The Former Governor has extended his lack of knowledge of foreign affairs.
There is a 'mind speak' among the political right wing that ALLOWING the over throw of dictators is adverse to the interests of the USA. These events are suppose to illustrate why it was wrong for the USA to stop the slaughter by Gaddafi of his own citizens in Benghazi. There is a lot to that, but, primarily the idea that Iraq was the best idea going and anytime the USA intervenes it should be with boots on the ground. The USA interest, of course, is oil.
That aside, Mitt Romney has now proven he has no working understanding of the delicate nature of such events. He simply plowed right into it.
Secretary Clinton is correct, in that no violence is justified. Absolutely, but, there are mitigating circumstances in the Middle East among new democracies that cause these reactions. The USA has a responsibility to those abroad. While I agree with the Secretary without reservation, there is also a very dangerous circumstance resulting for those devoted to peace through diplomacy when such hatred is expressed from within the boarder of the USA. It appears as though Muslim faiths are not safe in the world.
One cannot discount the illegal invasion into Iraq as a hostile act by the USA. Our diplomats within Iraq also were oppressive to newspapers, etc. Our troops were ordered to fire on a beloved Mosque at one time. These things are not forgotten. So, the perception of the USA actually seeking equal freedoms for other countries is always in question to many within the Middle East.
There is an element to the Muslim faith (I will address that later.) that needs tempering in the Middle East and it is the free lancing of violence, however, asking a country newly liberated like Libya to stem that impetus to action is more than difficult. Libya's people are still on the defensive and there is every indication those seeking this violence are still parts of the old regime. Determining the people involved is important.
But, when it comes to promoting democracy Mr. Romney has to ask himself whom's side he is on. Either a country, like the USA, that stipulates democracy is important to all people and not just 'select people' believes in the populous that seek liberation from dictatorships, regardless, of how benevolent the dictator seems through the eyes of the USA.
Politically, in the USA, reaction from the right wing is through the eyes of acting through military intervention to maintain what 'has existed.' That is not an option. If the USA enforces dictatorships for its own convenience, then it is in 'passive occupation' of the country in question. That is not sovereign to the people of that nation.
What occurred in Benghazi, in my opinion, was well thought out. It was well armed and it did not occur with government troops. This is not an act of war against the USA. This is free lanced violence by elements within Libya attempting to destabilize a fragile peace. Evidently, there are idiots in the USA willing to play to that outcome as well.
I have to wonder if the State Department and USA military sees this as something that would have happened anyway and the inflammatory video was simply an excuse. Tricky question no one has the answer to yet. There are still munitions throughout Libya from the rebellion, a spontaneous act of violence could be organized due to a hate video. Hopefully, the investigation to how this occurred will be through and in respect of those that died; it will be truthful for the outcome our diplomats would expect.
That aside, Mitt Romney has now proven he has no working understanding of the delicate nature of such events. He simply plowed right into it.
Secretary Clinton is correct, in that no violence is justified. Absolutely, but, there are mitigating circumstances in the Middle East among new democracies that cause these reactions. The USA has a responsibility to those abroad. While I agree with the Secretary without reservation, there is also a very dangerous circumstance resulting for those devoted to peace through diplomacy when such hatred is expressed from within the boarder of the USA. It appears as though Muslim faiths are not safe in the world.
One cannot discount the illegal invasion into Iraq as a hostile act by the USA. Our diplomats within Iraq also were oppressive to newspapers, etc. Our troops were ordered to fire on a beloved Mosque at one time. These things are not forgotten. So, the perception of the USA actually seeking equal freedoms for other countries is always in question to many within the Middle East.
There is an element to the Muslim faith (I will address that later.) that needs tempering in the Middle East and it is the free lancing of violence, however, asking a country newly liberated like Libya to stem that impetus to action is more than difficult. Libya's people are still on the defensive and there is every indication those seeking this violence are still parts of the old regime. Determining the people involved is important.
But, when it comes to promoting democracy Mr. Romney has to ask himself whom's side he is on. Either a country, like the USA, that stipulates democracy is important to all people and not just 'select people' believes in the populous that seek liberation from dictatorships, regardless, of how benevolent the dictator seems through the eyes of the USA.
Politically, in the USA, reaction from the right wing is through the eyes of acting through military intervention to maintain what 'has existed.' That is not an option. If the USA enforces dictatorships for its own convenience, then it is in 'passive occupation' of the country in question. That is not sovereign to the people of that nation.
What occurred in Benghazi, in my opinion, was well thought out. It was well armed and it did not occur with government troops. This is not an act of war against the USA. This is free lanced violence by elements within Libya attempting to destabilize a fragile peace. Evidently, there are idiots in the USA willing to play to that outcome as well.
I have to wonder if the State Department and USA military sees this as something that would have happened anyway and the inflammatory video was simply an excuse. Tricky question no one has the answer to yet. There are still munitions throughout Libya from the rebellion, a spontaneous act of violence could be organized due to a hate video. Hopefully, the investigation to how this occurred will be through and in respect of those that died; it will be truthful for the outcome our diplomats would expect.
Romney claims Obama sympathizes with attack on U.S. (click title to entry - thank you)
With four American diplomats dead in Libya, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the United States has in effect come under attack overseas. The response of the Mitt Romney campaign has been to accuse the Obama administration of sympathizing with the attackers.
That charge is grotesque. It is also factually incorrect. It can be made correct only by going back in time and rearranging events to suit the Romney narrative, and that is not going to happen. Let’s take a look at how the tragic events in question played out:...
