to "democratize."

There are exceptions, of course. Israel comes to mind who would have withered on the vine without Harry Truman. I grant Turkey is a more moderate muslim Democracy, unless you are a Kurd. But generally speaking, we hand-pick a government that suits our needs or we prop-up despots particularly in Africa and and Middle East, but also in Asia.

Obama is a failure in both propping up American interests and encouraging Democratic reforms. Maybe that's a good thing, now that I think of it. I just wish it was cheaper.

And what I would like foreign policy hawks to admit, is that is true. Just like I'd like Progressives to admit that they have [maybe some if not a lot of] contempt for personal liberty, for comparison sake. You can't, for example, develop Democracy at the end of a gun and then expect the populations to embrace us, as a figure of speech. I dunno, maybe you can, but I'd like to see evidence of that first.

*People are dumb and swayed by magical promises.

[George Rebane]

re RyanM & Gregory on promoting third world democracies. George Friedman of Stratfor is very clear in his assessment of our post-WW2 geo-strategic policy - to maintain hegemony the US needs to keep the 'world's pot' simmering so as to foil any concrete efforts to coagulate forces against us. And that sometimes means placing marginally stable despots in power who can be told to rattle their sword (which we give them) against other tin pots who may not be in our stable. In this we may have to fight a directionless 'war' that ends with no clear objective achieved, most certainly not a classic victory.