First, he would cleanse by confession. Then he would heal. Why, given the unique sensitivities of his background — “my sister is half-Indonesian,” he proudly told an interviewer in 2007, amplifying on his exquisite appreciation of Islam — his very election would revolutionize relations.And his policies of accommodation and concession would consolidate the gains: an outstretched hand to Iran’s mullahs, a first-time presidential admission of the U.S. role in a 1953 coup, a studied and stunning turning away from the Green Revolution; withdrawal from Iraq with no residual presence or influence; a fixed timetable for leaving Afghanistan; returning our ambassador to Damascus (with kind words for Bashar al-Assad — “a reformer,” suggested the secretary of state); deliberately creating distance between the United States and Israel.
These measures would raise our standing in the region, restore affection and respect for the United States and elicit new cooperation from Muslim lands.
Speaking of family sensitivity, he has a half brother in Kenya, living in poverty, who couldn't afford to pay for his child's medical treatment. What does Obama do? Nothing.
He has an aunt in the US, an illegal, living on welfare.
As for his MENA doctrine, it's pure garbage, based around his own narcissistic assumption that all anyone has to do to exist, is to listen to the Great One preach, and flash his mega-smile. The resultant stupor of adulation would be known as 'peace'.
Reality doesn't work like that; even Alice in Wonderland knew that. But Obama rejects reality. His Words are a much better world to live in.
Arabs respect power and abhor weakness. Like a passive canine, the U.S. turned away its head and offered itself for mounting. It was all too predictable. Ask Israel.
Four More Months.
The US has been kicked in the Muslim world. They've left Iraq in ruins, will in a year or so be giving Afganistan back to the Taliban and are a convenient whipping boy for anyone wanting to whip up a crowd in the middle east.
Obama is hitting leaders of the crazies but not committing troops.
What a better alternative would be is a good question. Abandoning the area to poverty and violent religion isn't a good option, but another failed war would be worse.
...clinging to their grenade launchers and koran
As Brit Hume suggested, Romney probably did jump the gun with his comments leveraging off the concepts in Mitt’s book about “No Apology” versus the Obama administration’s stance of a video causing renewed MENA uprisings. Nevertheless the real point Mitt correctly made is that this is about terrorism not just an offending video.
Dr K goes on to compare the Bush Doctrine to the Cairo Doctrine of Obama’s.
Is the world scarier than it was 4 years ago? Does leading from behind work? Don’t these terrorists only react to the -strong horse?
While bin Laden may be dead, al-Qaeda is alive.
Meanwhile Obama says he can’t change Washington from -the inside- of the WH so he is now de facto saying that he is going to need a Tea Party like movement of Democrats to give him a Democratic Congress....again! Let’s hope that doesn’t happen or we’re going to see more leading from behind on terrorism and the economy.
In light of Carney's admission that Libya was a terrorist action, I'm still waiting for the MSM apology for Romney's supposed gaffe.
Why would any country want to be held in high esteem by terrorists? The fact these guys hate the USA should be a badge of pride.
Let them hate, so long as they fear.
It is worth noting, re the cartoon, the next steps: the person/corpse is stripped, the body is beaten and otherwise abused and mutilated,
and finally the headless castrated corpse is strung up from a lamppost.
Such is politics in the Middle East.
The term "clusterphuck" comes to mind.
Has the Whitehouse actually admitted that it was a terrorist attack? The last time I heard that little mouse, Carney, on the tely, his words were carefully crafted to avoid an outright acknowledgement. It was sort of like he was suggesting that it takes time to organize a spontaneous demonstration.
His self-confidence is inversely proportionate to his actual accomplishments.
NBC (and all kinds of others) reported:
'“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials – that's self-evident," he told reporters in a gaggle on Air Force One.' BIG change of tune, but, hey, Zer0 and his crew are allowed.
(Syd B, have you heard of Google?)
And once again, the silence from the so-called "moderate" Muslims is deafening.
No such thing Eskimo
That cartoon makes me physically sick with anger and shame. It's 1979, Part II. Next thing we'll hear is that Obama's been attacked by a killer rabbit out on the back nine.
I think it was somebody on this blog that said that Obama will make Americans long for the good old days of Jimmy Carter. Whoever you are, you were right. Sadly.
Four years of "progress" on Middle East relations all undone by a $50 movie. LOL.
withdrawal from Iraq with no residual presence or influence; a fixed timetable for leaving Afghanistan
Why is this being criticized? Obama just followed W's Iraq withdrawal schedule and leaving Afghanistan is absolutely overdue.
Obama's foreign policy is the same as Bush's foreign policy that is a fact.
LAS I know this might be hard to grasp since the MSM doesn't seem to understand it either but Obama is the current president in office so he must take responsibility for his actions.
It is NOT about a film.
It is about organization and pushing an agenda. The muslim clerics stoke the fires of outrage and hate as a way to push their objective – which is to make Islam the supreme religion. The Organization of Islamic Conference countries have been trying in the UN to make blasphemy an international crime for some time now.
Most people refrain from provocative and insulting gestures unless they are angered or upset by another’s actions. Only a zeolot intent on intimidation would justify mayhem, murder and arson in reaction to a film or cartoons - it is a pretext only. And only a craven administration would blame the film maker and condemn his work as bigotry instead of telling the violent bigots that they had better learn to shrug it off.
LAS, the Bush Doctrine and the Obama 'Doctrine' regarding the MENA are polar opposites.
Obama does zilch about terrorism; indeed, he forbids the use of the word (man-caused disasters, overseas contingency operations, workplace violence). Bush's four points were very specific. Obama merely insists on 'talking' with them, on cultural relativism, on telling Islamists how much they have contributed to the world (?!).
Would Bush have allowed Iran to develop a nuclear bomb?
Bush openly went after terrorist activities. No, don't try to tell me that Obama's Kill List, where he personally selects, from his Kill Card List, who His Drone will kill today, is comparable to Bush's Iraq, Afghanistan and intelligence activities. I consider that Obama's personal selection of Who Will Die Today is a sign of a perverted psyche, and hardly the role of a commander in chief.
Furthermore, Bush did not go around apologizing for America, he did not insult American allies; he would not have ignored the Iranian demonstrations for freedom. Obama instead supported Ahmandinejad.
Bush would not have supported the Honduran dictator attempting to subvert the constitution and get another term. He wouldn't have supported Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands. He wouldn't have snubbed Netanyahu. And I very much doubt he woud have tossed the Keystone Pipeline.
james @ 10:51 AM: "The fact these guys hate the USA should be a badge of pride."
You don't get it.
They've always hated the U.S. -- and every country in the West. The problem with Oblahblah is that he's catered to the guys that hate the U.S. That's a change in American foreign policy. Obummer not only caters to Islam, he acquiesces to them.
Oblamer declared that under an Obamantion presidency the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world would improve.
Do you see it improving, james?
LAS, the Bush Doctrine and Obama's Ignore Doctrine have nothing in common.
Bush's four points, with three being specific military and intelligence operations aren't found in Obama's 'Who Shall I pick to kill with My Drone today' method. Obama's withdrawals are not those of Bush.
Equally, Obama has no interest in democracy or constitutions; he's shown this within the US, with his ignoring the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.
Obama's insults to US allies and his bowing to Islamists, has no comparison to Bush's actions. That includes Obama's turning his back on Netanyahu - whom Obama dislikes because Netanyahu is not an adoring fan of Obama and instead, confronts him with hard reality which Obama rejects.
Remember that Obama denies the reality of terrorism (man-caused disasters).
And Obama's rejection of Britain's claim to the Falkland islands, his support for the Honduran dictator...these are just a few more of his weird decisions. Oh, and remember Iran? Obama has enabled them to develop a nuclear weapon.
ET: can you please make your own blog for fatuous arguments? For contrast with Bush you claim that Obama ignores the constitution; Bush ignored it too by passing the PATRIOT ACT and EVERYTHING ELSE HE DID. The withdrawal from Iraq is exactly as Bush designed; that is fact. A simple fact. If you don't like TFB. I am tired of debating 'sky is blue' points here. Bush appeased Islamists up and down and wasted lots of time negotiating with Iran. Obama has too but at least he continued the cyber-attacks and drone program. It was Bush's idiotic buddy Colin Powell who, in 2002 during the worst of the second Intifada, seriously told Israel to stop 'over reacting' to Palestinian terrorism. He was thankfully ignored. Bush invited Iran to join an alliance against terrorism. You are every bit as much a worshipper of Bush, a moron president, as Obama's supporters are worshippers of him.
C'mon 'bama. What you waiting' for?
Slow the rising seas of anger, heal the planet.
LAS, I could say the same for you; get your own blog. That's not an argument.
To declare that 'Bush's buddy did X' is irrelevant. And for you to declare that the Bush Doctrine is similar to that of Obama, has no empirical evidence. Obama's appeasement and ignoring of realities on the ground, ie, Iran's nuclear enrichment, Syria's links with Iran, his rejection of the Iranian freedom demonstrators, etc. as well as his support for Chavez, Zelaya, and Argentinian claims to the Falklands are not something Bush would ever do.
Kindly be specific about 'everything else he did' to show that Bush ignored the Constitution.
Kindly provide evidence for Bush appeasing terrorists. Negotiation with Iran is an empty phrase. Be specific.
Check out the blog sites, even Wiki, on the War on Terror for specifics to deal with your vagueness.
Provide evidence that Bush invited Iran to join in the alliance against terrorism. If you are referring to his post 9/11 requests to all 'friendly Muslim states' to join in the fight against terrorism, that's a deliberate act to see if they reject or support Islamist fascism, He also contacted Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Qatar. And he contacted Iran, which made 'positive statements' supporting Bush's war on terror.
You can check out the US State Department's archives for details.
All this too will be hidden by a Media in thrall to a personality cult of a Marxist, they have waited all their lives for.
Slowly but surly the fire that is happening in the ME, will be obscured by titillating stories to distract, hidden under tons of accusations against Republicans. Out right lies, evasions by the truck load.Generally to make people blind to whats really happening. As people wise of these fake Journalists its the "Move along strategy". Nothing to see here folks.
If they dropped a nuke on LA, the MSM would either blame Conservatives or ignore it.
My dear LAS, Bush supported Ghaddafi and Hosni Mubarack, and opposed the Moslem Brotherhood. As for Iran, it is difficult to believe
that Bush would have sat on his hands while the present Iranian government beat up, imprisoned, and murdered thousands of pro-democracy protesters.
George Bush was essentially a decent and capable man, who was handed a couple of very difficult situations to deal with;
the first (9/11) he dealt with capably though imperfectly; the Democrat-manufactured collapse of the home mortgage market he had attempted to head off.
In any case, my dear LAS, I say, Tobruk 1941. Adults and leaders take responsibility, and don't leave it to their sycophants to whine out excuses.
"George Bush was a capable man" -HAHA good one. Hilarious. This is the guy that insisted on Palestinian elections, leading directly to Hamas's election.
If you think the mortgage meltdown was primarily 'democrat manufactured', then you don't understand what happened.
Shorter ET: I'm right because your evidence is irrelevant and your evidence is irrelevant because I'm right. *waves arms around*
Once again, I pwn all my opponents with ease and grace. My acronym name really says it all.
batb I know that Obama's big plan was to somehow "heal" the relationship between America and the terrorists like it was somehow America's fault. I know there's nothing to heal here. There was never any wound. These people are death cultists which is why the left loves them so much.
LAS is right, Bush violated the US constitution with the Patriot Act which is one of the most repulsive pieces of legislation passed in the US. The unprecedented levels of spying on the American people are Bush's legacy - I guess he didn't learn about the 5th Amendment during his education.
In his favor, Bush invaded Afghanistan, the source of the attack on the US but then created a huge mess by invading Iraq. I consider that Bush was far less likely to abuse anti-terrorist legislation that Obozo, but Bush opened the door for the greatest attack on constitutional rights ever which was carried out by Obozo.
Bush shredded the US constitution and totalitarians in the US were crapping their pants and falling over one another in a frantic attempt to see who could violate peoples constitutional rights the most after a single act of asymmetric warfare in 2001. One of the phrases I recall from 2001 was "the constitution is not a suicide pact". All that Obozo has done is to expand the "Bush doctrine" when it comes to violating the US constitution and Obozo has no qualms about disregarding the constitution with impunity given Bush's precedent.
The greatest casualty on 11/9/2001 was the US constitution and US democracy and, maybe Obozo is just being realistic and running up the white flag as the islamofascists won big that day. It's going to be a long bloody fight with no guarantee of victory to restore US constitutional democracy in the form that it existed prior to 11/9/2001.
Makes one almost want "O" to win.
Silver then hits $150 an oz. Gold well... $2-3 grand.
Makes condos seem well like ...paper.
Not worth the rest of the grief though....
Well ya know perhaps some of the muzzies still have a sense of self preservation....expecting something in retaliation....
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Libya-militia-backlash-Stevens/2012/09/21/id/457170
Sasquatch >
That is no surprise, the bulk of Libyans loved Gaddafi , he gave them a very good relative standard of living and actively hunted down and jailed Al Qaeda.
Italian & French foreign interests in Libya easily whipped their boy Obamba into aiding Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, and any other Gaddafi enemy for his overthrow.
As the countries loyalist regroup after the Obamba / EU/ UN & Al Qaeda’s unholy alliance routing, they will undoubtedly lash back. There will be widespread bloodshed for generations as multiple factions’ war against each other, or another generally respected/ feared “strong man” steps fourth and beats them into peace.
It has played out just as everyone opposed to the “Arab Spring” predicted, no surprises.