A REALLY BAD WEEK FOR THE U.S.

.... bringing nothing, but uncertainty.

This week, the two incidents that should not have happened, the attack on the United States embassy in Cairo, Egypt; and the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya, have interrupted a campaign for the 2012 presidential election that was running a normal course.

The national polls have placed President Barack Obama in front of his Republican Party opponent, Mitt Romney, by 5 or 6% points, after the two conventions by the two main parties, and was worrisome for the Republican camp.

Then, there were those two attacks that the Republican candidate could use to make up for lost ground in the campaign, but he took the wrong turn in being critical of Obama and not of the attackers. In other words, he would rather use that opportunity to criticize Obama's foreign policy instead.

However, his criticism was far too early, even before the actual scaling of the embassy wall by radical Islamists took place in Cairo, or the setting of fire to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Both incidents have emerged from a video that went viral, and depicting Islam's controversial leader, Muhammad, as a fraud and a charlatan.

That (criticism) has become a foot in the mouth for Romney, as many prominent people have come out to vilify him as an opportunists by using a situation that called for unity among Americans than divisiveness.

Others have said that he was doing the right thing; but all the same, his action or reaction to the crises in those two countries, Egypt and Libya, has now become a political albatross around his (Romney's) neck; yet, that was not what Americans were delightful of.

They were rather reminiscing on a similar crisis that had occurred some thirty years ago, when the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran, was taken over by revolutionary students and held the diplomats there hostage.

At that time, the two candidates for the 1980 presidential election, president Jimmy Carter and Gov. Ronald Reagan, were "united" to get the hostages out, and also to calm the situation, or stopping it from getting out of hand.

The two men were very careful with what they said in their individual statements; and although, the crisis would result in favor of Reagan for him to win the election and become president, the hostages were all accounted for in the end, without any of them, all 52 diplomats, being killed.

Americans would not be happier, if Obama and Romney would set politics aside, until the ongoing attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East and around the world would stop, for the 2012 presidential election to be conducted in a peaceful manner.

Whatever that was said on the campaign trail must be in good taste, for the sake of unity in the country; though, the fact remained that both camps had their eyes on the White House; but even so, what was more important would be how a compromise could be reached between the U.S. government and those countries that have been affected by the Islamic issue, to bring it to a close.

Vitriolic assertions by either the Obama or Romney camp would not be necessary; and that any criticism should be toned down, so as not to inflame the crisis any farther. The two campaigns owed that to the country as a whole; as it has been a week of turmoil for all Americans.

Comments 18 comments

American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

Actually, Reagan made it real clear on the campaign trail that he would not negotiate with terrorists and if elected president he would go in and get the hostages. Carter on the other hand wanted to continue to negotiate despite the fact it was not working.

You may not read the news stories, Romney did condemn the attacks. As for the rest of his comments blaming Obama, he was right on the money. Sometimes the truth hurts.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi American View,

Where was the "apology" in the embassy staffers' statement? Won't you call a person, who inserted a lie in a statement a liar? That was exactly what Romney did.

To lie and become president is UNAMERICAN.


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

The apology as you are well aware was made by Obama. Romney did not lie. I do find it interesting your comment to lightly, president is un-American, so you agree Obama shouldn't be president is un-American for all of his lying.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi American View,

If Obama was not legitimate, the FBI, The Secret Service , the Intelligence community, etc., would have found that out a long time ago.

We are talking about a "lie" here, that the U.S. has "apologized for its values", to use Romney's own words, in connection with the Cairo embassy attack.

The word "apology" did not appear anywhere in the statement that the embassy released.

That, by any standard, should make Mitt Romney a liar, that the U.S. has rendered an apology of any kind for the video that had initiated the attack.

It was a sudden invasion of U.S. property, and the staffers were doing their best to cool things down by issuing a short statement; and also to have a handle on the situation.

It would take Romney to twist the words of genuine Americans for political advantage. Shame on him.


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

Obama makes this too easy. Obama said

“Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.” As president, Obama said, it is important “to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you’ve thought through the ramifications before you make them.”

Funny coming from the President who immediately laid this blame on the film which has not yet been released and there is only a trailer on YouTube. He dismissed every other possibility. They sent Jay Carney out with a statement that these tax were not up aimed at United States of America. Of course, now we know the truth as I stated early on. It was a coordinated 9/11 attack, per the orders of Obama and the State Department there were no Marines on duty, and it was a small security detail because Obama wanted a low profile.

Form the article below

"Of course the legacy media call the al-Qaeda flag an “islamic symbol”, instead of just telling the truth. (Coincidently, the same flag hoisted ceremoniously atop the courthouse in Benghazi Libya, once we helped “the rebels”, aka: al-Qaeda, kill Kadaffi).

What does the US State Department do? Why apologize to the radical Islamists of course.

Then the White House retracts the apology…. Then the State Department reiterates the apology the White House just retracted. Go Figure…. well, maybe not, actually just more visible Obambulation.

The White House is disavowing a statement from their own Cairo embassy that apologized for anti-Muslim activity in the United States"

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/09/12/egy...

.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi American View,

I don't think, like Mitt Romney, you understand the word "apology".

It would be a statement that contained the word "sorry" or "regret".

When news broke of the initial attack in Cairo, Egypt, the demonstrators were just outside the embassy.

It was at that time that the staffers put out a statement to quieten down the situation.

Mitt Romney then came out with his own "made up factoids" and announced that the U.S. government has ".....apologized for American values" in the embassy statement.

That was not true. In fact that was an outright lie; and for him to have a very good excuse to have prematurely put his foot in his mouth, he used the word "apologized" to throw dust into people's eyes.

In other words, he deliberately threw in that word (apology or apologized) for good measure, as he has always done, when he was cornered, especially, by the media.

He (Romney) seemed to be a very nervous type; and he has done so over and over again in his political life; thus, jumping the gun and making outrageous remarks before an actual event took place.

That was what President Barack Obama was referring to, when he spoke about Romney's initial reaction to the Cairo attack.

The U.S. did not need a "nervous liar", like Romney, to be president. The mere idea of that happening was un-American.

There was nothing you, American View, could say to save your idol Mitt Romney.


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

I hope this link I provided for you helps you understand what truly happened in the timeline in which occurred. You will find that Mitt Romney's released a statement not only after the embassy attack in Egypt, but was also after the attack in Libya. Moreover, the statement was released after Sec. Clinton released hers. Romney statement was submitted but not released with instructions to wait until after midnight. Once Sec. Clinton released her statement, the Romney campaign lifted the restriction and allow the statement to be released immediately.

As for Romney, does nothing to save since he did not lie and you're incorrect about your statements above. For the record, Romney is not my idol, far from it. Romney is not the person I would've voted for, I would've backed John Huntsman, he was by far the most qualified person to run for president out of the group. His credentials make Obama look like he's an infant. Having said that, when it comes down to choice of the two who are left, it's a no-brainer, this country cannot survive another four years under this nitwit. So I no choice but to choose Romney.

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/09/12/ti...


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

What truly happened? I don't think we have a clue. Doesn't anyone think that removing security at Benghazi on 9/11, was just too stupid for anyone to have done - therefore it must have been deliberate (and here is "the real reason", Obama Staged the Benghazi Attack) and therefore when " the real reason" failed and people died they had to coverup and it explains why the administration is so"friendly" to the Muslim brotherhood.

I for one would give the story a high degree of credibility for several reasons:

1. The left has waited for many years to own the white house and will stop at nothing to retain that power.

2. Nothing ever happens at the highest levels of government that makes absolutely no sense (like removing security from Benghazi) based on the apparent evidence. There is always a scenario that makes absolute sense of the situation but for which the evidence has been covered up or destroyed, witnesses promoted or otherwise silenced (convenient suicide or accidental death) and a scape goat or incompetence left to be the default blame.

3. How is it that career professionals in Government ALWAYS seem to exercise judgement and take actions that defy the common sense of a layman (Rices statements 5 days later)? - only an indication that someone else is pulling their strings.

4. Think out of the box, brain storm the wildest scenarios and then whittle them down to the most feasible and most probably least palatable one and then go get the bad guys (hasn't anyone seen "Castle"?)

Read about "the real reason" http://www.westernjournalism.com/october-surprise-...


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi tsatjatko,

Your hub does not make any sense for Obama to "stage" the Benghazi attack; and for what reason?

You are consumed by the hypocrisy of the GOP, that it has become impossible for you to see you way clear through the ineptitude of your party, and the nefarious attitude of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, that anything Obama does is wrong.

They want young men and women to be on the front lines of wars, but they will never allow the draft to come back. They know that it will involve the children of the wealthy, like themselves and Mitt Romney.

His (Romney's) sons have managed to stay out of military service; but he wants to be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces; how?

We can all be finger pointing at others; however, the fact remains that the people that have created America's problems are the Republicans.

Now that Obama has done the hard work for the high 2008 unemployment rate and the economy to come out of the doldrums, they are selecting an unscrupulous businessman to step forward and say that he can do "better".

If they are interested in making things to become better again after the invasion of Iraq through the end the Bush era, why will they (Republican establishment) choose McCain over Romney to run against Obama in 2008? Why the delay until now?

At the moment, all they want to do is to pull the rug from under Obama and start their war mongering again. (Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran).

Who will be the loser in that situation? It will be the middle class and the poor people, who will be forced into the military, while Republican families sit back and enjoy life.

Obama is ending all the wars that are costing so much and hurting the U.S. economy; and that is the Gospel truth.

By the way, "Castle" is not real life; it is make belief.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

My hub? - wake up from lalaland I have no hub on this subject.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

By the way, "Castle" is no more make belief than what you just wrote.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi tsadjatko,

I meant "your comment"; sorry about using "hub". However, if I am wrong just let me know; that Obama has ended the war in Iraq, and also, with respect to Afghanistan, the U.S. would not have active military operations there after 2014.

The money the government was "spending" there would be put to better use back home.

If you had watched yesterday's debate, he espoused so much that he would do to build the middle class, raise the standard of living of all Americans and get the economy moving again by drastically reducing unemployment.

His opponent, Mitt Romney, had very little to contribute to the debate, except to complain about this and that, like whether Obama called the Benghazi attack a terror act. (Or if the president has checked his pension lately).

He sounded like an empty vessel all night, as he was putting many people to sleep, for lack of making strong points to counteract the president's.

If he did not perform in the next debate, the electorate would count him out as an unreliable entity.

He changed his position on coal, for example, after saying that it was a "killer", and closed a plant as a result.

There were other instances showing that he lacked consistency in his political beliefs. In other words, he might be good at religion, but not at politics.

He should go back and be a bishop that he was before.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Yeah right...

"Hard work"? - the economy was officially out of recession in June of 2009 before one cent of the Obama stimulus was even spent. Most economists can show that his policies actually slowed down recovery. And no one is saying to Bomb Iran so you just made that up - even Obama has always said the military option is on the table. Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan and even now it is reported today the administration is looking at keeping troops there after 2014. Plans to ending the Iraq war were in place during the Bush administration, Obama simply carried them out and took credit when in realty as a senator he voted against the surge that ended the war.

You really should do some research before publishing a hub unless your goal is simply to spread propaganda.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

tsadjatko,

All my comments are based on thorough research.

What I have noticed is that you will read an article, and if it suits your fancy, you tend to use it as a background for your own commentary. That is no research; that is plagiarism or worse still, copyright infringement.

You also committed another terrible falsification by saying that, "Plans to ending the Iraq war were in place during the Bush administration, Obama simply carried them out and took credit," as everything that he (Obama) inherited became part of his responsibility, because if anything should go wrong under his watch, he would be the one to blame.

Like many right-wing conservatives, your comments always show a heavy amount of animosity for Obama.

However, that is not politics; that is sheer hatred.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Couldn't answer the lie about hard work you put out there could you? Like the typical liberal you are when you can't win a debate on the facts you lie then resort to belittling the other person, name calling anything to divert the attention from the facts.

There would never have been a victory in Iraq if Obama had it his way during the Bush administration he would have lost the war...that is a fact but you credit Obama? It was Bush and our military that got ended the war!

You say "everything that he (Obama) inherited became part of his responsibility" ? That is not only a lie but a joke ! According to this administration they want to take the credit for good things Bush did while constantly putting the blame for Obama's failed policies on Bush - You really need a reality check son. And as far as hating Obama is concerned before you start calling me racist, which is about all that is left in your liberal playbook, I don't hate the man but I do hate his ideology, his pathological propensity to lie, his policies and what he is doing to this country I love. Evidently all characteristics you seem to hold dear.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Who knows what you are thinking in lalaland when you say "Like many right-wing conservatives, your comments always show a heavy amount of animosity for Obama. However, that is not politics; that is sheer hatred." Nothing I have debated you on is politics, just the facts.

It is just so transparent, the length to which you will go to avoid discussing the facts that refute your fantasy, you should be embarrassed..


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

tsadjatko,

Me; embarrassed? Why should I?

It is you who is trying to infuse race into our little dialogue; and if that is not embarrassing, I will never know what is.

I have been color blind all my life, therefore, I would never base a serious discussion on race and be happy about it.

However, you being a conservative have been brought up to believe that some people were unequal with your kind, because of the color of their pigmentation.

With that deep seated belief, you would only extend hatred to any person, who bore a different color of skin from yours.

That is what your group of "holier than thou" conservatives are doing to Obama, because he does not have your color; and so, anything he attempts to do is wrong.

With that said, allow me to add this, that when one was given a job to do, which has been half finished by someone else, one was credited with the end product.

The Auto industry's come back, the ending of the Iraq war, the demise of Osama bin Laden, the health care insurance coverage for more than 30 million Americans, who never had any coverage; all have been Obama's doing.

His complexion would not be seen as a handicap by historians, but what he has achieved as president; and that would be what counted most.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX

Boy this Hub was a major rewrite of history from a progressives view. I suggest you read my latest blog about Obama and the Libyan question. At least try to get your facts straight which you haven't even attempted here. History sees it one way and you see it the other. You researched how? By watching MSNBC and reading the Huff & Puff. Oh well...

The Frog

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working