When they see my face, the world will view US differently

Man, you all are really unable to answer this question?

 

This middle east is in an uproar.

Obama's policy of conciliation, apology, whatever you want to call it has clearly failed. And just like in 1979 when we let the Shah be deposed and lost Iran, we have changed a staunch Arab ally into a powerful loose cannon in the most critical area of the world.

Whether this upheaval will make a difference in the election or not, I don't know. But I do know that it was pretty Obama's election to lose up to this point.

Looks more and more like Carter every day.

 

he looks like Carter at best

 

The Shah was a dictator. It's too bad that the U.S. didn't foster and help mold a different group of revolutionaries to depose him. That was the problem of the U.S. It wasn't that we allowed him to be deposed. It was that we were seen as his ally once he was deposed.

This has hurt Mitt far more than it has Obama. Mitt's meltdown, non presidential behavior, and basically coming unglued in an effort to lash out at Obama rather than unify and lash out at the terrorists that did this has crushed Mitt. It's almost like when McCain called off the presidential debate when Lehman went bankrupt in 2008. He cancelled that, returned to Washington to attend meetings, but by all accounts didn't have much to offer at them, and he looked incredibly unpresidential and like he couldn't handle the pressure. From that moment on, McCain was basically down in all the polls, and he never recovered.

The same thing is happening to Romney now.

 

I disagree. In 1979, we could have propped up the Shah but we (wrongly) calculated at the time that it would cost too much of our blood and treasure to keep him in power. We also were dealing with the Soviets in a cold war atmosphere and were unwilling to get involved in an internal struggle with a country that shared a border with the USSR. We bet on Khomeni as the better of 2 bad options. Was it the right one? That's up to history to decide.

Meanwhile, in terms of the electorate, the longer this situation continues to outpace Obama's ability to react to it, the worse he looks. For all of the attention paid to Mitt's statement, at the end of the day...he ISN'T THE PRESIDENT. American fatigue with being bashed by the middle east is what did in Carter. If this continues, I can see it also doing in Obama.

He HAS to look stronger and presidential. Right now, he looks either detached or confused about what to do. In either case, he looks weak and vulnerable.

 

I always get a giggle when people compare Obama to Carter.

 

I guess we'll just disagree about 1979. The U.S. propping up unpopular dictators in the middle east that abuse their populace is what breeds the hate and makes it easy for extremists to come to power, and use the U.S. as a target.

I agree that it is possible that fatigue from taking a beating in the middle east is a risk to Obama. That's why had Mitt come out and showed leadership of saying that America should unit and stick together in the time of tragedy while we all lent our support to hunting down those responsible for the deaths, then waited until some time had passed before attacking the leader of our nation right after it was attacked, and looking like he was losing it, Romney might have scored points, and helped his cause.

As is though, he's getting way more flack than Obama. Mitt's own party was dismissing him for what he did, and his line of attack was ridiculous. He made himself look foolish, unpresidential, and unable to handle the pressure.

 

Your assessment of Romney's statement is accurate but I believe overstated. The main stream media has overplayed the interest the public has in this while the middle east burns. It makes them look even more in the tank for Obama than was previously believed. What the public will remember about this week is Obama in Vegas and on Letterman while the Middle East blew apart. The people want their president to be the president during periods of crisis.

I believe the Romney statement (which wasn't as bad as was made out) will be mostly forgotten by November 6th. The middle east situation will not. What this upheaval has done is given Romney a chance to flip Obama's so called strength in foreign policy into a vulnerability/liability

I've already seen ads from the Romney campaign that lay out a very strong indictment of Obama's recent foreign policy decisions. The debates will be the key. If Romney can make a coherent case in the debates about Obama's inaction and policy blunders....he can win.

 

[/QUOTE]He HAS to look stronger and presidential. Right now, he looks either detached or confused about what to do. In either case, he looks weak and vulnerable.[/QUOTE]

If you're not referring to Obama, then I stand corrected.

If you are, what more do you think he should be doing? The USG has dispatched two destroyers off of Libya, recon drones to help in hunting down the terrorists who attacked our consulate, sent Marines to secure facilities located in the hot spots, essentially told Egypt to shape up or risk the consequences, denounced the killings on more than one occassion, and paid his respects to the deceased today.

This is not including actions or conversations we're not privy to, if you catch my drift.

What more do you think he could have done in the past two days that would not make him look weak or vulnerable?

Now, with that being said, I think the President can be called to task for the lack of security at the facilities to begin with, especially considering the 9/11 anniversary.

 

I know you're still reading texxx.

What specific policy solutions has Mitt Romney proposed regarding Syria, Russia, Libya and Afghanistan?

This is getting sad.

 

I'm not Bigtexx, but its not that hard to find this information. All his proposals with specifics are in his campaign website.

I won't bother posting them for lengths sake but if you are truly interested they are there for you to peruse.

 

A vote for Romney is a vote for war with Iran.

 

Does anyone not think that if the embassy or the ambassador felt threatened that all they had to do is make a phone call?

 

On the ground level the Regional Security Officer is the one who would be in the Ambassador's ear regarding security concerns.

Based on what I've read it looks like the attack on the consulate in Libya was carried out by heavily armed terrorists and not your simple enraged protester.

I think we were caught off guard, and I do think increased security would have made a difference. Having spent time at an Embassy I can tell you that the contracted foreign nationals "securing" the outside are about as reliable as a car without an engine.

Hindsight is 20/20 but I do think it is a valid criticism.

 

Most of my life I have witnessed the rage of Middle East demonstrators. They have to be the unhappiest people in the world. That kind of anger can't be good for their health. It seems like they are like "fire ants," mad at everything and everybody, ready to erupt at the slightest provocation. There are people in the world who live in much more oppressive conditions, but aren't that angry. I am glad I don't follow a religion that makes my life so miserable.