National Journal Tries To Play Defense Attorney For Obama, Fails Misserably

The media is trying desperately to make Libya and Egypt all about Romney and not Obama.

National Journal tries to undercut Romney's version of events but fails to take into account the deletion of tweets by the embassy in Cairo.

The protests and killings in Cairo and Benghazi have sparked a political clash between Republican nominee Mitt Romney and the Obama campaign. Romney, citing a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, has accused the Obama administration of making the equivalent of an apology to protestors after they breached the embassy grounds. A timeline of events suggests that is wrong -- that the embassy statement came hours before its grounds were breached.

Not covered in the timeline National Journal produces? This Tweet that was eventually deleted by the embassy.

This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy

Emphasis mine.

Contra National Journal, when Romney said the embassy apologized after the breach he was on solid ground because he was relying on the later tweet that reaffirmed the apology like language after the mob breached the embassy grounds, tore down our flag and flew the flag of our enemies in its place...on 9/11.

This is why the deletion of public records (which official government Twitter feeds are) is so dangerous.

Updated [ace]: The National Journal has now stealth-edited their factual error down the memory hole, without acknowledgement. He's got the screengrabs at his site (first link above).

Bonus [ace]: One thing I use twitter for is directly questioning the malefactors of the press. It's useless, because they ignore me (as they do all non-liberal speakers), but there is a carthartic function to it, I guess.

Another Bonus [ace]: The Traitor Malor (just kidding) writes of Reaping the Whirlwind at his Traitor Blog (just kidding, again).

It's a good piece:

The President's Libyan policy encouraged extremists to overthrow their government, and thereby to cast down the only security apparatus that country had known. That policy saw police forces replaced with militias. It saw militias acting like mobs.

This is the dirty secret, largely untold in American media, of the Arab Spring. Loose the extremists, arm them, invite them to fight each other, and then have no way to control them after the dust settles. President Obama embraced this policy, but he did not have the skill or experience to understand where it would lead.

President Bush was rightly criticized for inadequately planning for the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. President Obama similarly failed to plan for the aftermath of the overthrow of Khaddafy. He put the mob in charge in Libya and then hoped for the best.

That's not a coherent foreign policy. That's an abdication of duty.

I'm just about done with both the Bush Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine.

Obama said, a while ago, "sometimes I believe my own bullshit." And his bullshit in this case is that the Scorpion will, one day, if he's just passionate enough about Islam and Arab revolutionaries, act contrary to its Nature.

Bush posited that inside each Islamist was a Son of the Enlightenment just waiting for an invitation to come out.

Obama posits the same thing. If we just arm up the Islamists and set them loose to murder their oppressors (and, by the way-- second look at oppressors?), then they will unzip their Islamist skin and come out as Sons of the Enlightenment.

These are not Sons of the Enlightenment and never will be. They are Sons of the Inquisition, and, more directly, Sons of Naziism.

posted by DrewM. at 03:33 PM

| Access Comments