A suggestion to Romney for the 3rd debate
In the second debate Obama ordered somebody—Crowley, Romney, all of us?—to “get the transcript” of his Rose Garden speech.
So maybe Romney should oblige, and say something like this:
Mr President, last week during our debate you told the American people that you had called what happened in Benghazi an “act of terror” in your Rose Garden speech. When I said that you had actually taken much longer than that to call it an act of terror, you said “get the transcript.”
Well, I took you up on that.
Mr. President, you are an excellent speaker with a good command of the English language. If you had meant to call them acts of terror you had plenty of opportunity to do so. But according to the transcript, you did not.
And then he should describe what the president did say.
I doubt that Romney will do it. And maybe that’s for the best. Perhaps it’s best to not go over that territory again, because at this point it may seem like repetitive nit-picking. But if Obama decides to revisit the topic, it needs to be countered.
Yes, there are a lot more important things than this fussing over words and their meaning. The are extremely vital issues of foresight, protection, and veracity involved. But it is galling to see Obama get away with his fake outrage.
For all the verbiage around this incident, how many people have actually done what Obama told them (or told someone, perhaps Crowley) to do: get the transcript? And how many people have actually read the whole thing?
Don’t forget that “acts of …” is a legalistic diplomatic term of art that describes a thing by comparison without labeling it definitively as something that would trigger a course of action.
File Under: “L’esprit de l’escalier or L’esprit d’escalier (literally, staircase wit) is a French term used in English that describes the predicament of thinking of the right comeback too late.”
And then move on…
I like the idea.
It is an indication of his foreign policy failure.
A good strategy would be to relate all of his weakness and vacillation in the ME to the current situation which ended in the “attack” AND the demonstrations.
He’s choosing losers again.
As has been pointed out by others, I am amazed Obama could point to Crowley and tell her to grab the transcript out of her stack.
Where’s was Romney’s stack of stuff for her to grab and back him up? I mean, she was a moderator, right?
The issue isn’t what he allegedly said once soon after the attack, it is what he and his minions said repeatedly in the weeks after. If he said it was a terrorist attack then why did he contradict himself and describe it as a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video? It was not just Obama who raised the issue of the video. It was Hillary, Susan Rice, and his press spokesman. Why couldn’t his administration admit that the ambassador warned about increasing violence in Benghazi and Al Qaeda flags on government buildings (according to Gateway Pundit)? Because it means Obama’s foreign policy is in ruins. Al Qaeda was not defeated with Osama’s death. It metastasized and spread with the Arab Spring which should be more correctly described as Islamist Spring.
I think that a good point of attack for Romney would be Obama’s statement of a few days ago, in a video interview with host John Stewart played on the Daily show in which Obama said that, having our Ambassador and three other U.S. citizens killed in Benghazi was ”less than optimal.” Thus, betraying an unfeeling, cold-blooded Obama who jokes about, makes light of, and cares noting for U.S. citizens and for the government employees who he has, by the way, put in harm’s way and sworn an oath to protect and defend. I’d also point to the anguished and angry statement by the mother of one of those killed that “her son “was less than optimal,” her son was dead.”
And, by the way, there were reports that our Ambassador was tortured and raped (it’s a Muslim thing–part of their “glorious” culture, and intended to “spread terror among the unbelievers,” don’t you know) before or while being dragged through the streets of Benghazi (onlookers cell phone cameras snapping souvenir pictures of the dead or half-dead, partially clothed Ambassador being dragged along), unforgivably characterized by Secretary of State Clinton as being an act of “kindness” by some Benghazi citizens who “took our Ambassador to the hospital.” Somehow, this abhorrent and grisly part of the cover-up has just been passed by. But Clinton should be called on this, too, and this count clearly pointed out to add even more evidence and weight to the indictment of Obama and his foreign policy and its “less than optimal” results, all over the world.
Moreover, where are the autopsy results? Or was that part of the cover-up, too? Bring ‘em home and plant them, before anyone can do such autopsies, and be able to report just how our murdered citizens were savaged.
Obama’s “not optimal” statement indicts him and should be used against him. Then, Romney can link all of the foreign policy disasters in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, those involving Russia and China together, as very clearly demonstrating the bankruptcy and dangerousness of Obama’s foreign policies and actions and their far, far “less than optimal” consequences.
Romney has been good at using Obama’s words against him (“one term proposition,” etc.), so I’d imagine he’ll bring up statements from other Libya speeches & that “Al Qaeda’s on the run” bit from his stump speech.
All Mitt really has to do is compare Obama’s actions to his words, If you knew it was terrorism, why did you issue no response to this act of war? Why have Rice invite herself on all the Sunday shows to lie? Why mention the video at all, let alone at the UN? Why have the FBI investigate the filmmaker? Most important: why did you wait 12+ hours to send in assistance when the attack lasted 6-7 hours?
It certainly seems to me that the Libya incident needs to be revisited, once and for all, to
-1- agree that “acts of terror” was in fact in the Rose Garden transcript,
-2- point out that the phrase was not at all applying to the Libya incident specifically, but was referring to past incidents,
-3- reiterate that since the use of that phrase in a general context in the Rose Garden speech, the administration continued to push that phoney-baloney video story [or might it be “pharkey malarkey”?] for two weeks, including all those utterances by Ambassador Rice and by Press Secretary Carney and by the President himself, ^ to the exclusion of any suggestion that it was a terrorist act ^ , and
-4- request an explanation from The One as to why,
after hinting that it was an act of terror, he and his administration persisted in propounding that idiot video story until it had become laughable.
Proceed, Mr. President.
I agree with M J R’s approach with one exception…I wouldn’t ask the president any questions. The “moderator” might help him limp along out of the situation.
I’d end the sequence with something like “I and the American people can’t help wondering why, after hinting that it was an act of terror, you and your administration persisted in propounding that idiot video story until it had become laughable.”
Works 4 me! . . .
I would bring in a moderator observer to the next debate if I were Romney. JUST KIDDING
Neo I am going to second your motion to let it go unless Obama revisits it. If he does, then bury him up with the mountain of evidence you and the rest of the commentors have listed here. I think he should be thinking hard in broader terms about foreign policy, as if he were already president.
I think he should spend some time pointing out Obamas failures, which are numerous and multiplying. And also some time on China, which is not on many people’s minds, but they own our debt and they are going to be force with whom we need to contend.
Most importantly, I think Romney needs to focus on what his foreign policy priorities are, identify threats to US interests, and how he will handle them. Look presidential, kick ass when he’s handed the opportunity, but be positive and explain what a Romney administration will do about a nuclear Iran, Chinese trade, ME terrorism; if not specifically, in terms that Americans will understand to be good for America. Like some have suggested, explain the Muslim Spring as a it is, not as Obama wanted it to be, or how it’s been portrayed.
I realize nobody here has suggested it, i just want to point out if the whole debate is a review of the Libyan debacle, it will be a wasted opportunity. It needs to be put in the context of the bigger picture as an example of the total breakdown of US foreign policy, and how he’s going to change it in a way that is good for us.
I’m worried about this a lot. Nothing can be done about Iran, short of military action, and politically, it’s a not going to fly. That subject is a minefield for Romney, and I hope he’s got an answer.
I think it’s probably a tactical error to get buried in the weeds about whether “acts of terror” in the Rose Garden speech really referred to Benghazi or not. It’s ambiguous and was probably designed to be that way, as an escape hatch on the off-chance the distraction story about the video protest blew up in his face.
Well, it did. So run on that. Run on the two weeks of lies, of contempt for the public, of using the coffins of the dead as a prop while he lied about how they died because he didn’t want his Libyan policy to look like it had been misconceived. Run on his failure to provide the security our diplomats told him they needed, on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary, while Marines guarded Barbados. Run on his naive and idealistic use of unarmed Libyan locals as guards in a place that was obviously an unstable powderkeg and haven for Al Qaeda and/or similar groups hostile to the US.
Obama WANTS us to go back to the Rose Garden. Because that’s where he built his escape hatch in case his cover story crumbled. So don’t go there. Go to the very expansive ground where he has no remotely plausible defense.
I know we’re all disgusted at his sliminess, and want to call him out on it, but we have to remember we’re trying to communicate to voters who don’t have the patience or intelligence to sort out these subtleties. They’ll understand the force of the charge I laid out in my second paragraph. But asking them to decide what Obama meant with “acts of terror” in the Rose Garden will just confuse them and blunt the sharpness of our attack. The job is to win the war, not a battle.
“Well, Mr. President, you could have fooled me, and you did. You laid it out as a senseless act of violence so that by the time you actually used the word ‘terror’ right at the end, I thought you were speaking in generalities. Then, for 2 weeks, your team spoke pointedly and repeatedly about the amateur video. The memory that you had slipped the word ‘terror’ in your speech on the day after 9/11 faded to the background, which I think is where you meant the word terror to be. The State Department knew at the outset that this was a daring and well-executed act of terror. Did you also know then that security had been denied to this Ambassador in this fragile and deteriorating land? We cannot take your VP’s word for it; he seems to think we had wars in Iraq AND Iran. We want to hear it from you.
If there is a good reason to keep something secret, ok. Say so. “We’re not telling.” or “We’ll tell you later,” is better than making up a story.
You are offended? We are too. I speak on behalf of other Americans who are befuddled by your reticence, indeed, your refusal boldly to call violent enemy actions acts of terror and insist upon trying terrorism in the US Courts with the sacred US Consitution protecting our war enemies. The action at Ft. Hood with the perpetrator calling out to Allah as he murdered our soldiers, was an act of terror which you and your DOJ limply called ‘workplace violence.’ Why?
Mr. President, proceed.”
Romney does need to stop the “gotcha” question approach. I’m sure they’ve figured that out, though.
My suggestion is to fight fire with fire. A little demagoguery goes a long way against a demagogue.
If I was prepping Romney I would have one highlighted bullet-point to drum into Romney’s field of awareness. I’d call it “Narcissism Watch.” At some point during any debate, Obama is going to slip up and refer to something not about him as being all about him. He did it last debate when he referred to US ambassadors as representing him, personally, and not the country.
When Obama makes a narcissistic slip, a “ding sing ding,” should go off in Romney’s head, teeing up a nice demagogic moment similar to Scott Brown’s devastating “This is the people’s seat!”
So, with respect to ambassadors, Romney could tie in the “not optimal” remark with the self-centeredness of Obama’s language and say something like,
“Mr. President, it is the American people who are offended at the lack of transparency of this administration. That you would take offense at having to answer their questions demonstrates everything that is wrong with politics today…”
And then do a little dance. With this rhetorical move, Romney has framed Obama’s “taking offense” as offense at the American people, and insinuated lethal charges suggesting Obama’s narcissism without explicitly calling him a narcissist.
Yes, it’s demagogic, but it’s not a lie.
JoeCitizen –
You posted just before me, but it seems we had the same general idea. I think it’s a good one.
that, or just list everything Mr. Obama and his representatives DID say in the intervening weeks between 9/11 and now.
Also — how many people took note of his “they aren’t just representatives of the United States, they are my representatives” line? ;./
I hope Mitt also brings up Fast & Furious, since this was done without informing Mexico (unlike Bush’s operation Wide Receiver).
*FYI: Here’s more analysis on the debate’s Libya exchange, on how one could argue that the question itself was scripted based on the phrasing & how Obama behaves: http://tinyurl.com/c67er5e
Obama’s foreign policy record provides a plethora of criticism.
Perhaps, Romney might close with something like,
What this whole discussion comes down to is Pres. Obama’s entire approach to foreign policy. It’s very similar to Neville Chamberlain’s, who thought he could work with Hitler, but fanatics are never interested in negotiations. Pres. Obama walks softly but refuses to carry a big stick.
Iran’s Pres. Ahmadinejad and Al Qaeda publicly favor his reelection. But anything Iran’s fanatical leadership favors, can’t be in America’s best interest.
It’s time for a change but Pres. Obama stubbornly insists on more of the same. What he’s done hasn’t worked, yet like a gambler chasing a losing streak, he keeps insisting that it will work.
But its foolish to insist that repeating the same thing over and over will somehow bring different results.
Wishful thinking doesn’t create jobs or create a valid foreign policy, in fact, it makes things worse, not better.
I believe that America simply can’t afford four more years of denial.
pharkey malarkey?
No, Barky Malarkey.
I agree w/those above, such as Jason, who reason that it would be a tactical error for Romney to pursue a point about whether or not the Rose Garden speech referenced “act of terror” in appropriate fashion.
Even if Romney prevails on debate points, Obama would end up winning in the court of public opinion. I analogize it to the Vietcong’s TET offensive:
1. the U.S. won a decisive military victory: throwing back the offensive, and inflicting significant casualties and military damage upon the Vietcong.
2. the American public had a difficult time ascertaining which side prevailed, and Walter Cronkite announced that the U.S. side had suffered overall defeat.
3. in the end, even though the Vietcong lost the TET offensive (decisively), in the big picture, the Vietcong won (b/c the TET offensive helped shift American public to an opinion that U.S. military was in an unwinnable quagmire in Vietnam.
The same effect will occur if Romney wins a factual debate point about the Rose Garden speech. The enemedia are all Cronkites now. By the time the enemedia finish their offensive upon public opinion: Romney’s victory will turn out to be a big picture loss.
Romney would be better off citing, for the American public, the instances in which Obama, Carney, Hillary, Rice, et al promoted the video lie. If needed, Romney ought press the issue, just a bit (to get the narrative out there, and into the minds of voters), then drop it. Just promote the truth about the lie, thus keeping the story alive, then drop it during the debate.
I mean: Romney ought promote the Executive’s lies about the video during the debate, then drop the point for the remainder of the debate. Just introduce the point: do not try to win the point.
When Benghazi does come up Romney should say … this is what you said day 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 ……and on.
Let’s let the american people decide what you meant.
Steve says, “Why couldn’t his administration admit that the ambassador warned about increasing violence in Benghazi and Al Qaeda flags on government buildings (according to Gateway Pundit)? Because it means Obama’s foreign policy is in ruins.”
Because it shows he is detached from the day to day requirements of being CINC and it also shows he is a cold MF that labels the death of 4 Americans as not optimal.
Wallo Dalbo asks, “Moreover, where are the autopsy results? ”
The autopsy report is a deeply protected matter of BHO’s re-election security. Its a Black Hawk Down issue of inadequate resources on the ground and BS rules of engagement.
Lizzy says, “I hope Mitt also brings up Fast & Furious…”
Me too, and lists the body count.
It might come across negatively if Romney does “nitpick” on this.
However, I also think Romney was caught a bit off guard, not because he didn’t have the facts correct, he did. No, Romney, I think, was caught off guard because no one, but no one, expected Obama and the moderator to so boldly LIE.
Maybe, just maybe, enough folks are paying attention to this. (one can hope, can’t we?)
I also believe, that Romney is now ready for that kind of nonsense for the next debate and will not allow it to happen again without a proper response. Hey, you don’t get to be successful in business without being a quick learner in the devious ways of your competition.
Hopefully, not only will Romney win this election; but Obama will go down flaming, screaming “it’s all Bush’s fault!”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331048/whats-not-optimal-peter-kirsanow
What’s Not Optimal
By Peter Kirsanow
National Review
October 20, 2012 8:53 A.M.
– Having a president who perpetuates a falsehood to the American people about the cause of a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
– Having a president who uses $70,000 of taxpayers’ money to promote that falsehood on Pakistani television.
– Having a president who broadcasts that falsehood to the world using the megaphone of a speech before the U.N. General Assembly.
– Having a president who repeats the falsehood in front of the caskets of the four Americans killed in Benghazi.
– Having a president who will casually wreak havoc on the life of an obscure video producer to protect that falsehood.
– Having a president who, before a television audience of 65 million Americans, evades answering the question of “who denied enhanced security” to the consulate in Benghazi.
– Having a president who feigns offense at the suggestion his machinations regarding the Benghazi debacle may have a political component.
– Having a president who believes killing bin Laden constitutes a foreign policy.
– Having a president who projects confusion, weakness, and diffidence to our enemies.
– Having a media blind to the fact that this is a titanic scandal.
I have an idea: Romney can cut to the chase. F’r instance —
“Mr Obama, you hired jihadis, the February 17th MARTYR’s BRIGADE, to guard our Ambassador in Libya on 9-11, after months of attacks.
“You knew this AS IT WAS HAPPENING.
“On 9-11, the Al-Quaida flag was raised over our embassies in Cairo and Libya.
“Now ~20 of our embassies across the Arab world are attacked and on fire.
“Just WTH are your intentions, Mr Obama?”
Sock it to him, the swine.
I have another idea: if any of you are in a protesting state of mind, go to an Obama rally and show him the bottoms of your shoes.
😉
In my dreams, Romney nails Hussein for REFUSING permission to the SEALs to kill Bin Liner THREE TIMES, before they, under the aegis of Leon Panetta, went ahead without his (Valerie Jarrett’s) permission; then carried him in off the golf course ONLY when our men were already in Paki airspace.
I would love, love, love to see that. That one blow, mightily landed like Charles Martel, would despatch the Quisling.
And can you imagine the shock of the low-information voter??
Beverly reminds me of one thing he needs to hammer home- national security leaks. He got Seal Team 6 killed bragging about the Bin Laden raid. Disgusting. Another scandal swept under the rug.
Maybe romney can bring up the fact that russia and others are flexing their nuclear might (changed to first strike doctrine too), and more.. as i said.. the tempting nature of the situation we have is that the leader who is not capable of leading in a crisis, wont step down and give it to someone that is… you ride the horse your on…
Putin flexes muscle in big test of Russia’s nuclear arsenal
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/20/us-russia-nuclear-putin-idUSBRE89J0EJ20121020
President Vladimir Putin took a leading role in the latest tests of Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, the most comprehensive since the 1991 Soviet collapse
Russian and American leaders say nuclear war between the Cold War rivals is now unthinkable.
anyone want to point out how many unthinkable things we had last century?
George McGovern dies…
There’s the tactic, which I call the Bielat strategy: merely be a good man with a message who doesn’t give up and lets the screamer scream himself out. That’s Romney too, and its working because the people can judge heart and motive. Obama, they say “won a slight edge.” But he really didn’t because enough Americans know lying doesn’t winning? Not to most Americans.
Obama was sold on not only his intellect but his character. Both have been solidly damaged and the American people are definitely embracing Romney as the candidate of intelligence and character. It’s those larger issues which resonate and a “gotcha” moment is more of a prosecuting attorney method which doesn’t fit. In fact, the opposite may be true. Well did the Founding Fathers give the biggest proportion of power to the judgment of the people.
The following websites show the second run for Congress by Sean Bielat and the extraordinary self-control of Andew Breitbart, which in the end, destroys the supposed victory of the screamer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN5cIRRHT5s&feature=player_embedded
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/dont-get-mad-get-even/
Here’s the thing though: You still have to get the message out and as we have seen, it was the debates which got “who he is” out, both as to Romney and Obama.
Over two billion dollars spent and for what? For control of the information we receive. Because Democrats are result rather than process oriented, they more quickly seize the organs (like that phrase) of communication (I was tempted to put reproduction. It would be apt.)
Humour. That’s what Romney needs on the last debate: follow up his routine at the Al Davis event with more laughs. That is Romney at his most attractive. Because predicting what works is a lot like a man trying to get a woman. He’s just lucky to do what finally works. I mean you have to do all the right stuff, but then it may be something as simple as the way he shifted in his chair at a particular moment, an accidental brush against her arm, a laugh, a scorn, but something that was peculiar and could not possibly be planet.
Still, almost all women love humour and those that don’t are worthy of a wide berth. This contest has turned around because of women. Thank God they’re coming to their “senses.”
http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/
At the risk of becoming a bloody bore, it just came to me how failed socialists are at building the “city of the future.” Detroit. Chicago. LA. New York (that might be somewhat of an exception I’ll allow. Thanks Guilliani! ahem. Where’s Tats? Hey Tats, hi, hello, jello, let the cat mellow, eat crow, find your Juvenal?)
The city of the future:
Jerusalem shone with brilliance like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.
The implications are clear.
Somebody linked this video at AoS this morning. It is by New Zealander Trevor Loudon:
An Urgent Message for America
It’s a half hour long, but well worth your time. He wants it to go viral, and I agree. This is on a par with Yuri Bezmenov’s videos.
Here’s the YouTube link.
OT: WARNING
Obama ‘Punting’ on New EPA Rules Until Post-Election
A new report from Senate Republicans warns that the Obama administration and the EPA are delaying implementation of painful new regulations until after the election.
The report from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ Minority Staff, “A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013,” points to a “slew of job-killing EPA regulations that the Obama-EPA has put on hold until after the election but will be on the ‘to-do’ list for 2013.”
“As the economy has continued to falter over the past year, Team Obama has been delaying rule after rule that will eliminate American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities, and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas, and coal production. They don’t want this economic pain to hit American families just before the election because it would cost President Obama votes.”
The report goes on to state: “It’s pretty clear that if President Obama secures a second term, the Obama-EPA will have a very busy next four years, moving full speed ahead to implement numerous major rules and regulations that he has delayed or punted due to the upcoming election.
“The radical environmental left may not need to worry, but what about American families, who are working hard in tough economic times, trying to make ends meet?
“As the nation struggles to recover from a lagging economy in the coming year, Americans could also be grappling with a regulatory onslaught from the Obama-EPA that will strangle economic growth, destroy millions of jobs, and dramatically raise the price of goods, the cost of electricity, and the price of gas at the pump.”
The “punted” regulations include:
–Greenhouse gas rules that will “virtually eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation,” and inflict new permitting costs on more than 37,000 farms.
–New ozone standards that would cost $90 billion a year.
–Regulations on hydraulic fracturing that will have “serious impacts on domestic energy production.”
–Expansion of federal control “over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small.”
–Storm water regulations that could include “mandates on cities to change existing buildings, storm water sewers, and streets.”
–Reductions in the sulfur content in gasoline that could boost prices by 9 cents a gallon.
–Clean Water Act rules that “could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths.”
–Other regulations would affect coal ash, farm dust, oil and gasoline spill prevention, and more.
“This report is a wake-up call on the economic pain that the ‘abusive’ Obama-EPA plans to inflict next year,” said Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking member on the committee. <<
Source: Newsmax.com (because the NY Slimes et al. don't think the destruction of our power industry is "news fit to print.")
Semi OT:
In general, this is what I think Romney should do tonight:
1. Only briefly summarize the timeline of Benghazi and exactly what the administration did and said. Use only non-debatable points. No questions to Obama.
2. Be presidential…not petty as Obama is likely to be.
3. Review all shortcomings of Obama foreign policy with emphasis on appearing weak.
4. Tie foreign policy to strength of US economy. All the diplomacy in the world fails when USA is weak economically. When we are strong economically, foreign policy works just fine…eg. end of Cold War because we buried USSR with strong military based on strong USA economy and winning of WWII because of our economy (we had great tacticians but so did Japan and Germany). This approach plays to Romney strength and differentiates him from Obama.
…oh and stress that he can work with both Democrats and Republicans like he did in MA. This will be loved by independents.
Here’s a great ad running now by Romney campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8F10sxXXtpQ
It’s too bad that Romney can’t drill Obama on how badly he fumbled away the post-Surge opportunity to secure the long-term peace on our terms in Iraq. See Michael Gordon’s report on Obama’s gross incompetency in Iraq in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
Iraq is strategically vital in the Middle East and US forces in Iraq were at a point we could have begun to transition into a smaller sustainable but still influential occupation that looks more like our decades-long military presence in Germany, Japan, or Korea.
But both Republicans and Democrats have adopted the narrative that getting out of Iraq and moving away from Bush’s liberal interventions is a good thing.
The problem is both parties – minus the radical (blame America always) left and radical (America-first Ron Paul libertarians) right – hold onto the same liberal strategic goals that Bush pursued but have removed the necessary liberal interventionist means to achieve those ends. See the Arab Spring, especially Libya, or the announced withdrawal date in Afghanistan.
Bush rationally applied the means necessary to achieve America’s strategic ends in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, while balancing American activism with diplomatic sensitiveity to long-term sustainability. Obama, in his rush to be the anti-Bush, took away the necessary means to achieve our ends and the diplomatic balance that Bush worked so hard to maintain.
Edit: Obama, in his rush to be the anti-Bush, took away the necessary means to achieve our ends and – especially with the dramatic increase of cross-border drone strikes – the diplomatic balance that Bush worked so hard to maintain.