During the recent uprising on the anniversary of 9/11, the President showed he is not equipped to lead, even from behind. Not only did he not take seriously that this was an organized planned attack, (unless your typical demonstrator against a trumped up video carries RPGs with them everywhere) he did not answer some of the fundamental questions about the incident. In fact he did not answer any questions at all except whether Egypt was an ally (he said no).
Why was the consulate not better protected? Why was the ambassador even there in Benghazi? Why the State Department did not know this was coming? If they did know why didn't they do something?
When Romney publically shamed the administration by coming out first to criticize the Embassy statement, Obama criticized Romney and then agreed he was right and criticized the same statement. If they both were critical of the same statement how was Romney wrong for saying it?
Obama's Middle East Policy has been one of appeasement from the start.
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" the embassy statement reads. The part that the main stream media seems to deny is this; The disgraceful embassy statement was a completely accurate articulation of longstanding Obama policy. No underling in any embassy anywhere would dare issue a statement that he (or she) did not believe was the policy of their bosses all the way up to and including the President. It is just not done. If someone like that had issued a statement under his own signature outside his official responsibilities he would be summarily discharged for insubordination or some such. has anyone been fired for this statement? Of course not because everyone knows they were speaking for the President. While he is trying to put some distance between the administration and the statement. He forgets that he IS the administration. All the ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President.
This whole incident is about being the president not playing president. Romney acted presidential. Obama did not.
Why was the consulate not better protected? Why was the ambassador even there in Benghazi? Why the State Department did not know this was coming? If they did know why didn't they do something?
When Romney publically shamed the administration by coming out first to criticize the Embassy statement, Obama criticized Romney and then agreed he was right and criticized the same statement. If they both were critical of the same statement how was Romney wrong for saying it?
Obama's Middle East Policy has been one of appeasement from the start.
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" the embassy statement reads. The part that the main stream media seems to deny is this; The disgraceful embassy statement was a completely accurate articulation of longstanding Obama policy. No underling in any embassy anywhere would dare issue a statement that he (or she) did not believe was the policy of their bosses all the way up to and including the President. It is just not done. If someone like that had issued a statement under his own signature outside his official responsibilities he would be summarily discharged for insubordination or some such. has anyone been fired for this statement? Of course not because everyone knows they were speaking for the President. While he is trying to put some distance between the administration and the statement. He forgets that he IS the administration. All the ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President.
This whole incident is about being the president not playing president. Romney acted presidential. Obama did not.
No comments:
Post a Comment