Will the Libya Crisis Help Obama or Romney?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9slquoIuPC8 no spin, all facts, documented, verified, witnessed, simple cold hard truth.  I would say I told you so, but I feel bad about it more than if I didn't know it was coming. It's like premonition guilt.

Niall Ferguson is not a valid source.

WOW, that's like saying "there is no such thing as a valid source."

There are much more reliable sources out there than an apologist for Imperial Germany and imperialism in general who believes in "Eurabia" and wants to privatise Social Security.

Plus, this is an example (different than a source) of virtually every non leftist/non Obama loving person in the world

Again, Niall Ferguson =/= "virtually every non leftist/non Obama loving person in the world."
Not even close.

predicting exactly what would happen as a result of BO's (lack of a) foreign policy throughout the entire timeline of events.

Again, this guy also believes in "Eurabia."

  I know this one of my fields of expertise,

The bar must be terribly low, then.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected.

Rubbish. We probably never would have heard about it, and even if we did May 2011 - November 2012 is an eternity in politics.

Possibly if Obama had decided not to go it would have never been heard about, but if Obama gave the go ahead and the mission went wrong, it most certainly would have been heard about it, and we'd have a least a few Republican yahoos talking about impeaching the President for invading Pakistan in a failed mission that cost US lives.  Plus the diplomatic fallout could easily have been far worse.  Suppose instead of Bin Laden, the compound held the family of a retired Pakistani general who had an Arab wife or two?

Do you really believe the administration did not have a contingency plan in place to explain away the events had things took a turn for the worse, or had Bin Laden not been there? That's just political spin. I mean, no administration since Carter has been THAT incompetent. Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and David Petreaus are brilliant patriots who never would have allowed this operation to turn into Operation Eagle Claw 2011 regardless of what happened. Obama and Co. were fully aware of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

..they also drafted a memo blaming everything on the military commander (can't remember if it was a general or an admiral) if something went wrong.  They had a fall guy in place.   

And of course everyone would just agree with the memo, thereby insulating Obama from all political fallout.   If you're going to be a hack, at least be an intelligent hack.  Do you seriously think anyone in the administration would think a memo pointing out that Obama relied on the judgment of the military would work to deflect the blame for a failure from him?  It sure didn't help Carter with the fallout from the Eagle Claw fiasco.  Carter got castigated for authorizing the abort that the military's own plan said should be called for when the number of working helicopters became too few.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Romney obviously spent his four years as Governor of Massachusetts committed to the job every bit as much as Clinton was committed to his job as Governor of Arkansas.

Which would be a nice line were it true.

[AmericanNation]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected.

Rubbish. We probably never would have heard about it, and even if we did May 2011 - November 2012 is an eternity in politics.

Possibly if Obama had decided not to go it would have never been heard about, but if Obama gave the go ahead and the mission went wrong, it most certainly would have been heard about it, and we'd have a least a few Republican yahoos talking about impeaching the President for invading Pakistan in a failed mission that cost US lives.  Plus the diplomatic fallout could easily have been far worse.  Suppose instead of Bin Laden, the compound held the family of a retired Pakistani general who had an Arab wife or two?

Do you really believe the administration did not have a contingency plan in place to explain away the events had things took a turn for the worse, or had Bin Laden not been there? That's just political spin. I mean, no administration since Carter has been THAT incompetent. Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and David Petreaus are brilliant patriots who never would have allowed this operation to turn into Operation Eagle Claw 2011 regardless of what happened. Obama and Co. were fully aware of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

..they also drafted a memo blaming everything on the military commander (can't remember if it was a general or an admiral) if something went wrong.  They had a fall guy in place.   

And of course everyone would just agree with the memo, thereby insulating Obama from all political fallout.   If you're going to be a hack, at least be an intelligent hack.  Do you seriously think anyone in the administration would think a memo pointing out that Obama relied on the judgment of the military would work to deflect the blame for a failure from him?  It sure didn't help Carter with the fallout from the Eagle Claw fiasco.  Carter got castigated for authorizing the abort that the military's own plan said should be called for when the number of working helicopters became too few.

The hostage situation was a failure to solve a pressing (public) problem.  A covert seal raid nobody knows anything about (or cares about) is a very different situation.  Failing to find and kill someone hiding from you is inherently different than not saving American Citizens who are flaunted on TV.     

[AmericanNation]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9slquoIuPC8 no spin, all facts, documented, verified, witnessed, simple cold hard truth.  I would say I told you so, but I feel bad about it more than if I didn't know it was coming. It's like premonition guilt.

Niall Ferguson is not a valid source.

WOW, that's like saying "there is no such thing as a valid source."

There are much more reliable sources out there than an apologist for Imperial Germany and imperialism in general who believes in "Eurabia" and wants to privatise Social Security.

Plus, this is an example (different than a source) of virtually every non leftist/non Obama loving person in the world

Again, Niall Ferguson =/= "virtually every non leftist/non Obama loving person in the world."
Not even close.

predicting exactly what would happen as a result of BO's (lack of a) foreign policy throughout the entire timeline of events.

Again, this guy also believes in "Eurabia."

  I know this one of my fields of expertise,

The bar must be terribly low, then.

LOL!
you take an article entitled "Eurabia?" remove the question mark and pretend "he believes" and "he isn't credible." You just got caught completely overreaching.  If you're going to slander someone in order to discredit something unrelated (a morally questionable and intellectually lazy move), than at least make your fibbing plausible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

   
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/magazine/04WWLN.html

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Regarding Niall Ferguson... well... http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj-mishra/watch-this-man

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).    

Bullcrap.  If Operation Eagle Claw had worked, then Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.  The decision to go after Bin Laden was definitely a tough one on many levels, one of which was political.  If Bin Laden hadn't been there, or worse, was there but got away, then Obama would have thrown away any chance of being reelected.

Rubbish. We probably never would have heard about it, and even if we did May 2011 - November 2012 is an eternity in politics.

Possibly if Obama had decided not to go it would have never been heard about, but if Obama gave the go ahead and the mission went wrong, it most certainly would have been heard about it, and we'd have a least a few Republican yahoos talking about impeaching the President for invading Pakistan in a failed mission that cost US lives.  Plus the diplomatic fallout could easily have been far worse.  Suppose instead of Bin Laden, the compound held the family of a retired Pakistani general who had an Arab wife or two?

Do you really believe the administration did not have a contingency plan in place to explain away the events had things took a turn for the worse, or had Bin Laden not been there? That's just political spin. I mean, no administration since Carter has been THAT incompetent. Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and David Petreaus are brilliant patriots who never would have allowed this operation to turn into Operation Eagle Claw 2011 regardless of what happened. Obama and Co. were fully aware of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

..they also drafted a memo blaming everything on the military commander (can't remember if it was a general or an admiral) if something went wrong.  They had a fall guy in place.   

And of course everyone would just agree with the memo, thereby insulating Obama from all political fallout.   If you're going to be a hack, at least be an intelligent hack.  Do you seriously think anyone in the administration would think a memo pointing out that Obama relied on the judgment of the military would work to deflect the blame for a failure from him?  It sure didn't help Carter with the fallout from the Eagle Claw fiasco.  Carter got castigated for authorizing the abort that the military's own plan said should be called for when the number of working helicopters became too few.

The hostage situation was a failure to solve a pressing (public) problem.  A covert seal raid nobody knows anything about (or cares about) is a very different situation.  Failing to find and kill someone hiding from you is inherently different than not saving American Citizens who are flaunted on TV.     

Are you lacking in reading comprehension?  If the mission to get Bin Laden went badly as I pointed out it could, it certainly would not have gone unnoticed or remained covert.  Do you truly think if instead of having to leave behind just a dead helicopter, we'd also left behind several dead or captured Seals without getting Bin Laden that it would have had no impact on Obama's political career or on the prestige of the United States?  I could understand if you were arguing that the risks Obama took were not worth the benefits, but to argue that he took no risks at all in authorizing the Bin Laden mission is sheer idiocy.  Real-life military missions are not video games.  If you want to pretend they are, then please do everyone a favor and spend less time on this forum and more time on your Xbox or PlayStation.

[AmericanNation]

I Love how I'm arguing against people who think:

1)that Obama's obviously failed foreign policy (that importantly has been perfectly critiqued and criticized over the entire timeline of events) is no big deal.

2) BO's administration's naive/lying/incompetent response to the middle east going up in flames with a worrisome wave of anti-Americanism turned open waves of attacks executed with impunity.  ...is no big deal.

3) "Some hypothetical problem with a seal raid would be a cataclysmic political setback AND because of taking a POLITICAL risk (small/large/ whatever) we should fawn over this amazing leader who was brilliantly able to say "yea go ahead" on a golf course."              

The reality of # 1 & 2 is worse than your hypothetical #3 and you are pretending the reverse is true. 

[AmericanNation]

Regarding Niall Ferguson... well... http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj-mishra/watch-this-man

Thanks for posting that.  Did you read the letters?  Mishra gets absolutely destroyed.  I think Burleigh and Shawcross perfectly summed up that amateurish review:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I Love how I'm arguing against people who think:

1)that Obama's obviously failed foreign policy (that importantly has been perfectly critiqued and criticized over the entire timeline of events) is no big deal.

2) BO's administration's naive/lying/incompetent response to the middle east going up in flames with a worrisome wave of anti-Americanism turned open waves of attacks executed with impunity.  ...is no big deal., e

3) "Some hypothetical problem with a seal raid would be a cataclysmic political setback AND because of taking a POLITICAL risk (small/large/ whatever) we should fawn over this amazing leader who was brilliantly able to say "yea go ahead" on a golf course."              

The reality of # 1 & 2 is worse than your hypothetical #3 and you are pretending the reverse is true. 

When did I ever say we should fawn over Obama?  All I said was that he had the guts to take a risk that he knew could end his career and Romney has not shown any such ability and every indication that he lacks that ability. Guts are a good thing for a President to have, tho far from the only god thing to have.

As to your points 1&2, if you think Romney has some magic bullet to bring peace and sanity to the Middle East, let me clue you into a secret, friend, there is no such thing as magic. (Unless you are a brony.) The real world is a messy place, and the Middle East is an especially messy part of it.  Where Romney has laid out foreign policy differences, they have largely been ill-conceived jingoistic claptrap that was hopefully intended to win the primaries rather than be his actual foreign policy if he does get to be elected.  The various Middle East tumults Obama has had to deal with are not appreciably different from those faced by every President since at least Truman.

[Link]

Seems like it helps Romney...

[J. J.]

I'm not really impressed with the media commentary in general or Reuters in particular.

There are ongoing attacks on American embassies, there are questions about if the Administration is covering up an al Qaeda link, and there are question about preparedness.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did you read the letters?

 

Yes I did. At the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um... no.

Ferguson, of course, threatened to sue Mishra over the review, but didn't seem to get round to it. Curious.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Regarding Niall Ferguson... well... http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj-mishra/watch-this-man

Thanks for posting that.  Did you read the letters?  Mishra gets absolutely destroyed.  I think Burleigh and Shawcross perfectly summed up that amateurish review:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's always a bad sign.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's always a bad sign.

^^^

Although functionally quite useful: 'do not even bother to think about reading further'.

[AmericanNation]

Did you read the letters?

 

Yes I did. At the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um... no.

Ferguson, of course, threatened to sue Mishra over the review, but didn't seem to get round to it. Curious.

Mishra backed off almost every negative assertion (or was obviously discredited) in his review.  Thus, he discredited his initial amateurish review.  In academia that is what's called "getting destroyed" because the initial piece is reduced to no significance (nothingness--something to nothing = destroyed).     

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-libyabre88h1by-20120918_1_ipsos-poll-alistair-bell-mitt-romney

[Zioneer]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-libyabre88h1by-20120918_1_ipsos-poll-alistair-bell-mitt-romney

Okay, we can close the thread now, the question has been answered.

[J. J.]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-libyabre88h1by-20120918_1_ipsos-poll-alistair-bell-mitt-romney

Okay, we can close the thread now, the question has been answered.

Yes, a week after the remarks, Romney's numbers went up.

[Franzl]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-libyabre88h1by-20120918_1_ipsos-poll-alistair-bell-mitt-romney

Okay, we can close the thread now, the question has been answered.

Yes, a week after the remarks, Romney's numbers went up.

A common mistake you make: Confusing corelation with causation. (See Bradley Effect 2008)

[Zioneer]

I Love how I'm arguing against people who think:

1)that Obama's obviously failed foreign policy (that importantly has been perfectly critiqued and criticized over the entire timeline of events) is no big deal.

2) BO's administration's naive/lying/incompetent response to the middle east going up in flames with a worrisome wave of anti-Americanism turned open waves of attacks executed with impunity.  ...is no big deal.

3) "Some hypothetical problem with a seal raid would be a cataclysmic political setback AND because of taking a POLITICAL risk (small/large/ whatever) we should fawn over this amazing leader who was brilliantly able to say "yea go ahead" on a golf course."              

The reality of # 1 & 2 is worse than your hypothetical #3 and you are pretending the reverse is true. 

Who's fawning? I think you're projecting something, AN.

Anyway, you're factually wrong; Libya likes America, and those thugs that attacked the embassy have all but been confirmed to have been either an extreme minority, or even outside groups. And Tunisia doesn't seem to have gone either way with hating or loving America. You are correct on Egypt, though. They definitely hate us more.

[AmericanNation]

I Love how I'm arguing against people who think:

1)that Obama's obviously failed foreign policy (that importantly has been perfectly critiqued and criticized over the entire timeline of events) is no big deal.

2) BO's administration's naive/lying/incompetent response to the middle east going up in flames with a worrisome wave of anti-Americanism turned open waves of attacks executed with impunity.  ...is no big deal.

3) "Some hypothetical problem with a seal raid would be a cataclysmic political setback AND because of taking a POLITICAL risk (small/large/ whatever) we should fawn over this amazing leader who was brilliantly able to say "yea go ahead" on a golf course."              

The reality of # 1 & 2 is worse than your hypothetical #3 and you are pretending the reverse is true. 

Who's fawning? I think you're projecting something, AN.

Anyway, you're factually wrong; Libya likes America, and those thugs that attacked the embassy have all but been confirmed to have been either an extreme minority, or even outside groups. And Tunisia doesn't seem to have gone either way with hating or loving America. You are correct on Egypt, though. They definitely hate us more.

Never said they "hate" us, but many do, so either way I'm right, LOL.   

[J. J.]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-libyabre88h1by-20120918_1_ipsos-poll-alistair-bell-mitt-romney

Okay, we can close the thread now, the question has been answered.

Yes, a week after the remarks, Romney's numbers went up.

A common mistake you make: Confusing corelation with causation. (See Bradley Effect 2008)

It obviously didn't hurt Romney, however.

It is now "self-evident" the attack in Libya was a terrorist attack, unlike the initial claims that it was a mob.