Romney Stings Obama With “Apology Tour” Remark

During last night’s debate, Mitt Romney stung Obama when he stated that the president went on an apology tour and conveniently skipped Israel. You could tell immediately the comment hurt. And why wouldn’t it? It’s true. And as the cliche states — “the truth hurts.”

Attempting to ease the sting, Obama got a little bit uppity. He leaned in, elevated his voice and went into a denial and distort story about visiting Israel before he was the President of the United States. He rambled on, as he is prone to do, but ultimately skipped addressing the Israel slight or the numerous speeches he made about “America is bad and we’re sorry” during the apology tour.

Romney’s jab is significant because it showcases how Obama conducts his foreign policy — as an weakling.

Look at the Libya events that took place just last month. Obama and his administration spent numerous weeks stating the violence was sparked by an anti-Muhammad video and apologizing to the Middle East for it. During that time, not a word was mentioned about the concept of freedom of speech nor that Obama was intent on protecting it.

Authorities actually approached Google (the owner of You Tube) and requested they squash access to the video. Isn’t that censorship? Consider, too, that the video-maker was identified, detained, questioned and even forced to do the “perp-walk” in front of national media. All this because he made a video. But making amateurish videos is not against the law. Nor is criticism or making inflammatory remarks. Yet, as of today, more authority has come down upon our video-villain than on the militants that carried out the attack that killed four Americans.

And this is the problem with being an international weakling — you end up making America look bad by undermining our founding principles. The reality is those that hate us already see America as bad, depraved and evil. We are the Great Satan. Who would be so naive as to think that validating their outlook will change their minds? Erroneously acknowledge we are evil to those that portray us as evil and you re-enforce their outlook — you don’t alter it.

The sad reality is that Obama and his liberal-progressive, utopia-loving lunatics actually believe in the preposterous “we can all be friends” approach to foreign policy. And they’re so desperate to prove it correct that they have become blind to reality. As a result, when things go wrong they can’t blame the other party because that would be admitting we really can’t all be friends. This would invalidate their life view. So to perpetuate their adolescent outlook, they claim it must be something we did. In the case of Libya it is “that terrible video insulted people beyond their ability to be rational, that’s why they hurt us. Take away the video and we can still be friends.”

We just can’t make videos. Or openly critique Islam. Or call radical terrorists — radical terrorists. It is an immature and self-destructive outlook. America has a black president. It has a woman that runs the State Department. Americans believe in freedom of speech and equal rights. At the same time, there exist cultures in the world that shoot children for seeking an education, lock people in jail for bad-mouthing leaders and don’t allow women to drive. Yet, to the apologists, it is our values that create the problems of the world.

If you believe the Left, foreign policy was a feather in Obama’s cap. The “courageous” decision to kill Osama bin Laden and Obama’s “heroic” drone attacks were scenarios the Left could spin a narrative around as a reason for re-electing Obama. Better still, if the Right attacked his approach, the Left could counter by claiming apologies do work because Obama has kept us safe.

Unfortunately, the terror attack against the American consulate in Libya shows this narrative to be just another lie.

Do you think they will apologize?

Video — Some samples of Obama’s Apologies

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net 
Advertisements

The Last Presidential Debate: Obama Hit Mitt Hard But Romney Won (See The Full Debate Video and Transcript)

   Bookmark and Share   Without question, President Obama had a good night last night but he failed to achieve his goal of beating Mitt Romney by landing political punches that successfully painted Romney as a clueless, warmonger whom Americans can’t trust on the world stage  (See the transcript and video of the entire debate at the bottom of this post).

From the beginning it was clear that the two men had two entirely different demeanors.  President Obama began and ended the night with an aggressive, combative almost angry quality that was often sarcastic and condescending.  For his part, Romney was friendly, respectful and un-rattled by the President.  But most of all, while President Obama failed to essentially disqualify Romney and his foreign policy vision, Governor Romney again passed the presidential test and proved to the American people that he is prepared to take on the job of President.

President Obama tried his best to describe Romney as “always wrong”, and “all over the map” and at one point he even spoke to the Governor as if he were a child after launching in to this diatribe about Romney’s call for a stronger navy;

“You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

For Romney, while he spent most of the night demonstrating that he is quite informed on matters of foreign policy and proving that he has a vision for America’s role in the world, he never exhibited the type of bitter and arrogant behavior that was put on display by the President.  And in one of his strongest remarks of the night, Romney turned the attacks against him on to the President ;

“I can say this, that we’re talking about the Middle East and how to help the Middle East reject the kind of terrorism we’re seeing, and the rising tide of tumult and – and confusion. And – and attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East, and take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this violence.”said Romney.

Overall, President Obama may have actually won last night’s debate on the basis of his ability to defend his own unravelling foreign policy by aggressively trying to put Romney on the defense throughout the night.  But Romney was actually less defensive than the President and held his own.   In doing so Romney made this debate a draw, which for a challenger to a sitting President is ultimately a win.

Many may not initially see it that that way though.  That includes Romney supporters, who may have been disappointed by the fact that Mitt Romney did not beat President Obama over the head with Benghazi.  But as I suggested in a post prior to the debate  any attempt to go after the President so aggressively on Benghazi  risked “the creation of a new narrative that will suggest that Romney took legitimate questions about the events surrounding Benghazi and exploited them by over-politicizing them in a desperate attempt to win the presidential election.  Such a narrative just two weeks before Election Day would produce irreversibly damaging results for the Romney-Ryan ticket and future headlines in the biased liberal media will deal more with their accusing Romney of attempting to exploit Benghazi than the facts that make Mitt Romney right to make Benghazi an issue”.

I added;

“So while the temptation to confront President Obama with the evidence and questions surrounding the obvious foreign policy and national security blunders behind Benghazi, Romney would probably be best advised to allude to these legitimate concerns in broader terms.”

It is clear that Governor Romney agreed and instead he used this debate as an opportunity to apply a strategy that targeted listeners of the debate who’s votes he needs to win in key battleground states such as Florida and Ohio.  This too was a point I predicted Romney would take in the post refered to above.  Romney applied this strategy by offering a solid defense of his position on the auto bailouts, a point Romney proved the President to be wrong about when he mischaracterizes Romney’s real position.   Romney’s decision to spend time explaining that domestic policy issue during a foreign policy debate was a clear attempt by Romney to address the swing voters among Ohio’s  auto workers.

Romney also appealed quite well to the relatively large Jewish vote in the battleground state of Florida.  In one exchange between the two men, Romney eloquently laid out  how much “daylight” President Obama created “between ourselves and Israel”.

All of this means that Governor Romney accomplished all that he really needed to last night.  Not only did he avoid making any gaffe’s, he demonstrated a clear knowledge and command of foreign policy issues.  He also conducted himself in a way that avoided any negative impressions among voters who watched the debate.  While President Obama may have turned off some voters with his small and petty style during the debate, Romney was  strong, confident and principled.

In the final analysis Romney needed to demonstrate that he is presidential and on equal  footing with President Obama and when all was said and done, he did just that.  That means that despite President Obama’s strong but condescending performance, Mitt Romney won.  Why?  Because President Obama failed to change few if any of the undecided minds that he needed to if he wants to win this election.  But Romney’s inoffensive performance added to his credibility as a candidate and it quite tactfully targeted the voters he needed to speak to last night.  And with the momentum behind Mitt, President Obama failed to turn this election around.

Click here for or a complete transcript of the debate.  See the full video of the debate below:

Bookmark and Share

Watch the Final Presidential Debate Live Online at White House 2012

This Live Stream has ended but you can see the entire debate and read a transcript and analysis of the debate here

 

Bookmark and Share  Here we go.  This is it! Tonight’s final presidential debate begins at 9:00 p.m. EST.  You can view it live online from Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida , here at white House 2012.

While Mitt Romney has a perfect opportunity to hammer the President over Benghazi and use it to demonstrate how his Administration has been conducting a failed foreign policy and dangerously incompetent national security and intelligence operation.  But Romney may not too aggressive on the issue of Benghazi for two reasons.  First he does not want to be seen as overly aggressive and as exploiting the tragedy for political purposes.  The other reason is that all Romney needs to do to win tonight’s debate is hold his own against the President.  That standard should force Romney to play it safe tonight.

But President Obama has to take an approach different from Romney’s.

President Obama needs to score a knockout blow on Romney and reverse the momentum that is currently propelling him ahead of the President in national polls and battleground states.  whether he can achieve that or not is unknown but also unlikely.  But it will certainly be fun to see the President try to knock Romney out on foreign policy while his own foreign policy is unraveling before our eyes.

Watch it LIVE here:

Bookmark and Share

Framing Tonight’s Foreign Policy Debate and the Unravelling Obama Foreign Policy

Bookmark and Share  To frame tonight’s final presidential debate, American Crossroads released a new video: “Not Optimal.”

The video juxtaposes President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 against the current unrest in the Middle East.

Bookmark and Share

A Foregn Policy Question for President Obama Not Related to Benghazi

  Bookmark and SharePresident Obama will try tonight to paint Mitt Romney as a warmonger with no experience and who is consistently wrong.  But at some point during tonight’s foreign policy debate, I would like to see President Obama answer this following question;

After opposing the war in Iraq and calling it a “dumb war”, and after carrying out the Bush timeline in Iraq and seeing that war through to its conclusion, do you still consider it to have been a “dumb war” and given the current situation in the Middle East, do you think we would be better today  if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

The question is one that goes to the heart of Barack Obama’s foreign policy or lack thereof.  It is a policy that is adrift and lacking any meaningful purpose.  And the question I put forth is one which if answered honestly, should shed some light on the President’s willingness or unwillingness to confront our enemies if he were to be granted a second presidential term.

Bookmark and Share

“Death And Deceit In Benghazi”: The Timeline Behind the Obama Coverup (Full Video)

  Bookmark and Share   While most journalists continue to fail to ask the President and his Administration the hard questions about the circumstances leading up to and following the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Bret Baier of Fox News has put together an excellent report that proves the  President and his Administration have a lot to explain to the American people (see the special report in the video below).

The timeline established in this report raises several questions including some which deal with  the broader concerns of national security within an Administration that apparently went without ever knowing or acknowledging the fact that al Qaeda was establishing itself in Eastern, Libya, even though the Administration was being warned about it for more than two months.

The final presidential debate will be devoted to foreign policy, an issue which until recently has largely taken a backseat to the economic crisis that is confronting our nation.  But over the course of the past six weeks, events beyond our borders have reminded many Americans that what happens abroad creates ripples that eventually and inevitably impact on our own shores and citizens.  Pleas from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to intervene in  Iran’s march towards nuclear capability have reached a fevered pitch.  Continued fallout from the lead-from-behind Obama strategy in regards to the so-called Arab Spring has turned into an Arab Winter that has led to an ongoing civil war in Syria that continues to destabilize an already unstable region of the world and threatens to turn in to a war between Syria and Turkey.   And in Libya the promise once seen in the final fall and demise of Moammar  Gaddafi  has turned in to an opportunity for al Qaeda related cells to kill our Ambassador and three members of his security detail and in to an opportunity for al Qaeda to establish another beachhead to launch future terrorist attacks from.

The ramifications of the events leading up to, and following the terrorist attack in Benghazi are turning in to two scandals.  The fist being the scandal of the obvious intelligence failures which made it possible for the killing of our 4 Americans in Libya on September 11, 2012.  How could the President never have been told about the activity level of al Qaeda in Libya that Ambassador Chris Stevens warned us about in cables to the Administration which he told us about two months prior to the attack that took his life?  Or is this something that President Obama might have known had he not avoided approximately 62% of his daily intelligence briefings since the beginning of the year?

Brett Baier’s timeline also raises questions about the Administration’s reaction to the terrorist attack… a reaction that is turning into the second scandal.

Given the clear contradictions between the facts outlined in this report and the statements made by the President and the Administration, this timeline shows evidence of  an Administration that is at best less than forthcoming with the truth and at its worst, trying to cover-up both the fact that there was such an extraordinarily severe intelligence failure and the reasons for that intelligence failure.

Could it be that President Obama knew nothing about Benghazi because since just the beginning of 2012 alone, he skipped out on  approximately 62% of his daily intelligence briefings?  While this is not a question asked in Brett Baier’s reports, it is a logical question when one consider all the facts and adds them in to the timeline laid out in this special report.

Whether or not Mitt Romney has the opportunity or desire to make these points in tonight’s presidential debate on foreign policy is anyone’s guess.  But what there is no need to second guess is the fact that since the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the president and his Administration have acted in ways that are raising more questions than answers.  In fact while they have not provided any answers , all their actions have raised nothing but questions.  If you take the time to watch this special report by Brett Baier entitled “Death and Deceit in Libya”, you too will begin to understand the true meaning of the phrase… “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”.

Bookmark and Share

Candy Crowley Screwed Up. We Told Her To Keep Her Mouth Shut.

Bookmark and Share  One of the most tense moments during last night’s debate came when the issue of the terrorist attack in Benghazi came up.  At one point President Obama tried to claim that he publicly recognized the tragic event as a terrorist attack the morning after it occurred, during a speech given in the  Rose Garden.  Upon hearing that, Governor Romney entered in to the following exchange with the President;

ROMNEY: I think (it’s) interesting the president just said something which —  which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said  that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act  of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re  saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed Governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the  president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

Then as Romney turned to the moderator, Candy Crowley took it upon herself to interject herself in to the debate by agreeing with the President by stating;

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir … call it an act of  terror.”

Her comment was then followed by applause.  The moment lended a total lack of credibility to notion that the questioners in the audience of this town hall and its moderator were impartial or undecided participants.  Nothing says undecided and impartial like the moderator making one side’s argument and the crowd cheering.  But this is exactly why in a pre-debate post , I specifically stated that Candy Crowley needed to keep her mouth shut during the debate.

As it turned out, within an hour of the debate, Crowley popped up on CNN admitting that she was wrong.  The President never actually called the violence that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi a terrorist attack as he and Crowley claimed he did from the Rose Garden on September 12th.

On that occasion the President avoided describing the assassination of our staff in Libya as a terrorist attack.  He did however say the following about the tragedy in general;

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that  character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said.  “Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United  States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is  done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we  also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of  their attackers.”

Then for 14 days following that statement, the President and his Administration still refused to call the tragedy in Benghazi a terrorist attack and tried to claim that it was the result of a spontaneous riot inspired by a video.

So Candy Crowley was wrong.  She was wrong about her conclusion and in  her to attempt disagree with Mitt Romney over the stated facts.   And  she was wrong for refusing to leave the debate up to the debaters.  Instead she interjected her own biased conclusions into the debate.  This is something she was urged to avoid when I wrote the following about Crowley in White House 2012…

“You’re not on the ballot, so we don’t care what you know, what you think you know, or what your alleged unbiased opinion is!”

But Candy couldn’t help herself.  When she saw her prefered choice for President needing a lifeline she pretended to be the host of “Who Wants To Be  A Millionaire” and gave President Obama a chance to call on a friend for the answer.  That friend being herself.

If only she listened and kept her mouth shut.  Instead she confirmed that her next job should not be moderating a presidential debate or reporting the news, it should be as the White House Press Secretary in the next term of whatever Democrat wins the presidency after Mitt Romney’s two terms in the Oval Office.

Oh yeah, let us not forget the other thing confirmed during all this… our President was again caught lying in an attempt to save his presidency and get reelected.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: