Rod Dreher

Dr Pepper: Darwinism’s Official Beverage

Team Romney’s Appalling Assertion

By Rod Dreher • September 14, 2012, 12:50 AM

Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president.

“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

Williamson added, “In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations — the respect for America has gone down, there’s not a sense of American resolve and we can’t even protect sovereign American property.”

This is idiotic and malicious. These barbarians massing outside our embassies would be doing exactly the same thing if Romney were president. And the strong implication here that Obama’s negligence got the ambassador to Libya killed is just foul, an appalling attempt to exploit the murder of Amb. Stevens for political gain. What is wrong with these people? I’ve thought the Romney-bashing on the protest issue was a bit excessive, but I take it all back. I was wrong, and Noah was right.

UPDATE: Drudge is blasting a British media report citing unnamed “senior diplomatic sources” claiming that the US received warnings that its diplomatic facilities in the region were under threat, but did nothing. If this proves true, Obama and his State Department will rightly face criticism. But Romney’s adviser seems to be trashing Obama not for failing to take precautions based on reliable intelligence, but for not being a badass.

Posted in Presidential politics. Tagged Barack Obama, foreign policy, Jimmy Carter, Mitt Romney, protests.

62 Responses to Team Romney’s Appalling Assertion

← Older Comments

David Draper says:

September 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm

“I said it on another thread and I’ll say it again: this The American Conservative reads more like The Disaffected Republican. The two ain’t the same.”

Amen to that, Elijah. When the NR criticizes Romney as in “Romney’s Losing Strategy” you know where they stand ideologically. With the TAC, you don’t. There are some integrity issues with that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316562/romneys-losing-strategy-michael-tanner
EngineerScotty says:

September 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm

That’s true, but Obama’s policy has been akin to talking loudly and showing his ass.

But the Scots mooning the English en masse was one of the best scenes in Braveheart!

Two questions for you:

1) How should the current crisis (such as it is) be handled?

2) Your long-term strategy for the Middle East?

As my original comment noted; Obama could do much better with #2–though I can’t complain too much about how he’s handled #1, based on available evidence. The problem is, Romney hasn’t shown that he would be better in either case.
EngineerScotty says:

September 14, 2012 at 5:02 pm

To follow up, Juan Cole has an interesting take on things: http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/obama-plays-hardball-and-egypts-morsi-folds.html
Polichinello says:

September 14, 2012 at 5:19 pm

1) How should the current crisis (such as it is) be handled?

1. Stop trying to sympathize with the Muslim World over the film in any official capacity. The official condemnations should focus solely on the assaults on the embassies. Like Bush before him, Obama is giving Muslims a heckler’s veto on our free speech here. Stating one’s personal objections as an aside–well after the condemnation or official statement–is fine, but it should not be a part of the statement itself.

2. Start cutting aid, across the board. There’s no reason to give these people our money. It’s certainly not buying us any influence. Egypt should be downgraded from major ally status as well.

3. Stop all immigration from this area save for religious dissidents and minorities. Letting them come here is just importing trouble. It’s only a matter of time before we let in the next Mohammed Atta.

But, we’ll probably just see more drone attacks and the usual simpering handholding with flea-bitten fanatics, like Morsi.

2) Your long-term strategy for the Middle East?

Get out and keep them out.

The problem is, Romney hasn’t shown that he would be better in either case.

As I pointed out above, I tend to agree with you. However, at least Romney is taking the same logic Obama is using to more proper conclusion. You either go in big, or you don’t go in at all.

Obama picked a worst of both worlds solution in Libya, where he went in with practically nothing to safeguard the situation afterwards, and he did this against the advice of his own national security team. So he has all the responsibility for what happens there, but almost no real means of affecting outcomes.

Yes, in Iraq, Bush invaded (and I opposed it then and now) and you had a lot death and suffering, but Libya’s been no picnic, either. We havent’ heard much about it only because American hadn’t been kiled up to now. And, like it or not, Bush did inflict a defeat on Al Qaeda there, where Libya has been a huge strategic victory for them. They’re now achieving their objectives across a large swathe of North Africa and the Levant.

I’m not saying Iraq was a good idea. It was not, but in terms of hurting those who hurt us, the amoral flypaper strategy did its work.
Wesley says:

September 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Icarusr, I believe that Libya is less stable today because “the US was too passive and did not shape the events” like we could or should have. We don’t know yet where the consulate’s attackers got their rocket-propelled grenades from. The attackers could have gotten the grenade launchers from Qadaffi’s huge weapons cache that the United States and our allies did relatively little to find and collect. The attackers may have also gotten their grenade launchers from the the government of Qatar, which sent weapons to Islamist militias in Libya against the wishes of the Libyan transitional government. If the United States had been more directly engaged with the Libyan transitional government and with the rebel fighters on the ground, Qatar may not have sent these weapons. But no, U.S. and NATO forces were forced to act like celestial referees by only launching airstrikes to protect civilians, not to help defend rebel forces. There was even some talk in the U.S. government and NATO about attacking rebel forces if their attacks on pro-Qadaffi forces endangered the lives of civilians too much. If the U.S. had engaged more secular and pro-Western rebel militias as Qatar engaged Islamist militias, then Libya very well may have become more stable today than it in reality has become.
M_Young says:

September 14, 2012 at 7:28 pm

@Richard Johnson

“Are you saying we were wrong to enter into this conflict in the first place? Or did it become wrong for you on January 20, 2009?”

In the first place, buddy. I froze my a** of during a anti war march in London, Feb 2003.
M_Young says:

September 14, 2012 at 7:35 pm

“Also: many are saying it was an embassy in Libya. I’ve heard the embassy in Tripoli is pretty much a fortress. The attack was a consulate, which are probably never as secure anywhere, and the American’s were taken to a ‘safe’ house, which wasn’t.”

That’s a good correction, with all the talk of the ‘embassy’ at Benghazi I assumed that we had changed locations during the recent unpleasantness in the country. It also mitigates the lack of security, but does not excuse it. The Egyptian case can be charitably excused somewhat by the element of being taken unprepared (but why?), but the failure to completely secure the embassy at Yemen proves the ineptitude of the State Department under Obama/Clinton.
NoRomneyNo says:

September 14, 2012 at 9:40 pm

Now Romney is trotting out Jimmy Carter comparisons. Really bottom of the barrel. In the light of the continued danger our American Diplomatic Corp. is experiencing the best Romney can do now is to Shut Up.
Josh says:

September 15, 2012 at 11:06 am

The American left today is shameful. They accuse people like me of perpetrating a War on Women because we believe people like Sandra Fluke ought to fund their own sex life instead of compelling their fellow Americans to do it for them. At the same time, we’re told we should be more sensitive than to use phrases as crude as War on Terror. This same American left that calls itself brave and bold for talking about a War on Women is too cowardly to actually speak out against the Muslim Brotherhood for perpetrating a very real War on Women. They are too cowardly to simply put out a statement calling them the barbarians they are. It is shameful, and it is cowardly.

The American left today is shameful. They call their fellow citizens and neighbors hateful and bigoted for simply continuing to hold a Christian notion of marriage, for showing support for marriage and freedom of speech by peacefully standing in line to buy a chicken sandwich or vote when there is a question on the ballot. The American left will write bravely about the bigotry of that. But will they simply call rioting barbarians who replace the United States flag with Al Qaeda flags on our embassies what they are? No, instead they’ll point the finger at American free speech and YouTube and wonder about the appropriateness of Mitt Romney. It is shameful, and it is cowardly.

The American left today is shameful. They gleefully tell Catholics to shove it when their religious feelings are hurt then turn around and tell those very same people – their fellow citizens, remember – to be sensitive to the hurt feelings of barbarians who would murder our ambassador and overrun our embassies. Do they stand up for their fellow Americans and their values? No, they ask YouTube to review the content of some stupid video. They endlessly ponder the appropriateness of Mitt Romney instead of frankly speaking about the wickedness of barbarians. It is shameful, and it is cowardly.

The American left today is shameful. They call it museum worthy art and a glorious example of free expression to piss in a mason jar and drop a crucifix inside. But they will then endorse the federal investigation of an amateur-hour filmmaker on YouTube, expecting their fellow citizens to believe that if only Martin Scorsese were to film an unorthodox portrait of the prophet, as he did with the Messiah, the barbarians in the Middle East would reflect thoughtfully on it as art. It is shameful, and it is cowardly.

The American left today is shameful. They call it thrilling primetime television when their dream world of a news show compares the peaceful Tea Party to the Taliban, yet have nothing bold to say when barbarians break out in actual violence. It is shameful, and it is cowardly.

The American left today is shameful. The left has an eternal reserve of bravery when it comes to boldly declaring their fellow citizens as extremists, knowing full well they have nothing to fear from their peaceful friends and neighbors. Yet, when actual barbarians are shouting, “Death to America,” burning our embassies to the ground, or replacing the American flag that once graced an embassy rooftop with an Al Qaeda flag, the courageous reserves of the left somehow become empty. For the American left that is the time to be sensitive to the beliefs of others, even to the point of refusing to stand boldly for their own constitution. It is shameful, and it is cowardly.

The American left today is shameful. It is shameful and cowardly leadership that blames the savagery of barbarians on American free speech (however ignorantly used) instead of the barbarians themselves. It is shameful and cowardly leadership that entangles a nation in foreign messes then blames American values when it blows up in their face. But hey, Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive – wait, scratch that – on life support, and our embassies are burning to the ground. Maybe our wonderful leader in chief will put it all in perspective for us by slow jamming the news on Monday night. I suppose to the modern left that would be Presidential. That would be cool. No, no, it is shameful, and it is cowardly.
Richard Johnson says:

September 15, 2012 at 5:12 pm

M_Young: “In the first place, buddy. I froze my a** of during a anti war march in London, Feb 2003.”

Excellent! And I was out as well here in Iowa making similar protests. So we have established that both of us opposed this mess from the beginning.

With that said, what evidence do you have that Romney would have done any better job than Obama in the last fortnight? So far his management style has been to call a press conference, show his ass and then place his head up it. He shot off his mouth before he had a full grasp of the sequence of events, as events were still unfolding. This is not the image of a calm manager responding to a crisis.

So with the situation as it is, with the Republicans having unwisely embarked on this foolish mission, and with the Democrats doubling down on the losing hand, which party do you honestly see as qualified to get us out of this mess?
JonF says:

September 16, 2012 at 7:51 am

M_Young,

I believe we beat back the attack at the Yemen embassy, which argues that our security there was adequate when put to the test.
M_Young says:

September 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm

“which party do you honestly see as qualified to get us out of this mess?”

I truly see Romney, whatever his rhetoric, as being less internationalist. After all, despite their missionary efforts, Mormons are basically an American religion centered in the Mountain West, great basin. I don’t see Romney as getting us involved unnecessarily in other peoples affairs, at least more than Obama is doing.

But I will really be voting Republican and Romney because that party is marginally less hostile to the interests of (in the words of Eric Holder), my people, mutatis mutandis. This is particular crucial because the high probability of the next president getting one or two Supreme Court nominees.