Romney was losing badly before the first debate. Largely due to the fact that America hadn’t seen him and was relying on the negative attack ads delivered by the Obama campaign they viewed him as a monster.
Then came Colorado.
And Romney showed himself as a compassionate capable leader who would deliver America to a path far more favorable than Obama.
And he sky rocketed.
Obama won the second debate in a narrow decision, it did very little to slow the momentum.
The third debate was more of a decisive victory for the President and he enjoyed a resurgence; Gallup, a favorite of the left, saw Romney’s lead go from +7 to +3 in days. However, today Romney is back to +5 thanks in part to rising Romney and falling Obama.
Further hurting Obama is the on going drama that is Benghazi. It’s clear now that the Obama administration handled this badly. They had direct knowledge within hours, failed to act appropriately and then lied to the American people starting in the Rose Garden, in spite of Candy Crowley’s defense.
Romney gains as Obama loses in Likely voters while Obama suffers a 6 point turn around in Approval.
(Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.
Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.
I get that assessing reports and data real time is tough and can often be wrong. But as the days and weeks advanced, Obama continued to tell us that what happened in Benghazi was something other than what it was:
Just in this montage, the administration mentions the video at least 7 times over 6 days. This is a massive failure in terms of obtaining the truth and an absolute failure in dealing with the American people’s faith and trust in the government.
The fact is this, the administration had reason to believe in the first 2 hours that we were dealing with a terrorist attack and certainly within the first 2 days this was crystal clear.
As we all know, Romney criticized the Obama administration on it’s handling of the events surrounding the attack on American embassies in Cairo and in Libya. Chief among those critiques was Romney’s statement taking Obama to task for his administration’s “apology” to the perpetrators of those attacks.
I’ve already “awarded points” to those defending Obama by going after Romney on two parts:
In failing to admit that he had the timeline wrong that evening.
Continuing to label the Cairo statements as an apology.
However, I have been strong in my defense of Romney issuing his statement because I felt that everyone was in the dark surrounding the timing of those statements.
Before issuing the press release, Schwartz cleared it with just one person senior to himself, Deputy Chief of Mission Marc Sievers, who was the charge d’affaires at the embassy on Tuesday because Ambassador Anne Patterson was in Washington at the time, the official said.
Schwartz sent the statement to the State Department in Washington before publishing and the State Department directed him not to post it without changes, but Schwartz posted it anyway.
Clearly this shows that the Obama administration was not operating under what I have been referring to as “the fog of war.”
With this clarification I can no longer claim that an complete sense of confusion was being experienced by everyone. It is safe to say that only the Romney team was unclear as to the timing of the release and was, perhaps, relying on the Twitter feed from the Cairo embassy.
This leads me to add an additional critique to Romney’s team; get the facts right.
For a very long time I received my news exclusively from CNN. I used to watch Aaron Brown every night. However, I lost interest in Anderson Cooper almost right away and Lou Dobbs sealed the deal; I was gone. As the campaigns for President geared up in the spring of 2007 [remember, Obama announced in February of that year] I began to listen to some talk radio with my initial fix being Alan Colmes. I was hooked.
Since then I’ gravitated to Fox News. Not so much because of how the reported the news but because of what news they reported. I’ve never felt that the actual content of the stories they cover was skewed, rather, the stories themselves trended right.
Then I started blogging and needed to rely on sources not just Fox. I now read Reuters, NPR, The NY Times, The Hill, The Wall Street Journal and MSNBC. As I continue this hobby, I wanna start reading more liberal main stream “media” types and so have found myself hitting Slate, TPM, The Nation, Salon and Mother Jones. Now I know what the left must feel like when they read what they consider conservative sites.
The idea of Mitt Romney in the White House is a scary, scary thought after his bungling of the Libya crisis, and the Stormin’ Mormon just keeps making it scarier—including putting out Liz Cheney as spokeswoman for his anti-Muslim bigotry.
I get that this is a liberal outfit, but really? Stormin’ Mormon? But it continues:
So far, not a word from Romney about radical right Christian anti-Muslim bigots, including: Florida’s Terry Jones, the nutball, Koran-burning preacher who promoted the film; various extremist, Egyptian Copts; Steve Klein of California; and the mystery man who supposedly made the film.
So, I think there should be a message from Romney about the film and the folks that created it. But I find it wonderfully ironic that Robert Dreyfuss is asking Romney to call out “radical right Christian anti-Muslim bigots” even going so far as to label them nutballs and extremists. I think that if we wanna ask people to stoop calling people names, we should start by not calling those people names. And not for nothing, but making a crummy YouTube movie is hardly considered “extremist” when compared to the extremists who protest and breach embassies, burn flags and kill people. In fact, some liberals might even find making movies wonderfully “artsy.”
Moving on, Dreyfuss critiques Romney by saying:
To recap: after the Libya attack, which killed four American diplomats, Romney found himself compelled to attack President Obama for supposedly expressing sympathy for the terrorists. His statement:
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. 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.”
So, what Dreyfuss is saying is that Romney is wrong to criticize the response from the Cairo embassy. After all, that is the origination of the statement in question. And in retrospect, that statement is NOT sympathizing but rather acting as a calming note. But it’s important to remember two things:
Obama criticized the EXACT SAME STATEMENT and he did it 30 minutes before Romney issued his release.
Everyone, so it seems, was acting as if Cairo released that statement AFTER the attacks, not before.
Not a word from Dreyfuss.
Last I’ll leave you with a case study in tolerance from the gentle left when engaging in discussion with those in whom you may disagree:
Liz Cheney, satanic offspring of the ex-VP, was trotted out by the Romney campaign for her Wall Street Journal screed, which said in part:
Like it or not, the campaign season is a time for candidates to differentiate themselves from their opponent. Further, each candidate who is not the incumbent – in this case Romney – is going to posture himself as Presidential. It might seem that each candidate is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position.
Mitt Romney Responds To Obama Administration
Mitt Romney’s Response To The Obama Administration
On Tuesday, September 11, two separate American embassies were attacked resulting in the deaths of 4 American’s including the American Ambassador to Libya. Mitt Romney, attempting to demonstrate a difference between himself and Obama, used the developing situation as a foil.
At around 10:00 PM EDT Romney issues a statement:
I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. 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.
The response that Romney was referring to?
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
Was Romney right? Is this response appropriate or not?
The answer – It depends.
The Embassy Attack Timeline
It all depends on the timeline of events. For example, I was off-line most of yesterday afternoon and only this morning woke up to the news of the attack. Upon hearing of the Egyptian embassy release I had two thoughts:
When protestors are attacking your location, you don’t issue statements that legitimatize those attacking you.
Knowing that protestors had already murdered 4 embassy staff in Libya, the Egyptian staff may simply have been acting to save their lives.
It’s clear that there is confusion surrounding the events of the situation in Egypt and that such confusion colored the context of the Cairo statement. For example, if we believe that the embassy in Cairo released their statement long before the attack on the embassy, their message is better phrased. However, if their statement is released AFTER the attacks on the Cairo embassy, their statements are grossly irresponsible.
And I think both Romney and Obama were confused by the timing of the statement.
The Politics of Cairo and Libya Attacks
It’s no secret that Romney has little if any foreign relations experience. Obama is going to, he has to, use this in his critique of the governor. However, most candidates for the office of President have that exact same knock against them. This would include our sitting President Barack Obama when he was a contender just 4 years ago. That being said, Romney is anxious to demonstrate that he has a firm grasp on matters foreign. Enter the Mideastern violence.
To further complicate matters, Romney and Obama are not only working to manage the chaotic real time events overseas, but they are also keeping an eye on the “campaign ball.” I feel that had both Romney and Obama been less concerned with that campaign and more concerned with providing leadership, remaining calm in a very charged circumstance and gathered all facts, neither the administration or the Romney camp issued their remarks. See, at 11:00 PM, the Obama administration distanced itself from the Cairo embassy remarks. In fact, they mentioned that they do not represent the United States. Here, Obama is making the same mistake Romney makes; they are confused by the timing of the statement. Seen in the calm of day, the statement issued by Cairo are completely appropriate. Further, adding that the statements don’t reflect the United States government only adds to the confusion coming from the United States. If an embassy doesn’t represent the government, what is its role?
When the administration issued it’s statement on Cairo at 11:00 pm, I suspect that Romney felt more confident that the Cairo statement was issued AFTER the violence and not many hours before. This mistake, now seen to be true, leads to his remarks that the administration is, in essence, apologizing. I feel relatively confident that Romney was acting on facts as he thought they were and not twisting the timeline to his political favor. However, the light of day indeed showed his statements to be inaccurate.
Mitt Romney Remarks on Libya and Cairo
Notice Romney standing before a blue background framed by the American flags. Clearly an attempt to appear Presidential. Romney takes the tone of the gentle leader. He’s reporting to America and is trying to show he’s present and managing the situation.
He speaks to the following:
Issues condolences
Issues statement on American’s stance on values
Critiques the Obama administration on the handling of the events
Embraces the Arab Spring and the potential it has
Takes questions
My thoughts on his statements:
He completes the reassuring leader role very well.
At 3:25 he’s asked a question surrounding his statement from the night before. I think he knows the facts now but doesn’t own up to the fact. This is where he’s clearly weak and wrong.
He doubles down on the mistake by referring to Cairo’s statement as an apology.
When pushed further on this point, Romney acknowledges that the administration had the exact same reaction that he did. In this, he’s right. Both Obama and Romney were confused at the timing of Cairo’s statements and Tweets.
At 4:50 Romney is pushed to explain that if both he and Obama took the exact same reaction, what did the White House do wrong. Here is where Romney gathers steam. He’s right when he claims that Cairo is part of Obama’s administration. He’s right to say that a leader has to take responsibility for his administration. It’s in this understand of “how things work” that Obama’s critic are correct in leveling the claim that Obama has no leadership experience. That this is apparent to a 2nd level manager and not to the President of the United States is frightening.
Again he mentions apology. He slips and is weak by doing that.
When asked if it’s appropriate to engage in politics when the events are ongoing. His answer is powerful.
He correctly brushes off the trap of hypothetical nonsense.
He’s asked to define his foreign policy. And does so very well. The first “branch” as he calls it is to have “Confidence in our cause.” I think that he hits a home run with this one. Obama’s critics, e among them, distrust the President greatly. We don’t believe that Obama appreciates the things that makes America great. We think that he resents the abuses America has perpetuated around the world. And if Romney can verbalize the feeling we have, put brackets around this mistrust, he’ll make significant inroads.
Romney made some mistakes, however, those mistakes were made by both Obama and Romney. But his morning press interview went very well.
One last thing, Obama has a reputation for being a strong speaker. I’ve never felt that. I think he delivers a strong speech and can move audiences but his ability to speak succinctly in an ad hoc situation is horrible. Notice that Romney never pauses, hhmms or haws or takes time to struggle with his next words. He’s confident and clear in what he’s trying to say.
Children! Children, gather ’round. I wanna tell you the story of the Leftist.
When someone you disagree with enters into a war to overthrow a brutal dictator, you protest him, call him Hitler and burn him effigy. It is IMMORAL to use force against a foreign nation in an attempt to overthrow an evil brutal dictator.
But. But….if Barack Obama would like to do the same, it is okay if:
He does it quickly.
There is no #2.
See, if one President goes to the United Nations and obtains resolution after resolution forcing the evil bad-guy dictator to allow this or allow that, and the evil bad-guy dictator doesn’t, AND the President gathers a coalition of foreign nations to assist in the overthrow of that evil bad-guy dictator AND that President goes to, you know, CONGRESS, AND….AND Congress authorizes force to remove evil bad-guy dictator AND that evil bad-guy dictator is captured AND that evil bad-guy dictator is imprisoned with human right’s representatives on guard AND that evil bad-guy dictator is given a trial and found guilty; well, THAT is immoral and the President is a douche.
He is greedy and is Hitler.
But, if the other President is Barack Obama, well, then we can target the evil bad-guy dictator in an assassination attempt, never go to Congress, the UN or any other body, watch as he is strung up on the hood of a truck like a deer, beat and shot without trial THEN allowed to have his body, decaying, be placed on public display for all to see while crooning:
We came, we saw, he died.
THAT is a foreign policy success, and the President is macho.
The Left is without morals. They have none. Which is why they try to legislate morals to force ME to abide by ’em. They demand the rich donate to charity, but never do the same. They demand that the Right care for the poor, but never do the same. They scream that the Right engages in immoral wars, yet don’t care that they are the worst offenders.
They legislate others to do what they themselves can’t or won’t.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.
“We came, we saw, he died,” she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi’s death by an aide in between formal interviews.
Two miles west of Sirte, 15 pick-up trucks mounted with machine guns lay burned out, smashed and smoldering next to an electricity substation 20 meters from the main road.
They had clearly been hit by a force far beyond anything the motley army the former rebels has assembled during eight months of revolt to overthrow the once feared leader.
But there was no bomb crater, indicating the strike may have been carried out by a fighter jet.
Inside the trucks still in their seats sat the charred skeletal remains of drivers and passengers killed instantly by the strike. Other bodies lay mutilated and contorted strewn across the grass. Some 50 bodies in all.
“MY MASTER IS HERE”
Fighters on the ground said Gaddafi and a handful of his men appeared to have run through a stand of trees and taken refuge in the two drainage pipes.
“At first we fired at them with anti-aircraft guns, but it was no use,” said Salem Bakeer, while being feted by his comrades near the road. “Then we went in on foot.
“One of Gaddafi’s men came out waving his rifle in the air and shouting surrender, but as soon as he saw my face he started shooting at me,” he told Reuters.
“Then I think Gaddafi must have told them to stop. ‘My master is here, my master is here’, he said, ‘Muammar Gaddafi is here and he is wounded’,” said Bakeer.
“We went in and brought Gaddafi out. He was saying ‘what’s wrong? What’s wrong? What’s going on?’. Then we took him and put him in the car,” Bakeer said.
At the time of his capture, Gaddafi was already wounded with gunshots to his leg and to his back, Bakeer said.
I want to be very clear. I’m a “bad guy” hawk. I’m all for using technology to get bad guys. And the guys helping bad guys. But Obama isn’t. At least he said he wasn’t. And the people that elected him aren’t. They SAY they are against actions like this. And against the cleric. And against the killing of terror suspects like Bin Laden.
I’m not one of them.
But why are they not crying out calling for justice? Why aren’t they calling for Obama to be impeached?
(Reuters) – Muammar Gaddafi was killed by Libyans he once scorned as “rats,” succumbing to wounds, some seemingly inflicted after his capture by fighters who overran his last redoubt on Thursday in his hometown of Sirte.
…
The killing or capture of senior aides, including possibly two sons, as an armored convoy braved NATO air strikes in a desperate bid to break out of Sirte, may ease fears of diehards regrouping elsewhere – though cellphone video apparently of Gaddafi alive and being beaten may inflame his sympathizers.
A Libyan official said Gaddafi, 69, was killed in custody.
“We confirm that all the evils, plus Gaddafi, have vanished from this beloved country,” interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril said in Tripoli as the body was delivered, a prize of war, to Misrata, the city whose siege and suffering at the hands of Gaddafi’s forces made it a symbol of the rebel cause.
I get the feeling that the Obama administration supported the Arab uprisings. And that the Obama administration supporters implicitly did as well. But I wonder how this differs from past Administrations and their removal of “evil dictators”?
