Opinion: U.S. foreign policy is in epic collapse

September 22, 2012


— In the week following 9/11/12 something big happened: the collapse of the Cairo Doctrine, the centerpiece of President Obama’s foreign policy. It was to reset the very course of post-9/11 America, creating, after the (allegedly) brutal depredations of the Bush years, a profound rapprochement with the Islamic world.

On June 4, 2009, in Cairo, Obama promised “a new beginning” offering Muslims “mutual respect,” unsubtly implying previous disrespect. Curious, as over the previous 20 years, America had six times committed its military forces on behalf of oppressed Muslims, three times for reasons of pure humanitarianism (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo), where no U.S. interests were at stake.

But no matter. Obama had come to remonstrate and restrain the hyperpower that, by his telling, had lost its way after 9/11, creating Guantanamo, practicing torture, imposing its will with arrogance and presumption.

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 U.S. 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.

It’s now three years since the Cairo speech. Look around. The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism. From Tunisia to Lebanon, American schools, businesses and diplomatic facilities set ablaze. A U.S. ambassador and three others murdered in Benghazi. The black flag of Salafism, of which al-Qaida is a prominent element, raised over our embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan.

The administration, staggered and confused, blames it all on a 14-minute trailer for a film no one has seen and may not even exist. What else can it say? Admit that its doctrinal premises were supremely naive and its policies deeply corrosive to American influence?

Religious provocations are endless. (Ask Salman Rushdie.) Resentment about the five-century decline of the Islamic world is a constant. What’s new — the crucial variable — is the unmistakable sound of a superpower in retreat. Ever since Henry Kissinger flipped Egypt from the Soviet to the American camp in the early 1970s, the U.S. had dominated the region. No longer.

“It’s time,” declared Obama to wild applause of his convention, “to do some nation-building right here at home.” He’d already announced a strategic pivot from the Middle East to the Pacific. Made possible because “the tide of war is receding.”

Nonsense. From the massacres in Nigeria to the charnel house that is Syria, violence has, if anything, increased. What is receding is Obama’s America.

It’s as axiomatic in statecraft as in physics: Nature abhors a vacuum. Islamists rush in to fill the space and declare their ascendancy. America’s friends are bereft, confused, paralyzed.

Islamists rise across North Africa from Mali to Egypt. Iran repeatedly defies U.S. demands on nuclear enrichment, then, as a measure of its contempt for what America thinks, openly admits that its Revolutionary Guards are deployed in Syria. Russia, after arming Assad, warns America to stay out, while the secretary of state delivers vapid lectures about Assad “meeting” his international “obligations.” The Gulf States beg America to act on Iran; Obama strains mightily to restrain ... Israel.

Sovereign U.S. territory is breached and U.S. interests are burned. And what is the official response? One administration denunciation after another — of a movie trailer! A request to Google to “review” the trailer’s presence on YouTube. And a sheriff’s deputies’ midnight “voluntary interview” with the suspected filmmaker. This in the land of the First Amendment.

What else can Obama do? At their convention, Democrats endlessly congratulated themselves on their one foreign policy success: killing Osama bin Laden. A week later, the Salafist flag flies over four American embassies, even as the mob chants, “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas.”

A foreign policy in epic collapse. And, by the way, Vladimir Putin just expelled USAID from Russia. Another thank you from another recipient of another grand Obama “reset.”

— Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.


Richard Heckler 5 years, 7 months ago

Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions

by Lt. Gen. William E. Odom

Text of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Strategic Overview

The role that US military forces can play in that conflict is seriously limited by all the political decisions the US government has already taken. The most fundamental decision was setting as its larger strategic purpose the stabilization of the region by building a democracy in Iraq and encouraging its spread. This, of course, was to risk destabilizing the region by starting a war.

Military operations must be judged by whether and how they contribute to accomplishing war aims. No clear view is possible of where we are today and where we are headed without constant focus on war aims and how they affect US interests. The interaction of interests, war aims, and military operations defines the strategic context in which we find ourselves.

We cannot have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of proposed changes in our war policy without relating them to the strategic context.

There are the four major realities that define that context

Confusion about war aims and US interests. President GW Bush stated three war aims clearly and repeatedly:

The destruction of Iraqi WMD's. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The creation of a liberal democratic Iraq.

The first war aim is moot because Iraq had no WMD.

The second was achieved by late Spring 2003. Today, people are waking up to what was obvious before the war -- the third aim has no real prospects of being achieved even in ten or twenty years, much less in the short time anticipated by the war planners.

Implicit in that aim was the belief that a pro-American, post-Saddam regime could be established.

This too, it should now be clear, is most unlikely.

Finally, is it in the US interest to have launched a war in pursuit of any of these aims?

And is it in the US interest to continue pursuing the third? Or is it time to redefine our aims?

And, concomitantly, to redefine what constitutes victory?

The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al-Qaeda, not American interests.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 7 months ago

Krauthammer is almost giddy. If only the world can be just a little more violent so that he and his neocon brethren can use that as a rationale for forging ahead with their own orgies of violence.

Chuckie the wannabe Jihadi. Maybe he should get fitted for a suicide vest.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 7 months ago

Gosh, that's exactly what they say on Fox and Rush-- over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 7 months ago

This republican foreign policy must bite the dust for it has no human value nor economic value to the USA. This republican foreign policy will continue to kill thousands more of USA military and innocent men,women and children abroad.

This republican foreign policy will put the USA into bankruptcy such as it accomplished for Russia.

"Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocates for total global military domination” (Very dangerous position which threatens OUR freedoms and the nations security) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global protection for Wal-Mart,Oil,Coca Cola,Pepsico,diamonds,gold etc etc etc.

We need to strengthen our ties to dictator regimes friendly to American interests and Bogus values.

We need to promote the cause of the political right wing and economic rape for corp USA abroad.

We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in forcing others to accept our corrupt principles.

Such an obsolete Reaganite policy of military strength and immoral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the extortions of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness no matter how many innocent USA soldiers die.

The Plan





Followed by taking down our nations financial institutions !

Richard Heckler 5 years, 7 months ago

Endorsed by:

Elliott Abrams / Gary Bauer / William J. Bennett / Jeb Bush /

Dick Cheney / Eliot A. Cohen / Midge Decter / Paula Dobriansky / Steve Forbes /

Aaron Friedberg / Francis Fukuyama / Frank Gaffney / Fred C. Ikle /

Donald Kagan / Zalmay Khalilzad / Charles Krauthammer / I. Lewis Libby

/ Norman Podhoretz / Dan Quayle / Peter W. Rodman / Stephen P. Rosen /

Henry S. Rowen / Donald Rumsfeld / Vin Weber / George Weigel / Paul Wolfowitz

/ Newt Gingrich / George Herbert Walker Bush / James Baker /

Vice Adm John Poindexter

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 7 months ago

I can't put this all together at the moment, and I'm sure many others won't be able to either. It seems that it could possibly be that as US influence wanes, Russian influence grows. I started looking into that topic, and I found these sites. It their totality, they are amazing.

Some of the posters are flat out wrong, and others are very interesting. As with any other topic, it's necessary to consider a few different points of view in order to discover what is likely to be actually true.

The elephant in the room that was totally ignored in Mr. Krauthammer's column today is the discovery of massive energy reserves in Israel. That fact does not seem to be receiving the media coverage that it obviously should deserve. The reserves have only recently been discovered, and they are massive!

American viewpoint: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/israels_oil_weapon.html

Israeli viewpoint: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/news/story/israels-oil-weapon.html

Muslim viewpoint: http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/67548-putin-visits-israel-and-west-bank/

(I believe accurate) Lengthy Commentaries in depth: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/topic/vladimir-putin/

Armstrong 5 years, 7 months ago

Barry has a foreign policy ?????????????

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

It seems to me that there are different ways to think about foreign policy.

Some believe that we should be a "superpower" and impose our will on the rest of the world, or at least extend our "influence" around it, while others don't believe that.

I tend to fall into the second camp - I'm glad for us to intervene to provide humanitarian aid, if we like, and militarily to defend the obviously smaller guys from the bigger ones, and to support democracy and self-rule.

Other than that, I think we should mind our own business.

From my perspective, when we get into our "influence" and "interests", we get into trouble, forging alliances with oppressive dictators, meddling with other countries' internal affairs, etc.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 7 months ago

Makes a lot of sense. But I'd add a little something to it and I'd like to give an example. In Europe, we watched as the Serbs and Croatians battled it out. Of course, it wasn't a fair fight and a true genocide was the result. We waited patiently as we encouraged other European countries to fix the problems in their back yard. They did little and the killings of innocent civilians continued. Finally, we went in and forced an end to the hostilities and we did it with zero American losses. We, the American people now expect all our interventions to be like that. Clean, neat, zero losses. Unfortunately, war is seldom like that. We have a military that supposedly, can overwhelm anyone, anywhere, with minimal losses. That's what we've come to expect. And we've paying a high financial price to have such a military.

So if we want to be able to stop genocides like the one described, we need a huge military. Or are we willing to sit back and do nothing when genocide happens? We've done that as well. Is that imposing our will on people, or is it humanitarian to stop the genocide? Are we becoming the bully? Or should we prop up dictators who might abuse their own people, but can keep genocides in check? Minding our own business, as in isolationism, has consequences itself. Some of those undoubtedly will be very bad. Are we willing to just look the other way?

It's a fine line you're walking there. I doubt any president, any administration of any party, with any political philosophy, is skilled enough to walk that fine line. Unfortunately, I think the best solution is basically the one we have. We bumble and stumble along, making the best decisions we can at any given time, all the while knowing that many of our decisions are going to have less than desired outcomes.

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago


When there's a clear moral imperative, I believe we should intervene.

Otherwise, I think we should mind our own business.

Much of our intervention hasn't had a clear moral foundation, and has been more politically motivated, by our desire to create regimes "friendly to our interests".

It is a fine line, but it's the one I think we should be walking. Complete isolationism isn't enough, given our ability to help those that need help, while at the same time, intervening in the ways we have been seems off to me much of the time.

Bumbling and stumbling about with our military may very well be one of the reasons that we have a lot of enemies, so I'm not as content to accept it as you are.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 7 months ago

Bumbling and stumbling is the result when you haven't got a clue as to what the result will be. And here's the deal, we'll never know. I recall during the Libyan revolution, when Khadafi was still in power, I was listening to NPR. They mentioned that within Libya, there were more than 130 tribes and that power was a balancing act with all those tribes, all those shifting alliances, that have been going on for hundreds of years. The fact is, no matter what our policy is, this, that or nothing, the outcome is unknown and unknowable. So whether it's Obama doing this or that or nothing, whether it's Romney doing this, that or nothing, all we can really do is the best we can, knowing that there is good chance it's going to blow up in our face no matter what. I think the best we can hope for is that whatever administration is in office, they hire some very skilled people who might, maybe, perhaps, have a slightly better handle on these things than you or I.

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

Again, your trust in government officials seems misplaced to me.

I think we're not doing "the best we can", by any stretch of the imagination. I think we, as a nation, are blinded by ideology, and short-sighted.

If outcomes are unknown and unknowable, on what do we base our policies?

jhawkinsf 5 years, 7 months ago

We all take educated guesses. Why shouldn't the government? Especially if that's the best option.

As to "blinded by ideology", that's interesting. Because I see little difference in Democratic or Republican ideology, especially when it comes to foreign relations. So if it's ideology you're speaking of, that would be American ideology. Of course, what other ideology should we have, if not American ideology?

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

I'm not a big fan of ideology in general, as it seems to distort one's perceptions.

So, rather than looking at the world through a distorting lens, I'd prefer for our elected officials to try to see it clearly.

That would mean, for example, that we support a democratically elected government, even if it's socialist, if we support democracy, rather than supporting the oppressive regime in power instead.

Or that we do our best not to support oppressive regimes that violate human rights, whether they're "friendly" ones like Saudi Arabia, or not.

Otherwise, our claims to support democracy and human rights lack integrity and depth. What we're really supporting are regimes that are friendly to our interests, which is much less appealing to me.

I think that we may not know for sure, but we can do a lot better than we've been doing. For example, it was clear to many people that going into Iraq and getting rid of SH would result in a very destabilized country, with several ethnic factions that can't get along fighting amongst themselves.

It's one thing to do it anyway, and be prepared somewhat for that outcome, and another to think, as Bush and many seemed to, that we'd just topple Hussein, everybody would welcome us with open arms, and it would be peachy in no time, and with little difficulty.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 7 months ago

Not so easy, Jafs. We support democratically elected governments, even if they are socialist. That's what you said. How about if they are national socialists, as in Nazis. They were elected? Shall we support them? With the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't we have supported the violent overthrow of that regime? But if we did that preemptively, it all would have been an educated guess, the atrocities not yet have happened. There really is no right answer, jafs, and rather than pretending we can find the correct answer, it's best we simply admit the truth. That being that we make the best decisions we can at any given time, based on the information we have, but knowing that whatever we choose, there's a good chance it won't be the best decision.

Look at Egypt. Yes, we helped keep in power someone who kept the peace. Some might argue that he was brutal to his own people. Of course, some civil rights activists might say the same things about the governments we elect. But now the Muslim Brother hood controls Egypt. People are being killed in Sinai. War with it's neighbors seems more likely than before. Hopefully, they will see the folly of that path. But should they not, would you still say they were democratically elected and we should support them. And if the Saud family falls, what then? al Qaeda? If that is in fact our best estimation, then propping up the Saudi regime may be our best option, despite the fact that it's not a good option. And of course, doing nothing is the same as doing something. We couldn't ignore the Nazis anymore than we could ignore Japanese expansionism. They wouldn't let us ignore them. No more than we should have ignored some para-military bases in some remote country like Afghanistan by some small but violent organization like al Qaeda. We can't ignore them, they won't let us.

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

If we support democracy, and believe in it, then we should support democratically elected governments, if the elections are free and fair ones.

Even if we don't like them.

Otherwise, we don't really support democracy.

If a democratically elected government then oppresses and brutalizes their people, then we have a conflict, for sure - in that case I'd choose defending the people against the government.

I don't share your cynicism and low expectations - I prefer to find a better way than "whatever we choose, it won't be the best decision". We should always be trying to make the best decisions.

War with other nations is not the guidepost of my thinking - many nations are at war, including us. If a democratically elected government that generally follows human rights guidelines (perhaps Amnesty International would be helpful here) chooses to go to war with other nations, that's their right. If not, then we have no right to be at war, right?

If the only choices are between a brutally oppressive regime like SA, or Al-Qaeda, then there are no good choices. But, that leaves out the possibility of many other better outcomes, like a democratically elected non Al-Qaeda government.

If/when somebody attacks us, we have every right to defend ourselves, of course, just as all nations have, in my view.

You know we armed and trained the Taliban supporting them in their fight with the SU, right? And, then, having used them to bring down the SU, we ignored them and their need for infrastructure, education, etc. Then the Taliban became Al-Qaeda and anti-American.

It's a tragedy that didn't have to happen - if we had spent a fraction of what we spent on military aid to help them build and rebuild their nation, they might be allies now.

And, the absurdity of fighting the SU through them, so that they suffer the actual damage of the war, while we get the benefits, should be obvious. When I say we should support the small guy who's getting hammered by the big one, I don't imagine we do it that way.

If we want to fight the SU (or anybody else), we should do it directly.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 7 months ago

The problem you're making now is that you're taking things to some sort of absolute extreme. You're beginning to sound like Liberty_One. Democracy is fine, but even that shouldn't be extreme. Even our democracy has limits placed on it, as it should. If 60% of the population votes to kill the 40%, no, we don't support democracy. If you support it, then that's called taking an argument to an absurdum.

But your argument about the Taliban is more interesting because it highlights something I was speaking about earlier. Our support was not based on what they would do when they took control of the country. We never anticipated that. And I would argue that it was unknowable. There would have been a thousand variables. The Taliban taking over Afghanistan, and then harboring al Qaeda which would then attack the U.S. because we would later place bases in their holy land of Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war, was probably one of a thousand possibilities. Maybe more. Our goals, to make the Soviets uncomfortable with their invasion of Afghanistan was just that. Anyone suggesting we knew or should have known what would then happen is another one of those people who always uses their 20/20 hindsight and says, "see, I told you so". And your suggestion that we should have fought the Soviets directly is just plain crazy. You're advocating for world destruction. No thanks with that. But Soviet expansionism was seen as a threat, so short of world destruction, another of your absolutes, making them uncomfortable was seen as a better option.

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

Yes, it's tricky that way.

But, it's the only way to try to organize our thinking and actions in a way that makes sense to me.

If you see a big guy beating the heck out of a little one who has no chance, do you intervene?

What if there are a couple of guys having a fight, both of whom are about the same size and weight?

Isolationism means that we don't intervene in the first case, while having to criteria to decide means we intervene all the time.

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

The D had control, with a filibuster proof majority, for a couple of months here and a couple of months there, over the first 2 years.

Blaming the state of our nation on them, without understanding the role that R opposition has played, seems unwarranted, and not really worthy of your general intelligence, as displayed in other posts.

As does ignoring the situation when Obama took office, and how that occurred.

One our our big problems is that we have such a small vision, and narrow window of time in which we see things in this country.

Getaroom 5 years, 7 months ago

Chuckie's goal is to hit hard, now that it is clearer still that bumble head Romney is the poster boy for the Super Entitled and an ineffective puppet for the GOP. I mean really, who could pull strings that badly except a bunch of entitled BS'ers just like him?
Is any one actually falling for this tripe?
Foreign Policy is a far bigger issue than can be assigned to Obama. Rather, it is been years of Republican leadership believing that World Dominance thru the use of military force is the way to total control of the WORLD. This is evidenced most vividly by reading: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
The Project for the New American Century.

Yes, you can believe your eyes, it is just like Obama's fake birth certificate, it's an Authentic paper! But perhaps you are "waiting for more information"? And I am sure you are waiting, if you are a dimwit Kansas GOP leader and working your 'voter suppression magic'.

OH MY, how we all quake as Chuckie uses his "brilliant mind" as a tool for promoting political shock and awe!! Those great mounds of useless hyperbole wasted once again, in hopes of providing a distraction to the fact that "The Chosen Ones" have fallen from the great mound and all the kings men and all the kings horses couldn't pick up those pretty rich boys pieces. Yes, It would appear that Humpty and Dumpty (Romney/Ryan) took a great fall from BS Mountain........and nobody, I do mean nobody could pick up all the pieces(feces) and put them together again.

Armstrong 5 years, 7 months ago

Your defense of Barry's foreign policy is laughable. " Foreign Policy is a far bigger issue than can be assigned to Obama".

JackKats 5 years, 7 months ago

It's the movie that caused all these problems.

It's the movie that caused all these problems. by JackKats

Thomas Bryce Jr. 5 years, 7 months ago

The sad thing about Journalist like Krauthammer is that they seem to want Failure so they can use it for political points. The problem is that failure will be at the expense of human Life.That does not seem to bother them as long as their candidate wins.

Armstrong 5 years, 7 months ago

Since when have libs been obssessed with preserving human life ? Actually what is more disturbing is Barrys lock step media trying to prop up his failure of a term, that's at the expense of the entire country present and future.

Thomas Bryce Jr. 5 years, 7 months ago

More disturbing is the organized obstructionism led by the leaders of the GOP. So called patriots and Christians wishing for our president(and the country) to fail so they can say"I told you so". That is about as un-American as it gets!

Armstrong 5 years, 7 months ago

Hey if you consider $ 16 Trillion in debt, high unemployment and the worlds laughingstock success - you made it baby !

Thomas Bryce Jr. 5 years, 7 months ago

The facts show About three fourths of the 16 trillion dollar debt was accumulated during the Bush presidency. The majority of jobs lost were under the Bush presidency. As far as being the laughingstock of the world, the majority of those stories are directed at the GOP and its Leaders.

Armstrong 5 years, 7 months ago

Is the water cold in the river of De-nile

Thomas Bryce Jr. 5 years, 7 months ago

You tell me. You would know better than I. Denial of facts is the way of the GOP.

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

Then you can't blame Obama and the D for the state of the country, given the very small amounts of time that they had filibuster proof majorities.

Our society is already a mixed one, with some socialist elements and some capitalist ones.

I'd say, looking around the world, that that's the best form of government - many of the most successful nations have such a combination.

verity 5 years, 7 months ago

Since the draft was rescinded, it is the people in the lower economic classes who provide most of the blood for our wars. The treasure is now provided by borrowing.

The neo-cons, for whom constant war is one of the pillars of their belief system, certainly won't be providing the blood and many will be benefiting economically.

More unplanned pregnancies and less abortions, more cannon fodder.

verity 5 years, 7 months ago

I see you've gotten your voice back since the speechlessness I sent you into on another thread a few days ago ;-)

Armstrong 5 years, 7 months ago

That was the same arguement when we had a draft. Peace and love

jonas_opines 5 years, 7 months ago

"It’s now three years since the Cairo speech. Look around. The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism."

Is Krauthammar suggesting that, prior to three years ago, there was no Anti-Americanism is the Islamic world? Or even that there was less?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 7 months ago

In Chuckie's world, everything that's bad began on January 20, 2009.

headdoctor 5 years, 7 months ago

I see you have had time for coffee Armstrong. Uhm, it didn't help your posting one bit.

jonas_opines 5 years, 7 months ago

He talks of policy failures when it's a not uncommon occurrence. The only thing that's changed is the particular of who, where, and what got attacked.

Liberty275 5 years, 7 months ago

They can get away with isolated attacks here, but nothing sustained.

Liberty275 5 years, 7 months ago

On a recent trip to N Carolina, I saw a billboard with a smiling Obama. Underneath was one of his campaign slogans - "things could be worse". Just below that, another sentence said "elect me again and you'll find out".

Armstrong 5 years, 7 months ago

Yes Barry please run on the economy and while your at it unemployment too !

Flap Doodle 5 years, 7 months ago

On Letterman a couple of nights ago, the Mope pretended not to know the size of the national debt. Is he still likable when he lies like a dog trotting down the road?

notaubermime 5 years, 7 months ago

I can't really remember a 4 year span of time in which there weren't any massive anti-American demonstrations and riots. That said, I also can't remember any time where an Arab populous actually rose against a Muslim group and rioted in favor of the United States.

I don't really see how you can conclude anything about the effect of US foreign policy on the Middle East just yet.

jonas_opines 5 years, 7 months ago

Does it happen more or less often than an Islamic population rising up against the terrorists, in support of our situation?


That seems, to me at least, to be both rare, and potentially significant. Did you not know about this? I do think that in several of your previous incarnations, along with the others who think and post in the same vein as you do, that you've been calling for this for a long time, for the population to repudiate their own extremist elements.

notaubermime 5 years, 7 months ago

US embassy and consulate attacks (in the last 15 years)

1998: 224 people killed in attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 2002: 12 people killed in an attack on the US consulate in Pakistan 2004: 5 people killed in an attack on the US consulate in Saudi Arabia 2007: Anti-tank missile fired on the US embassy in Greece 2008: 16 people killed in an attack on the US embassy in Yemen

It is usually good to know something about world events before opening your mouth to insult others.

Corey Williams 5 years, 7 months ago

1983 - Bombing at United States Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983. 63 people, including 17 Americans, are killed. 1983 - On November 7, the Armed Resistance Unit, a militant leftist group, bombs the U.S. Capitol in response to the U.S. invasion of Grenada. 1984 - Twenty-two people were killed (two of them American) and seventy were wounded when a van loaded with four hundred pounds of explosives exploded in front of the U.S. Embassy annex in Awkar, Lebanon. Islamic Jihad (code name of Hezbollah) claimed responsibility for the bombing in a call to the media. 1987 - A car bomb exploded outside the back gate of the U.S. Embassy in Rome and mortars were fired at the compound from across the street. One passerby was injured in the attacks.

notaubermime 5 years, 7 months ago

Yes, I remember a number of events such as the Danish cartoon demonstrations and Quran burning demonstrations in which several countries had thousands of demonstrators, some of which became violent. I am glad you remember these events too.

jafs 5 years, 7 months ago

Actually, I'd say there's a lot of violence happening all over the world a lot of the time.

It's sad and unfortunate, but it seems to be the way things are.

beatrice 5 years, 7 months ago

Amazingly, Obama isn't able to control radicals in all corners of the world, including countries with struggling, brand-new governments. What a shock. Likewise, he wasn't able to swim down and plug the whole leaking oil in the Gulf, the sad excuse for a swimmer. And celebrating the death of bin Laden at the DNC -- how could they! They should have followed Romney's and the RNC's example and not even mentioned the troops, our war in Afghanistan, or the killing of the person who planned the largest attack ever on American soil.

Perhaps if Romney becomes President he will end this horror of celebrating the death of bin Laden and he can lead the nation in a moment of silence to pay tribute to the fallen warrior and fellow rich guy.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 7 months ago

Wow, suggesting that Romney would mourn the death of Bin Laden is a new low point for you, bea.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 7 months ago

In other news: "...On the latter point, after a week and a half of peddling an utterly false narrative of what happened in Libya, the United States government is apparently beginning to discern that there are limits to what even Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice can say with a straight face. The official line — that the slaughter of American officials was some sort of improvised movie review that got a little out of hand — is now in the process of modification to something bearing a less patently absurd relationship to what actually happened. That should not make any more forgivable the grotesque damage that the administration has done to the bedrock principle of civilized society: freedom of speech...." Read the rest at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/328163/bowing-mob-mark-steyn#

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 7 months ago

Krauthammer is just really, really wierd.

He just makes things up and pretends to be an expert.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 7 months ago

A Romney Presidency would probably use these protests as an excuse to put nuclear missiles in Poland as well as use it to justify their plans to dramatically increase the size of our military budget.

Does anyone seriously believe that these kind of actions are going to be good for this country?

Krauthammer does.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.