DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in Benghazi attack

It's all too easy to see a people from only the nightly news and generalize an opinion on them even though they know a world unlike the one we know. It's all too easy to fall into the trap of, "all they want is to kill us, nuke'em"! It helps to humanize this situation with those pictures. I realize that crowd wasn't that large but their effort speaks volumes.

Thanks for posting that.

I think you hit the nail on the head. As someone who grew up in Bosnia during one of the ugliest wars in modern history, I can tell you all the extremism you see is just that - extremism. The average person - be they Libyan, Bosnian, American, Iranian, Palestinian, or Israeli or any other nationality is the same anywhere you go. They're worried about making rent, about sending their kids to a good school, and about getting a couple days off work to take the family on a vacation. Painting an entire country/ethnicity/religion in broad strokes because of the action of extremists - who by definition are the minority - is unfair to the overwhelmingly majority of people who completely condemn and hate the attacks but have no means to do anything about it.The thing that makes the protest I linked in Libya even more meaningful is that these people know they can be jailed or killed for speaking out, yet they do so because they want the world to know that they are human - not villains.

It seems to me that most people fail to realize that the main victims of terrorism in Libya are normal, innocent Libyans whose only crime is being born in Libya. We have a 6,000 mile bubble of protection, the average Libyan is the one that has to face these terrorists every single day. There are estimates that in this current regime change, there have been upwards of 50,000 civilian Libyan deaths and 50,000 civilian injuries. To act like the Libyan people want this is to me so far removed from reality that there is no way that anyone can rationally believe that.

I've seen the trailer and it's laughable at best.

The fact that these people felt the need to take lives because of this shows how crazy and delusional they are (Not all of them, just these extremists)

It would have been ridiculous to be mad about this for more than 3 seconds.

What about the far right militias or the far left environmental terrorists? They're willing to kill plenty of people for things which the normal person would find completely lacking in reality.

I guess they don't have drive-by shootings where small children are shot where you live, lucky for you!

Boy,
There are a few things on this board you can always count on, Jumping to conclusions without the FACTs( alot of Repubs here, they cannot help it) and blaming Obama( Again, Republican derraingment syndrome!..LMAO!!

I mean who would over react BEFORE getting the facts! You know, like the embassy in Cairo putting out statements BEFORE the raid on them! And BTW they were not apologizing for anything!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/cairo-libya-attacks-timeline/?hpid=z1

Quote:

---

airoTuesday, 6:17 a.m. ET
U.S. Embassy in Cairo issues tweet

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo issues a statement that obliquely referenced the controversy over an anti-Islam film made by a U.S.-based real estate developer. The statement said the embassy condemned efforts by “misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” Around the same time, pieces of that statement were sent out as tweets from the official embassy twitter account.

We firmly reject the actions of those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Around the same time, a pair of now-deleted tweets reportedly say:

We condemn the ongoing attempts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.

as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

---

And then later

Quote:

---

More tweets from U.S. embassy

The Cairo embassy’s Twitter account posts another message, since deleted. News sites like Buzzfeed have said it read:

This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.

---

But this is the best one yet!

Quote:

---

Cairo embassy tweets responses to criticism

The Cairo embassy’s Twitter account posts a series of messages, apparently responding to criticism that its earlier statement had been too sympathetic with the protesters.

Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this.

Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.

---

In Libya:
It seems like some group pulled of that attack and that Libyan forces helped drive away the attackers/protesters. So these brave Americans who are over there, are being attacked and of course back home, repubs are criticizing the Pres and events over there, just priceless and gutless!(* well what else is new *)

One thing that I bet is that the other crazy factions in Libya will tell the US what group did this and we ( the US) will kill them... give it about 60 days!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-apology-was-i/


Did the U.S. embassy in Cairo make an apology?

By Louis Jacobson
Published on Wednesday, September 12th, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
Share this article:
Mitt Romney addresses the killing of U.S. embassy officials in Benghazi, Libya, while speaking in Jacksonville, Fla., on Sept. 12, 2012.

Mitt Romney addresses the killing of U.S. embassy officials in Benghazi, Libya, while speaking in Jacksonville, Fla., on Sept. 12, 2012.

The breach of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats in Libya prompted a clash in the American presidential campaign over whether a statement by the Cairo embassy was an apology.

Just hours after the first details emerged about the Libya attack, Republican Mitt Romney criticized the Obama administration for appearing weak.

"The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached," Romney told reporters. "Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead, when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America’s values is never the right course."

During this news conference, Romney repeated variations of "apology" five more times. He called the Cairo embassy statement "akin to apology," called it an effort to "apologize for American values," said it was "effectively apologizing for the right of free speech," and described it as "what appeared to be an apology for American principles."

This is a theme for Romney: He has long accused Obama of apologizing for America, starting in 2010, when Romney published No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Since then, he has repeatedly criticized what he has called an "apology tour" by Obama shortly after he took office. PolitiFact has examined those speeches, consulted experts on speechmaking and apologies, and rated Romney's claim Pants on Fire.

The situation in Libya and Egypt is still developing, and details about what happened are still emerging. But we wanted to examine Romney's statements and help readers put them in perspective, based on what we know of the timeline of events.

What the Cairo embassy said

According to media reports, the U.S. embassy in Cairo released a statement at 6:17 a.m. East Coast time on Sept. 11, 2012, amid growing anger in Egypt about an obscure Web video with a highly negative portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad -- a video that, given past experiences with depictions of Muhammad, seemed likely to spark protests.

The statement condemned the video:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

About four hours later, crowds began to form and over the next several hours, the protesters stormed the embassy compound, destroyed a U.S. flag and replaced it with an Islamic flag. About three hours later, according to the Washington Examiner, the embassy tweeted, "This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." (This tweet has disappeared from the Embassy Twitter feed.)

That night in Libya, militants attacked U.S. facilities in Benghazi, eventually killing the four diplomats. The news of the deaths was not announced by the U.S. government until after 7:00 a.m. East Coast time on Sept. 12.

Around 10:30 p.m., Romney released a statement that said in part, "It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

At a 10:15 a.m. press conference, Romney offered the remarks we quoted above, in which he used the term "apology" or a variation on seven occasions.

Also that morning, ABC News reported that the White House was distancing itself from the Cairo statement. "An administration official tells ABC News that ‘no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government,’" ABC News reported.

Who knew what, and when

In assessing Romney's remarks and whether the embassy statement was an apology, it's important to understand a few details.

First, the U.S. embassy released its statement at least several hours before protesters stormed the U.S. compound in Cairo -- and well before the attack in Libya took place. So the statement was not made in response to the storming of the Cairo embassy, nor to the killings in Benghazi.

It’s possible, however, that protesters had already amassed at the embassy by the time the statement was released; that’s not clear from the media reports we’ve seen. And there are reports, not backed up by the current embassy Twitter feed, that the embassy did reiterate the original statement via Twitter several hours after the embassy was breached.

Second, Romney’s initial statement on the evening of Sept. 11 calling the administration’s response "disgraceful" was made with knowledge of how the Cairo incident ended, but before the announcement of the deaths in Libya. On the other hand, significant details about both events were available by the time he made his comments on the morning of Sept. 12.

And third, the ABC News report suggests that even the White House was having jitters about the embassy statement after the fact, saying that it didn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government.

Later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney released a quote from President Obama that said, "I think most Americans, Democrats or Republicans, understand that there are times where we set politics aside, and one of those is when we've got a direct threat to American personnel who are overseas. And so I think that if you look at how most Republicans have reacted, most elected officials, they've reacted responsibly, waiting to find out the facts before they talked, making sure that our number-one priority is the safety and security of American personnel.

"It appears that Governor Romney didn’t have his facts right," Obama told an interviewer from 60 Minutes. "The situation in Cairo was one in which an embassy that is being threatened by major protests releases a press release saying that the film that had disturbed so many Muslims around the world wasn’t representative of what Americans believe about Islam, in an effort to cool the situation down. It didn’t come from me, it didn’t come from Secretary Clinton; it came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance, rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."

Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional law scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, told PolitiFact that "the embassy statement was disgraceful appeasement of Islamic radicals. The only thing that needs ‘fact-checking’ is the extent to which (the statement) reflects administration policy."

We didn’t receive a response from the Romney campaign, but a senior foreign policy advisor to the Romney campaign -- Richard Williamson, former ambassador to the United Nations for special political affairs -- addressed the issue during an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC on Sept. 12.

"The fact is, the substance of what the governor said last night was true," Williamson said. "He continues to stand by it. We shouldn’t be on an apology tour, but rather be aggressive in condemning this breach of sovereign American soil. We should be defending our principles, our free speech in pluralism."

He added, "The substance of what the governor said last night was true then and it’s true now. The American people have a choice to make, and it’s between an administration that apologizes for our values and principles and someone who stands up for it … someone who leads from behind which contributed to the turmoil and someone who wants to lead from the front."

What three apology experts say

To explore whether the statement represented an apology, we sent it to the four experts we interviewed for our previous fact-check on Romney's claim about Obama's apology tour. Here are the comments of the three who responded:

•John Murphy, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who studies presidential rhetoric and political language, said Romney was wrong to label it an apology.

"First, the statement does not use the word ‘apology’ or ‘apologize’ and does not use any synonym for that word. There is no statement here that says, ‘We are sorry.’

"Second, the grammar of the statement condemns the actions of a third party. An apology, to be pedantic, is when the first party says to the second party, ‘I have offended you and I am sorry.’ This statement condemns a third party -- misguided individuals -- that does not officially represent the United States. The term ‘individuals’ dissociates them from the U.S. Therefore, it's impossible to say that this is an apology from the U.S. to anyone.

"Third, the statement does not apologize for the right of free speech; it affirms it. It condemns those who abuse the right of free speech, but it claims that this is a universal right, as is religious toleration. So, the statement does not like what the misguided individuals said and did, but recognizes they have a right to do it."

"It's a condemnation," Murphy said, "not an apology."

• Lauren Bloom, an attorney and business consultant who wrote The Art of the Apology, said that Romney is "once again allowing his emotional allergy to apology to interfere with his judgment."

Bloom said that "if there's anything more central to American values than respecting each individual's right to worship as he or she pleases, I'd be hard-pressed to say what it might be. The statement that ‘respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy’ not only is true, but is as clear an expression of one of our most cherished values as I can imagine."

She said the embassy statement is "not an apology -- quite the contrary, it's a confirmation that the American people recognize the right to worship freely and will not accept religious bullying in the name of free speech. To say that someone who deliberately insults others in the name of religion has acted wrongly isn't an apology -- it's simply a recognition that those insults go too far."

• Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, a professor who studies international human rights and maintains the website Political Apologies and Reparations, a database of documents on apologies, said the statement is "not an apology."

Rather, she said, "it is a condemnation of ‘abuse’ of the universal value of free speech. A condemnation is not an apology. … The Embassy statement also reaffirms two American values: the American value of respect for religious beliefs and the American value of democracy."

Quote:

---

An apology for America’s values is never the right course."

---

I don't believe that religious intolerance is one of our values......

and I believe that that was what was being addressed in the statement.

I find it irony in Romney's statements given the anniversary of 9/11....


At that time, there was a call, especially from the right to tone the rhetoric or jump to conclusions until we got all the information, that then was followed by a lot of goodwill towards the president.

Apparently Mitt never got the memo.

I hope its not lost on everyone on this board how much of a risk those people took by publicly showing support to us. There would have undoubtedly been more had they not been afraid of having their families kidnapped and tortured.

I have never heard anything about his sexual orientation, and I think that most of these "issues" just serve to distract from the real issues, like jobs, the economy, and foreign affairs. These are the things that people care about, and the rest is just distractions, a waste of time, and can actually turn Independents against those throwing this stuff up to see if any of it sticks.

Romney was too quick to open his mouth, looking to score political points while the bodies of Americans in Libya were not even cold yet.

Romney is not a guy the American people should want anywhere close to the nuclear button, given this example of his foreign policy judgement.

To be clear, Romney is being advised to say these things...do you know who is advising Romney?

SERIOUSLY, Do you know who is advising Mitt Romney on foreign policy?

I doubt that many of the RW firebreathers on this board have a clue who is advising Romney.

Why is it important to know who is advising Romney on foreign affairs?...because the same people will be advising Romney, should he be elected.

Now, before you lash out at all the Dems for criticizing Romney for his comments concerning the embassy attacks...read this...



Republicans decline to rally around Romney criticism of Libya response


Posted: Sep 12, 2012 7:32 PM EDT Updated: Sep 12, 2012 7:33 PM EDT
by Jeff Goldberg - bio | email
by Shelby Capacio - email



Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is facing backlash for trying to pick a fight with President Barack Obama over his response to the deadly attack in Libya, and Republicans don't seem to have his back on this one.

Wednesday's campaign battle began over a statement released on Tuesday by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, prior to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. The statement, which was not authorized by the White House, apologized for the American-made anti-Muslim video that was posted to YouTube.

The effort apparently sought to quell growing outrage across the Middle East, but Romney seized upon the statement by issuing one of his own that blasted the release.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said.

When Wednesday morning brought the news that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens had been killed, Romney didn't back down.

"I also believe our administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions," he said.

Almost immediately, news outlets were reporting widespread criticism of Romney for playing politics so soon after a tragedy -- and there was a notable absence of Republican leaders coming to his defense.

Rather, many leaders -- including well-respected conservative voices -- have criticized Romney for his remarks.

"I don't think Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors in the past few hours -- perhaps since last night," Peggy Noonan said frankly.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations chairman, John Kerry, said he believes Romney's statements were "inappropriate," and he urged the presidential hopeful to apologize.

"Gov. Romney's comments are about as inappropriate as anything I have ever seen at this kind of a moment," Kerry said. "They are flat wrong, but they demonstrate an insensitivity and a lack of judgment about what is happening right now. To make those kinds of statements before you even know the facts, before families have even been notified, before things have played out is really not just inexperienced. It's irresponsible. It's callous. It's reckless, and I think he ought to apologize -- and I don't think he knows what he's talking about, frankly."

A few prominent Republicans -- including Donald Rumsfeld, Newt Gingrich, and Reince Priebus -- took to Twitter to defend Romney's critique, but political analysts say the widespread lack of support illustrates a lack of faith in Romney's foreign policy stances.

Analyst Larry Jacobs told FOX 9 News he believes Romney's actions reflect where he now stands -- behind the president in national polls, and down by double digits when it comes to foreign policy.

"He seized on the tragedy in Libya to shake up the presidential race, where he's trailing," Jacobs explained. "But, it's always a major risk to try and make political hay out of a personal tragedy and he is suffering the consequences."

Obama has largely avoided commenting on Romney's criticism, but he did criticize Romney's foreign policy strategies during a taped interview with 60 minutes that was scheduled before the attacks in Libya.

"There's a broader lesson to be learned here: Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later," Obama said. "As president, one of the things I've learned is: You can't do that."

web page

generally no, but when it comes to something like that...yes.

I love the lecturing from the left on how irrational the right is and how they are jumping to conclusions and flying off without all the facts, blahblahblah... while that is true, it really takes a person with a short memory to act like that is a strictly republican problem. Why do so many people seem to hit the reset button on their memory with the changing of administrations as if they have no recollection of what happened during previous administrations?

Let's see how many situations in the last 20 years this applies to...

1. Event happens.
2. Party in power responds.
3. Party out of power jumps on party in power for how they responded
4. Party in power jumps on party out of power for how they responded to the response
5. Party out of power reminds party in power that the last time an event happened they did the same thing
6. Both parties blame each other for making event "political"
7. Every statement gets broken down, word by word, and scrutinized for subliminal meanings
8. People forget about the actual event, what caused it, and how it could have been prevented because they are wrapped up in petty bickering about things irrelevant to the actual event
9. Event subsides and adults go back to blaming schools because they don't teach anything of substance.

And oh by the way, in case nobody saw it, the embassy in Yemen was also attacked.... I guess the administration better get 40 people figuring out what to say and how to say it, maybe get a focus group to review it for possible inuendo, then once that is all done, they can actually issue the statement.

I'm the one who asked if the administration had apologized for it. I'm extremely sorry I did that... Not that it wouldn't have come up any way.

My heart goes out to the folks in Cairo, the folks in Yemen and anybody else living in fear in an embassy in a country that is not safe right now.

Actually, I think that Romney was right.

We cannot be soft on this stuff. We need to respond, and respond in a heavy duty manor. We need to require that the authorities in Libya get those responsible, or we'll go in militarily and do it ourselves. I do feel somewhat bad for the "government" of Libya, because they really don't have much working tight now, but that's exactly why we must be ready to move immediately.

We need to handle this right now or it will spread, and get worse. We look weak right now, and we cannot afford to allow that perception to continue. We'll get hit again and again unless we show that the cost of hitting us is just too damn high.

Quote:

---

Actually, I think that Romney was right.

---

What a shock.

Will you at least admit that you posted (at best) misleading information or (at worst) are spreading lies about what happened? As has been pointed out several times, the statement you claim is an apology for the attacks occurred before the attacks ever happened and is regarding a bigoted movie, not the attacks.

And the fact that you're trying to explain away Romney's attempt to politicize the deaths of those people is beyond comprehension to me. It was the wrong place and time and factually inaccurate and that is exactly why Conservatives (former Bush White House officials as well as John McCain's people among others) and liberals alike rightfully blasted him yesterday and today.

This is Romney's exact quote "It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

First off any even somewhat objective person knows that this did not happen. Second, it is such a political maneuver that I don't understand how any reasonable person could think of it as anything as other than politicizing.

Quote:

---

We cannot be soft on this stuff. We need to respond, and respond in a heavy duty manor. We need to require that the authorities in Libya get those responsible, or we'll go in militarily and do it ourselves.

---

We are in a no-win situation. If we sit back and let Libya handle it, we are soft. If we go barging in their with our military we are a bully. Some wish to err on the side of diplomacy, others on the side of strength.. I get that.

I'm just curious, how long do you give Libya to handle this? a day? a week? a month?

Quote:

---

We'll get hit again and again unless we show that the cost of hitting us is just too damn high.

---

We did that after 9/11... I'm not saying we did the wrong thing, do you think terrorists or the countries where they live are now saying, "We better not do that again."???? Don't be silly, they are trying to figure out how to do it again right now.

Well we have some choices to make. We could pull our embassy personnel out of countries viewed as volatile or a threat or we could send in additional Marines to fortify them and actually start shooting people that come over the gates... in which case we have a handful of people and Marines, surrounded and enclosed by an angry mob that may be capable of lofting explosives on them and have all day to wait you out.

I'm not saying a strong response wouldn't be a good thing but sending in more Marines isn't the answer to every problem. I think a better response might be to call the interim government in Libya and say, "You know all that aid we promised you? Well I have the check and I'm going to stick it in my desk drawer until you investigate, capture, and punish the people responsible for this." Which, if my suspicions about the region are right, would probably result in the government dragging in a handful of sacrificial protestors, saying they did it (whether they did or not), and executing them. Would that make you feel better?

Thanks, DC... a reasoned and temperate response, as I would have predicted from you.

There really is no easy call here... and I'm glad I'm not in O's or HRC's shoes right now (I bet those pumps hurt something fierce at the end of the day-).

Any decision that is made will be second-guessed by anyone with an opinion- or agenda.

I absolutely HATE that much of this mess got started by some anonymous idiot with an ax to grind and a YouTube account.

If you look at what Romney originally said about the response from the Embassy, and then look at how the Obama administration here at home responded to the statement by the embassy, and they were very similar. Both said that the statement should not have been made.


How terrible that Mitt Romney is.

Barrack Obama is Jimmy Carter Jr. We have the weakest foreign policy I have seen since the 70s.


Now the Obama administration os trying to walk back their statement about whether or not Egypt is an ally.

We didn't help.... we basically said that we wouldn't do anything if the people chose to rise up.

That's not horrible in my eyes, but it's not some strong stance. It's a continuation of the Bush policy that democracy is good, and we should support those who rise up for democracy.

Last night Egypt wasn't an ally ... evidently today they now are an ally again.


I would feel more comfortable with Hillary Clinton as President right about now. She came out strongly against the violence. Obama was nowhere near as strong. It's a shame.

Wait till tomorrow. The "day of prayer" is going to be a real disaster around the world.

Maybe the Mayans will turn out to be right after all.

Joker, I'm going to direct my comments to you because I feel you want to have a real dialogue.

The administration has made a complete mess of things. In their defense having two different incidents at the same time certainly hasn't helped.

The first thing I want to get out of the way is that there was no apology given. Statements made defending Islam and against the film are not apologies. Although I can see why people think it because comments like those said have been a reoccurring theme since his speech in Cairo.

The reason why I'm pissed at the administration (not Obama, although it is ultimately his responsibility) is the amount of contradicting statements made. I can go back and put a timeline together if you want it....

The Embassy says one thing, State another then the White House comes out with something different. Then you have the embassy coming back and standing by their original statement. Throw in the statements being made by State and the White House on Libya that are contradictory as well. They aren't an ally, they are an ally. WTF???

First thing is the Embassy should not have made any comment that hasn't been run through State, ever! All twitter accounts from government agencies should be closed. You have mid level government employees tweeting on behalf of departments and they shouldn't be.

In this situation all three players should have gotten on the same page before anything was said. I get the impression that Clinton is the only one in this administration with any sense, the problem is she isn't the president and she should defer to what he says.

There has been so many different thing said from different people that we look like we have no idea what is going on. Do you think things are being handled right?

I should add in about Obama skipping briefings, that's a fact! His spokesman even came out and said that he reads the briefing reports by himself, and they are proud of that. Again, WTF??? Those briefings are set up for interaction between the president and his intelligence advisers. He should meet with them and go over everything just in case there are any questions. I know that if I am conversing with others I don't always get the same things out of it if I were to just read what they say.

Lastly, why in the hell would he decide to go to his fund raiser in Vegas? Yes he can get the information he needs on the road but when you are in the beginning of a major crisis I can't think of the dumber thing to do, especially when he just chastised Romney about playing politics.

No, I don't want to talk about Romney or the Republicans. This is only about the administration in power. Besides, I don't like Romney so I have no desire to defend him.

Communist? Seriously?

I don't know if you care for my opinion on the matter, but I send our military in only to do a few things.

For Libya:

1. I destroy their infrastructure. Specifically, I destroy their ports, their communications facilities, their bridges, their airports their sewage treatment facilities and their power production facilities. I bomb them repeated if they get repaired or rebuilt.

2. I destroy their manufacturing capacity. I destroy their oil fields, their pipelines, the poison or burn their agricultural production.


For Egypt:

1. I destroy the Suez Canal. I also destroy their infrastructure, as noted above in Libya.

2. I destroy the Aswan Dam, sending the Nile River down towards the Mediterranean Sea in a deluge. If I'm not calmed down, I may poison the water first before destroying the dam.

I make a public statement that it isn't against Islam, because if that were the case, these actions would be afflicting the entire Islamic world, but that the Libya and Egypt have incurred the wrath of Allah and that the Islamic world needs to repent and seek true peace or that Allah's wrath will afflict them all.