The Foreign Policy Debate Ahead

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Reb Yid says:

    About that parenthetical comment about the ‘act of terror’ written after the debate–Obama was extremely clear in including Benghazi in this, despite your editorial stance.

    Here is the transcript with the relevant paragraphs. Let the CC readers decide for themselves:

    Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

    As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

    No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

    Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

  2. Jacob Suslovich says:

    The attack on the embassy would prperly be cakked an “act of terror’ regarldess of whether it was precipitated by a film or had nothing ot do with the film. The remarks of the President that you quote are neutral as to what caused the atack on the embassy.

  3. L. Oberstein says:

    The latest reports are that the attack on the Embassy was opportunistic and not related to Al Keidah. There is a surfeit of weapons in Libya and there is no question that the compound was not properly defended. It was a tragic failure but why quibble over details when the major issue is the real topic.
    I do not think the United States has the ability to rule the planet. We can’t remake the Arabs any more than we can stop the Chinese from ascending to economic power. I am very concerned about the long term destabilization of Israel if the Arab population internally continues to grow and maybe outnumber the Jews. Israel really needs to find a way to divest itself of a population that is a time bomb and contains the seeds of destruction. Unfortunately, I have no idea what to do about it.

  4. Bob Miller says:

    I do not expect a regime built on lies to suddenly present an accurate depiction of its actions and plans. Nor do I expected its unpaid flacks in the media to do so.

  5. Mr. Cohen says:

    Winston Churchill (British Prime Minister from
    1940 to 1945 and from 1951 to 1955) said in 1921:

    “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities,
    but the influence of the religion paralyses
    the social development of those who follow it.
    No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

    SOURCE: Churchill and the Jews
    (chapter 6, page 53) by Martin Gilbert, year 2007.
    Others give an older source for a similar quote:
    The River War, written by Winston Churchill in 1899.

    The word “RETROGRADE” refers to an object which moves
    in the backward direction or degenerates to a worse condition.

  6. Charlie Hall says:

    “The remarks of the President that you quote are neutral as to what caused the atack on the embassy.”

    The State Department told Congress on September 12 that the attack looked pre-planned.

    Even today, November 9, we still don’t know exactly who carried out this attack. To have assigned blame before the facts are known would have been irresponsible.

Pin It on Pinterest