In the days following last month's deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, Republicans slowly coalesced around a specific talking point: it's President Obama's fault because he didn't project enough "strength" in the Middle East and North Africa. There would be no similar violence under a President Romney, a spokesperson said, because Muslim protestors would "respect American resolve."
It's always been a deeply silly argument, but it's also an oddly self-defeating criticism from the right given the number if attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad during the Bush/Cheney era. Adam Serwer took this further, documenting the number of attacks per president over the last 40 years.
via Mother Jones
From Adam's analysis:
Having Ronald Reagan in office didn't mean an end to attacks on US diplomatic targets. Despite Reagan's refrain of "peace through strength," several high-profile attacks on US diplomatic facilities occurred on his watch, including the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, by Islamic militants. Twice. According to the Global Terrorism Database compiled by the University of Maryland National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), attacks on American diplomatic targets actually rose during Reagan's term -- before beginning to subside in the mid-1990s.
"That follows the trend of terrorism generally," says Erin Miller, a research assistant at START who manages the Global Terrorism Database. "In the early 1990s there's a drop-off worldwide in terrorism against pretty much all target types." Miller cites the collapse of the Soviet Union, and a subsequent wane in leftist terrorism as one possible explanation for the downturn beginning in the mid-1990s.
The decline is probably not because terrorists were intimidated by Bill Clinton more than they were by George H.W. Bush.
I don't imagine facts like these will persuade conservatives to revisit their talking points, but they should.
Leave a Comment:
I'm not sure why anyone should have to look any further than the 9/11 attacks that took place under Bush/Cheney to see that the idea that presidential "resolve" alone will keep American safe is a bunch of crap. If the terrorists weren't afraid of an adminstration with Dick "Darth Vadar" Cheney at the helm, they sure as hell ain't going to be afraid of Thurston Howell III and Eddie Munster.
Unfortunately, there is no requirement for Mitt to have a factual basis for his assertions. He just needs any excuse to make a statement and claim he would be better than Obama on XYZ. And the right eats it up.
I feel safer with Obama in the White House than I would with Romney, or ever did with Bushes, Reagan or even Clinton. I think Obama is less likely to do something international or military for political gain than any president in living memory.
There is a large part of the Republican base who are still stuck in the Cold War and they see terrorism through that lens. They have trouble with the ideas of a decentralized enemy and unconventional warfare, preferring a world of black and white. They still see the Republican party as "Strong on Defence", and the rhetoric of "evil'dooers" resonates with them. It's a matter of "Truthiness".
Yeah, you hear them complaining about the "ChiCOMS" every time they talk about some Chinese-based company doing something an American company used to do.
Excuse me, this is the first ambassador killed since Jimmy Carter. I think it's certainly true that Romney would have protected his representative, unlike Obama who left Stevens vulnerable, then lied about who did what to save his own political skin.
Whatever you think of Romney, Obama has been seen for inept management, a warped worldview, and a disdain for the consequences of his policies. But I'm sure he had a good time in Las Vegas.
shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am
I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.
For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.
Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
I wouldn't bank on anything being certainly true about Romney. Especially since just about everything of importance he has said is true about himself, he has later (often immediately) denied being true.
"...and a disdain for the consequences of his policies."
How about disdain for the Law and the constitution...
Lets see...Marines in Lebanon, Iran Contra, don't even get me started on the whole Valerie Plame thing...
Ah, the artificial distinction that it is the death of the Ambassador that is the key, because that is the way to make Benghazi stand out as worse than, say, the bombing of the Beirut Embassy in 1983 under Reagan, killing scores of embassy workers, or the all the attacks on the "green zone" in Iraq, or even dropping the ball on the intelligence on Al Qaida pre 9/11.
Ambassador Stevens was not in his embassy when he was killed, he was at a much less-guarded consulate. Was it a mistake to be so exposed on the anniversary of 9/11? Maybe, but he was doing his duty as he saw fit.
I also find it ironic that Romney can criticize Obama for not arming the Syrian rebels, and also criticize him for not disarming the Libyan rebels (after criticizing him for not arming them.)
The Republicans have never meet a war they did not like....
Big problems if Romney is elected with Shrubs last foreign policy advisers
If you remember these four little words, the world is easier to understand:
The Right Is Wrong.
(about everything)
Hey Pooper: watch out for the dog catcher - he's looking for little fellas who urinate on fire hydrants.
No wonder FOX hates this show! You want to research things and provide facts. You have to appeal to the emotions of the crazed public and whip them into a frothy "mad dog" lather and facts can only hinder this.
Because of all this president has accomplished so successfully with foreign-policy, if he were a Republican he would be a God. This is proven by the fact that the closer we get to the election the only difference between Mitt Romney's positions and president Obama's actions is tougher talk and president Obama has proven smart actions with less tough talk actually gets the job done. By the way, what is Mitt Romney's and Paul Ryan's foreign-policy experience? Although as a Senator, President Obama had minimal foreign-policy experience, even then he had more experience than both of these guys combined and his experience was relentlessly questioned during the 2008 election. Where are the Democrats challenging this lack of experience?