That is not evidence of vacillation! It's a simple comparison. The error in your example is that they were not similar circumstance. Saudi Arabia and Yemen have not undergone a full-scale revolution. Our interest is with Egypt, not Mubarak or any particular strongman. Iran 1979 taught us to not back strongmen deposed by their own people. The Saudis are not fools and they know that will not back billionaire kings in the face of a popular uprising. It is why they keep their people living in style and ruthlessly suppress dissent. All untrue. There is no iranian revolution and he did express support for iranian dissenters. He has repeatedly expressed support for Syrian dissenters, do you even watch the news? Libya was a European operation and a chance for the European allies to show their stuff. Obama had to push them, of course, and we ended up supplying the bulk of the airpower,but at least the NATO boys stepped up, performed professionally, and we didn't have to go in and take it over from bungling Euros as Clinton had to do in Bosnia/Kosovo. What drift? He has been on message all week. You are grasping at straws. Examples? Then it should be no problem to offer some examples of this.
There is nothing in my post that covers anything you said except the leading from behind portion. If you read my post I said I would NOT send in armed forces unless there was a clear purpose and end point like Colin Powell advocated when Chairman of the JCS. I also said the immediate future of the region was chaos due to the fact the populations had been held down and back by 500 years of dictators of one sort or another. They don't want a dictator that is all they know. The arab spring showed the people of the region they could defeat dictators and their desires will evolve as they have opportunity and are seduced by modern life. This won't happen overnight or evenly (it may not happen at all if a new set of dictators come to power). We don't seem to appreciate how fortunate the US was to have the exceptional leadership we had during the formative years of the republic. Few countries have been able to establish an effective society without years of turmoil. The middle east needs aGeorge Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or Nelson Mandela to lead the region out of anarchy. It would be nice to have someone in the White House to provide a strong hand to help. My point is that it will take leadership with a strong idea of what is needed and the ability to help take advantage of situations to reduce violence and provide effective help. It needs to be a national agenda (the Reps haven't been very good at this either) because it will last much longer than the next 4 years. In my opinion BHO does not have the tools, temperment or strength to do the job. Romney (as I stated earlier) showed by his actions this week and his trip earlier this summer is lacking as well. Finally like all other posts to some extent I am spewing talking points but they are based on reading, listening and thinking about the issues. Hopefully I can pass on my view as it has developed and have a little fun tweaking noses every once in a while.
I generally have a good deal of respect for your opinions, even when we disagree, because you are an objective debater who isn't so entrenched in ideology that you cannot listen. That being said, I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East. I watched the RNC with utter amazement as speaker after speaker walked to the lectern and basically advocated for more war in the Middle East. John McCain, who I have always admired even when I disagreed, was chief among them. You made the comment that Obama abandoned Mubarek but this assumes that the US should be playing a role in the governments of other countries. I would rephrase that and say that no, Obama didn't interfere with the Egyptian uprising because the Egyptian people never asked for our help, nor did they need our help. Further, their government was democratically elected. Since when did we start making decisions about the sovreignty of other countries? I make this point because this attitude that the US can intervene in the affairs of other countries without their request seems to be the prevailing school of thought among most conservatives. I see absolutely no merit to your argument that Obama has made us weaker in the Middle East. If anything Obama has made us stronger in the middle east. The fact that the Arab Spring uprisings are taking place right now is not Obama's fault; it is simply happening during his watch. Our handling of that situation, however, has to be perfect because we have to stand on the side of freedom and democracy while keeping a cautious eye on the underlying motivations of these up risings. Some of them are true acts of political courage from citizens who want their government back and others are carefully orchestrated demonstrations to provide cover for the work of terrorists. Needless to say, this isn't an easy situation to handle and every country in the middle east has it's own nuances and unique caveats that make them different from the ones next door. To think that one blanket foreign policy will succeed in the region is foolishness. For those who would say, "Well, let's just bring all our money home and let'em fight it out," you do not understand the full ramifications it would have in undermining our own security. The old adage, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" is fully applicable here. Sticking our head in the sand is not an option.
There were peaceful protests in Benghazi that were exploited by fractioned elements of Al-Queda. In fact, it is being reported that four men carrying AK-47's and rocket propelled grenades showed up well after the protests had begun and began firing on the embassy. The peaceful protests had been going on for a few days but they were just that: peaceful....until these gun men showed up. From what I am reading there was a short battle between these men and Libyan securtity forces, which are sparse given that they are a new government. the Ambassador died from asphyxiation (sp?) which means that he inhaled too much smoke and suffocated. If you view the pics of his corpse that were tweeted, you will see that beneath his nose there are charred marks which is a classic indication of asphyxiation. I suspect that once his compound was hit with the RPG he couldn't escape the heavy smoke and succumbed to it's poisonous fumes. There were no gun shot wounds, etc. Further, the Libyan's who were previously protesting were the ones who actually carried his body to a doctor who tried to revive him unsuccessfully for an hour. Remember the Libyan people loved this man because he literally helped them save their city and their country. There is more to this story that will be forthcoming I am sure but for now this is what we know.
On the contrary. This is part of the cost of doing business with the islamic world. They are largely tribal, illiterate, and religiously fanatic. It doesn't take much to set them off to chanting in the streets anywhere in the third world. It's about their only means of political expression. We have had embassies attacked regularly in the last 60 years, now that the proliferation of military weapons to the poorest third world angry undereducated, unemployed teenagers and 20-somethings. It is why our most dangerous embassies are built like fortresses. This consulate in Benghazi was in temporary quarters in a villa.
