Getty Images
When it comes to this week's unrest in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere, it's hard to understand the exact nature of the right's criticism of President Obama. I'm still not altogether sure what it is they think they don't like about the White House's actions.
Some bigoted video gets put on the Internet, which provokes protests in Muslim countries, which may have led some violent opportunists to exploit protests for violent ends. In conservatives' minds, at what point in this scenario did the president make a mistake?
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- remember him? -- shed new light on the right's thinking yesterday, arguing that the events in Libya and Egypt were the result of "perceived American weakness."
It's a ridiculous argument, but at least I understand the train of thought. That rascally Obama, after ordering the strike that killed bin Laden, decimating al Qaeda, and helping topple the Gadhafi regime, has signaled American "weakness" abroad, which in turn encourages anti-American protests at our diplomatic facilities. After all, the argument goes, people wouldn't dare protest if they perceived America as strong, right?
This line of attack has a certain child-like charm, which may appeal to those who don't think too much about the details and overlook Rumsfeld's tragic lack of credibility.
But there's another problem: "[T]here were twelve terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad during George W. Bush's tenure -- the most of any president in history -- and eight of those occurred while Donald Rumsfeld was in office."
There were also seven attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities during the Reagan era.
In other words, by Rumsfeld's standards, American embassies and consulates were targeted in years past because, during Ronald Reagan's and George W. Bush's presidencies, foreigners "perceived American weakness."
I realize it's the height of the campaign season and partisans are prone to say silly things, but Republicans really ought to have better talking points than the nonsense Rumsfeld is throwing around.
Leave a Comment:
He's not even worth commenting on. Just ignore.
Good suggestion. However, should Mr. Benen write about nothing but the positive comments Republicans make about the White House, he would have nothing to write about.
This must be Rummy's desperation in the losing war with how he will be written about in history.
If this is more than a random tweet, it is a bizarre move.
I mean come on. They are inviting a re litigation of Bush foreign policy decisions?
Maybe they are just into spanking. Ewwww bad thought.
Please don't try to understand Rumsfeld. Considering some of the statements that came out of his mouth during the Iraq invasion, it's not surprising that he wouldn't see Romney's statement in any sane context.
Please don't try to understand Rumsfeld? Please do. Considering some of the statements that came out of his mouth spills the beans on Republican objectives. Calling allowing protests "weakness" is exactly the excuse Republicans intend to use for siccing DHS goons when protests erupt here, protests over the theft of public funds by the rich with tax cuts.
Give poor Rummy a break. He's working with the party he has, not the party he'd like to have.
Droll. Well played.
Damskippy- I'm pretty sure it's exactly the neo-con, authoritarian-following party he had a part in creating.
VeryVerySad
Now you are just giving Mitt way too much credit. You must have forgotten that Mitt ws more liberal then Kennedy at one point, and lost. Then move to the Republican Party, and has been moving ever closer to the right. Him helping 'create' the disaster that is the current GOP, not likely. Now I'm exploiting the fact that they are now, as about as cohesive as soap on a band-aide. Yulp that's sounds more like it.
Mitt is just taking advantage of a GOP that is in shambles and has no real leadership. Because in all seriousness, it was the only way he would ever get the Nomination, and be able to one-up his Dad. If any real,sensible moderate Republican had a shot of winning the Nomination, they would have. But looking at the field of contenders this election. Mitt knew he was a in, because he knew he could win out by shear stance of having the most cash on hand.
Suggesting that Mitt help shape and mold the current GOP, is in itself ridiculous considering his track record. Mitt doesn't rescue troubled companies. He swoops in takes advantage and leave them in shambles to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Even if Mitt loses the election, he will still be better off than the Republican Party afterwards. Plus as a former Presidential Candidate, he also secures a place of Political Power within the party for years to come.
This is so very obvious playing politics during a totally inappropriate time. These guys are sooooooo party first country second, and apparently not too bright.
Being bullies -- i.e., men who act tough but run scared when confronted -- they view everything through the bully lens. The only possible explanation for hostility is a failure to project enough strength. Really, they're all alpha-male-wannabes and don't really get that the world works in other ways. It's behind the saber-rattling over Iran, too.
Sure, Steve, they ought to have better talking points.
But they don't. So we get Old Man Rumsfeld cackling about them 'good ol' days' when commies and mooslems quaked in fear at American Exceptionalism Abroad.
Oi. So last century. And so totally wrong.
Perhaps if the Statement Makers on the right abandoned useless talking points and begin to focus on facts and honest dialogue, they wouldn't have act like cats in the litter box, covering over and trying to bury stink after stink after stink.
Seems Rummy never found a turd he couldn't polish...
Ah, the ravings
musingsof an 80 year old man. Paging Clint, stage left!As I saw Rumsfeld 10 years ago:
The Love Song of Donald H. Rumsfeld (to himself)
Villanelle
I am the master planner and the man
Whose mighty mind has bested every foe
And all is going as I cast the plan.
Never doubt that I’m the man who can
Take what I want without a quid pro quo
I am the master planner and that man.
We took Iraq in days, next stop, Iran.
Al Qaeda will have no safe place to go
And things are going as I cast the plan.
You need not nitpick on Afghanistan
(I passed that on to flunkies long ago).
I am the master planner, master man!
Of course at times things will get out of hand;
It’s just that freedom’s messy, don’t you know?
What looting? All goes as I cast the plan.
I had it locked before the world began
And if you do not like it, you can blow!
I am the planner, I’m the alpha man
And all is going as I cast my plan.
Rummy would be more believable if he was doing a diaper commercial saying it helped keep him dry.
Sorted!
For decades now the Republicans have been known to be the party of foreign policy,in my humble opinion they don't deserve it,just look at Reagan's fiasco's and the G.W Blunders.
In a battle of arguments,when you're losing,you've got to fight with everything you have.Even if it means a rewrite of history or creating an alternate universe.
There is NO battle of arguments, the GOP have been thumping their chests for "WAR" since Reagan meddled with the Sandinista's. Yet another group of self-serving entitled sloths that should have been prosecuted for war crimes/crimes against humanity.
I'd say rather that the GOP have been the party of foreign WAR, not policy. Unless of course, by "policy" you mean "war" in which case, totally agree.
Until Ronald Dumsfeld, et.al., are prosecuted for their war crimes, I, for one, will never forget.
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
Unfortunately the audience that he is appealing to is not the same that visits this site. It is only for the ears of Fox and neocon subscribers.
In high school there was the debating society and the football team.
The former grew up, and found employment at the State Department, the latter never grew up, and went with the "Might Makes Right" folks.
Why? It's a perfectly good talking point. It plays to preconceived ideas about the limp-wristed tyrant in the White House. As for the notion of checking how that same standard would apply to W or St. Ronnie, well, who (outside of channels whose audiences are already dismissive of the Right's talking points) will ever do that?
Sec'y of Defense Rumsfeld's Quote from 2002:
Enough said.
So how does political criticism of the President's actions by Republicans, showing lack of unity in our government in response to these serious anti-american actions abroad make us look stronger?
The Right and Mitt are incredible in this nonsense, actually accusing Obama of having made us look weaker when the accusing statements by them are doing that very thing. These guys are idiots.
In April of 1983, the Palestinians bombed the US Embassy in Beirut. That was in response to Ronald Reagan's deployment of US forces as neutral peacekeepers in the civil war. Of course the US forces were cheating for Israel, and Arafat made them pay for it.
Instead of escalating the war as Israel wanted, Reagan withdrew US troops and settled for shelling Arafat's headquarters from a battleship off the coast.
Their saint showed wisdom and restraint for not involving the US in that conflict that would rage on for another 7 years. I wonder what Krauthammer and Kristol said about "American weakness" at the time.
Palestinians bombed the US Embassy in Beirut? Uh, no, Hezbollah did that.
After 241 Marines were killed in the Beirut barracks bombing, Reagan withdrew from Lebanon. Two days later, just to show how tough he was, he invaded Grenada.
When sheep were brave
The awesome might of pity less cash froze 'em in their tracks
We fought off the fierce unforgiving choirs of "Baah's"
After our various complete victories we could be found
Sippn' Victory Gin thoughtfully provided
At the Nose Bleed and Café
Those were the days .
Why are we not listening to this asswipe's advice from The Hague?
Oh I see, "perceived Amercian* weakness".. I thought I perceived American reject..
Mummy-rummy belong in Cairo, in a fashion.
How exactly would a perception of American weakness account for protests in the streets? I don't even understand this line of reasoning. Like seriously how did he get from point a to point b? If I think country X is weak that's not going to make me inclined to protests...it's going to make me inclined to ignore country X. The only reason why "perceived weakness" would make me inclined to protest, that I can think of at least, is if I'm pissed off about something that country X has been done in the past or is doing currently and now I see it as a perfect time to protest since I know the country does not have a leg to stand on. In which case isn't the problem there that the country was engaging in the behavior that pissed me off and not the weakness??? This is like that attitude of if no one says my marriage is falling apart then it must be A-OK. Or the flip side of that if I know that my marriage is falling apart but I beat my wife into submission then my marriage will somehow magically get better. Neither case is true or good. It just doesn't make any goddamn sense.
It shows that the raghead in the street isn't wetting himself for fear that speaking out against the United States will get his whole city and tribe nuked to glowing green glass.
The United States will never be truly secure until there isn't one person on Earth who doesn't go to bed afraid that the Sun will rise over his home during the night.
So you're more inclined to the if I beat my wife to shut her up then that will somehow mean my marriage is stable analogy. Touche. Make everyone fear you and then somehow that makes you better off than you were before.
I guess hitting someone is easier than trying to have a conversation,
especially for cavementoday's Republican Party ;)argh especially and for should not have been hashed out >.<
In the discussion of whether Romney's or the right's criticism of the US Egyptian Embassy's statement issued before the attack on the embassy has any merit whatsoever-and I believe it clearly does not-it is useful to recall the position of the British Government under that icon of the right, Margaret Thatcher, when faced with a similar issue/crises in 1989 after the Iranian government called for the assassination of a British citizen, Salman Rushdie, for his novel "The Satanic Verses" (a much less evident attack on Islam, if one at all):
"Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain said Saturday that her country still insists that Iran must revoke the death sentence against Rushdie before relations can be normalized.
However, she and her foreign secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, also said they believed the novel has deeply offended Moslems."
Perhaps someone in the media should ask Romney his opinion of Ms. Thatcher's 'sympathizing with murderous thugs'.
I suppose Rumsfeld* holds out a forlorn hope of going down in history as something other than an unindicted war criminal. Unfortunately for him, he keeps opening his yap.
* Substitute Dubya, Cheney, Rice, et al., as needed
The guy that couldn't figure out how to armor a few thousand vehicles in 2.5 yrs, who used a machine to sign letters of condolence http://usat.ly/MgNk1s should probably shut up
This guy - with the FULL APPROVAL of Paul Ryan - gave away our troops own body armor to connive allies into the 'coalition of the willing'. Never mind that those nations received the 50,000 sets of armor sent few, in some cases - zero troops http://fxn.ws/OMYgWj NOW you know why hundreds of families (those who could afford it) scrambled to buy armor for their loved ones in Iraq. The GOP GAVE IT AWAY.
Hundreds died as a direct result of this sleazy trick.
Just read this bit from the Army Times http://bit.ly/KZy6sC - GOP LIED when they screamed 'support the troops' and MR Foreign Policy Ryan - was there without a peep of protest.
Rumsfeld - please shut up.
Rumsfeld should be picking lint from his navel in a cell somewhere.