They say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". In the case of the Cairo speech I don't find anything which could even remotely be construed as an apology of any kind. Those of you who hate this President so fiercely will naturally claim that is is a very definite apology. In the end, it doesn't matter what either of us say. Our words will not sway either side to change their views.

Cairo apology # 1 --- "we will no longer torture" (the enemy), read, we are sorry we offended the muslim world with our advanced interrogation techniques (even though it is exactly those interrogation techniques that landed us bin Laden for which I love to 'spike the football').

Cairo apology # 2 --- we will close down Guantanomo, read, we are sorry we have imprisoned Islamic terrorists, and we won't do that any more ......... [except I haven't lived up to that promise yet, yada, yada, yada]

And then, the state departments own embassy website clearly aplogizing and saying we cannot hurt the feelings of the muslim world etc..etc...etc....

Where is the barf bag!

QuakerOats;1274059 wrote:Cairo apology # 1 --- "we will no longer torture" (the enemy), read, we are sorry we offended the muslim world with our advanced interrogation techniques (even though it is exactly those interrogation techniques that landed us bin Laden for which I love to 'spike the football').

Cairo apology # 2 --- we will close down Guantanomo, read, we are sorry we have imprisoned Islamic terrorists, and we won't do that any more ......... [except I haven't lived up to that promise yet, yada, yada, yada]

And then, the state departments own embassy website clearly aplogizing and saying we cannot hurt the feelings of the muslim world etc..etc...etc....

Where is the barf bag!

The intelligence came from intercepted phone and voice messages, not so much torture,but whatever. Hell, even Rice and McCain said the way we did things did not help.

GITMO, more PR, agreed. The administration would love to close it down, and hold the guys here, in Fed pens with people like the FBI's most wanted. But, Congress has said no. So, the administration is in a box, and keeps it open.
But, we are still arresting and keep a ton of militants. Just not a GITMO, but at overseas bases. Gee, guess that is apologizing.

The apology tour crap makes no strategic sense when you actually look at the policies put forth. The President, in the grand scheme of things in on the middle scale of international relations. He is what we call a mix of a realist and an international liberal. That means, he believes in using international institutions and international law to solve problems, but is not afraid to use force when it serves the U.S. national interest (realist). His view on drones, expansion of intelligence programs, and his shift to Asia demonstrate that.


Now, what irks me, and is the main reason why I cannot stand this thread is the complete lack of understand of how the foreign policy process works. Go read some International Relations 101 folks. It is really easy to destroy the administration because it is the easy thing to do and it fits most of your points of view.

I'll admit, the administration has not handled this the best, but if you can show me how Romney would have handled it better, or not led to the crisis, I'm all ears.

All I hear is, Obama sucks, and his policies are bad and a disaster! Yet, when pressed to see if Romney's is any better and would lead to any changes, crickets......

It isn't that Obama has failed, it is the Middle East is the most complex region to understand, especially now.

What would Romney do right now? Really? How is he any different? How would he sway the masses in the region?

And just saying, well he is be better. How do we know that? How? What has he actually said or mentioned that would even give an inkling that he would be better at managing what is going on now?

I have yet to see it. And the way he is managing his campaign, and add his neocon advisers, adds to my long standing view that he is a complete idiot in terms of foreign policy.

I'll still refer to this, one of the worst Op-ed's ever. It has so many inaccuracies, but this is my favorite:

This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers -- including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads -- without tripping the treaty's limits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html

Man, didn't know you can fire missile in a ballistic trajectory from a bomber. What an idiot. And his comments today are not helping. The guy is a tool. He has no foundation.

What is seriously flawed is the obama regime floating the idea that a 10 minute youtube video trailer is the cause for the middle east meltdown, and the state-run media lapdogs picking that up and running complete interference to cover for a failed middle east policy which has led to premeditated, 9/11 attacks at our embassies. Most people with half a brain can see right through this, yet the media just hammers away at it so much that soon it is regarded as fact, instead of the fiction it is. This of course, is all done in order to change the debate; instead of focusing on obama's foreign policy and our enemies attacking and killing Americans, we instead have to focus on other meaningless issues along the periphery. It is simply amazing. If this was Bush, all we would be hearing about is how terrible his foreign policy is which led to all this, and how he is responsible for these deaths yada, yada, yada .............. The double standard is immeasurable.

We have had a failed Middle East Policy for at least 50 years. This is not just Bush or Obama to blame.

ptown_trojans_1;1274151 wrote:I'll admit, the administration has not handled this the best, but if you can show me how Romney would have handled it better, or not led to the crisis, I'm all ears.

All I hear is, Obama sucks, and his policies are bad and a disaster! Yet, when pressed to see if Romney's is any better and would lead to any changes, crickets......

It isn't that Obama has failed, it is the Middle East is the most complex region to understand, especially now.

What would Romney do right now? Really? How is he any different? How would he sway the masses in the region?

And just saying, well he is be better. How do we know that? How? What has he actually said or mentioned that would even give an inkling that he would be better at managing what is going on now?

I have yet to see it. And the way he is managing his campaign, and add his neocon advisers, adds to my long standing view that he is a complete idiot in terms of foreign policy.

The first bolded part above sums it up, and I think is why Romney jumped in with his comments so quickly: this past week has been an absolute train-wreck in terms of American interests in the Middle East. I'm trying to imagine the response of our popular media if the GW Bush State Dept was believed to have known 48 hours in advance that something was up in Libya, with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up no less, and that 4 Americans were senselessly murdered because the security there was minimal to non-existant.

On top of that, the supposed foreign policy genius and statesman extraordinaire Obama high-tails it to Vegas for a fund-raiser while shocked citizens are trying to make sense of what happened. The lack of accountability in this situation is staggering. The man who claimed his mere inauguration would instantly bring about healing and peace with Muslim nations four years ago is now painfully not up to the task of leading anything, let alone a world superpower.

And I utterly reject this idea that somehow Romney has to come up with a solution to "sway the masses in the region". I'm more interested in whether or not he upholds our foundational principles and acts in America's best interests.

Which brings me to Obama and his State Dept continually insisting that an amatuer YouTube video is to blame for what obviously appears to be a coordinated attack on the anniversary of 9/11. Add to this their previous cooperation with OIC nations regarding the criminalization of speech that could cause offense to religious groups. Add to this the State Dept's crystal-clear apology to said video, and you have the makings of an administration that is out of excuses. Time to go. I mean, Elmer Fudd could be the Republican nominee and he would get my vote.

How about Thurston Howell III?

And what exactly will that be? Just like everything else, Romney likes to point his finger at Obama but fails to give any specifics. Just saying this guy is at fault doesn't cut it for me. I want a reason to vote for someone and Mitt isn't giving me one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M86ndC4V7EQ

one of the few in the media telling the truth.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-foreign-policy-approval-rating-drops-after-mideast-turmoil

big loss of independents in favor of obama's foreign policy.

Head of DOJ's Civil Rights Division (Tom Perez) gets a little wishy-washy with affirming that the DOJ won't criminalize speech against religion:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/18/video-doj-civil-rights-division-chief-cant-commit-to-protecting-free-speech/

Obama says murders of 4 Americans "bumps in the road"

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/24/Obama-Attacks-In-Middle-East-Bumps-In-The-Road

I think we may all regret if we actually reach where that road is going . . .

obama : middle east killings just bump in the road. Wow, imagine if Romney had said that.


Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to President George W. Bush said on Twitter: 'I guess when u win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing “an attack that kills an Ambassador is just a ‘bump in the road.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207861/Obama-describes-wave-Middle-East-violence-murder-U-S-ambassador-Libya-bumps-road.html#ixzz27Pz1hwjo

Obama brings up video before the UN:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/25/Obama-to-UN-Not-My-Video-More-Guards-Would-Not-Have-Helped

[h=2]Passing the buck in dramatic fashion on the world stage, President Barack Obama told the UN General Assembly this morning that the U.S. government was not responsible for the anti-Islam video that he once again blamed for recent attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East. He added that more guards at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi would not have helped save Ambassador Chris Stevens, and that the real problem was "deeper causes" such as religious intolerance.[/h]"t will not be enough to put more guards in front of an Embassy; or to put out statements of regret, and wait for the outrage to pass," Obama told the assembled diplomats and heads of state. "If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis....Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations."

While claiming that Al Qaeda had been weakened, Obama said that the attacks on U.S. embassies were in fact a natural outcome of misunderstandings on both sides--of "difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world." He proceeded to attack the infamous anti-Islam video:

[INDENT]In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they're willing to tolerate freedom for others. And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

[/INDENT]Obama added that the U.S. could not "ban" the video, because the "Constitution protects the right to practice free speech." He did not mention that his administration's policy is, in fact, that such speech can be restricted, and that the U.S. had co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt at the UN Human Rights Council in 2009 that would allow Islamist governments to ban such videos and claim they had the full support of the United States.

"I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism," Obama said, placing a filmmaker in the U.S. on equal footing with those who had attacked America. Obama also equated insulting Muhammad with denying the Holocaust:

[INDENT]The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

[/INDENT]Again, Obama left out a key detail: that his appointed diplomats had sat and listened to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday while he defended Holocaust denial and said Israel would be "eliminated"--long after Israel's representatives had left the hall in protest.

Obama left precious little time to address the civil war in Syria or the threat of a nuclear Iran. He gave several pages to assuaging the feelings of radical Muslims angry about a YouTube video; he provided a few sentences to the question of what to do about a nuclear-armed Iran, saying only that "time is not unlimited" for talks.

This guy has no leadership qualities about him whatsoever. Yeah, I'm sure one clown who made a low-low-budget video on YouTube, along with those like him, are about to hold the keys to our future. :rolleyes:

The real clown was Breitbart himself. Good to see that his legacy goes on, propelled by more and more clowns.

So, Mr. President, why didn't we hear about your raging disgust for the Piss Christ display, which re-appeared in NYC this weekend? - http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/art_controversy_back_in_ny_ZjuqKoVhysXZ3eQg6U6n1H

Is your administration going to ask for the $15,000 of taxpayer money back from the "artist's" NEA grant? Yeah, I know the answer. Muslims get defended when their prophet gets defamed, us Christians have our money confiscated and given to those that put our messiah in a bottle of piss. I know how this works, just thought I'd point out yet another hypocrisy in your bigotted mind, Barry.

stlouiedipalma;1280280 wrote:The real clown was Breitbart himself. Good to see that his legacy goes on, propelled by more and more clowns.

Good to see that your argument is once again as shallow as tossing around a few names.

obama blamed 'the film' for the mideast violence ........is that the first time he didn't blame Bush?

pmoney25;1274351 wrote:We have had a failed Middle East Policy for at least 50 years. This is not just Bush or Obama to blame.

LOL, agree with you there.

jhay78;1274462 wrote:The first bolded part above sums it up, and I think is why Romney jumped in with his comments so quickly: this past week has been an absolute train-wreck in terms of American interests in the Middle East. I'm trying to imagine the response of our popular media if the GW Bush State Dept was believed to have known 48 hours in advance that something was up in Libya, with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up no less, and that 4 Americans were senselessly murdered because the security there was minimal to non-existant.

Ehhh, the American people and especially the media have rarely "reacted" to attacks on US interests abroad. I'm thinking back to Clinton and attacks on the USS Cole and also attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

jhay78;1280156 wrote:Obama brings up video before the UN:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/25/Obama-to-UN-Not-My-Video-More-Guards-Would-Not-Have-Helped



This guy has no leadership qualities about him whatsoever. Yeah, I'm sure one clown who made a low-low-budget video on YouTube, along with those like him, are about to hold the keys to our future. :rolleyes:

:laugh:

gut;1280362 wrote:Ehhh, the American people and especially the media have rarely "reacted" to attacks on US interests abroad. I'm thinking back to Clinton and attacks on the USS Cole and also attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

You forgot Reagan and Lebanon.

gut;1280362 wrote:Ehhh, the American people and especially the media have rarely "reacted" to attacks on US interests abroad. I'm thinking back to Clinton and attacks on the USS Cole and also attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

I get what you're saying, but those attacks were pre-9/11, before Al-Qaeda was really well known. A whole different world after 9/11.

I don't remember Clinton's response, but I can't imagine it involved an apology or condemnation of the actions of a private US citizen exercising his or her free speech rights. Also I don't remember any evidence that his State Dept had any kind of warning beforehand, or that they tripped over themselves trying to hide or cover up any information that would make them look foolish or negligent.

I still cannot believe that a cheap, crass You Tube video has risen to the level of presidential politics to the point that he would mention it before the UN and emphasize that his government had nothing to do with it.

jhay78;1280451 wrote:I get what you're saying, but those attacks were pre-9/11, before Al-Qaeda was really well known. A whole different world after 9/11.

I don't remember Clinton's response, but I can't imagine it involved an apology or condemnation of the actions of a private US citizen exercising his or her free speech rights. Also I don't remember any evidence that his State Dept had any kind of warning beforehand, or that they tripped over themselves trying to hide or cover up any information that would make them look foolish or negligent.

Yes, he did do stuff, but was limited due to politics, technology, and apathy at home.
He authorized the CIA to being seeking OBL, authorized cruise missiles, and established the CIA program that was the main reason why the Taliban fell post 9/11.
The number 1 book on the subject is Ghost Wars, long but well worth it.
http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14105135-libyan-president-to-nbc-anti-islam-film-had-nothing-to-do-with-us-consulate-attack?lite

Libyan president says 'film' had nothing to do with terrorist attack.

So we have a US Ambassador murdered in a terrorist attack, and our president is blaming it on a youtube trailer and the media is complicit in that LIE, and the coverup.

What a national disgrace.