Skip to content

Questions Now Turn To WHY Obama White House LIED About Muslim Embassy Attacks

September 22, 2012

While the level of questioning has not reached outrage quite yet (though it certainly should) more in the media are now asking why the Obama administration – including the president himself,  repeatedly told a tale so easily proven false regarding the fatal attacks against Americans in the Middle East.


Permanent Spin

For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.
…White House press secretary Jay Carney not only denied that the attacks had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11 but scolded reporters who, citing the administration’s own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection. “I think that you’re conveniently conflating two things,” Carney snapped, “which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, “many other colleagues” working security with them.

So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.

“This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal”.




Paulson: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism?

by Scott Paulson

After the deadly attack on the United States Embassy in Libya, it was apparent to many that the attack was premeditated and designed to kill Americans – not to protest an amateur-made movie that mocked Islam and disrespected Mohammad. The militant 9-11 attackers totally achieved their goal by leaving the United States Embassy in shambles with charred and blood-stained walls as well as a trail of death.

Yet the current administration in the United States government insisted otherwise. President Barack Obama, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney led the way by denouncing those who dared state the obvious version of what had happened in Benghazi, Libya – that it was about terrorism and not about the anti-Mohammad film.

Finally, a week later, the obvious has been addressed by Jay Carney at the White House and Mathew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-terrorism Center, who both now admit that the deadly acts against United States Ambassador to Libya Christopher Steven and three other Americans were indeed an act of terrorism, obviously committed on 9-11.

With Americans watching the nearing of the date September 11, 2012 on the calendar for weeks – if not months – and dreading the stark reality that something disastrous may happen to innocent Americans again, the president and his political cronies refused to believe what happened.

Yet Americans are supposed to have faith in them, their judgment, trust their words and actions – and sit idly by as they denounce anyone who dares to try to challenge their words. Additionally, with extreme words, they denounce anyone who tries to challenge them for their power and positions. Unfortunately, in the past week, we have seen far too many Americans bow down to the blatant misspeaks or, perhaps, lies spoken by those in positions we have been able to dutifully trust in the past.

With this administration, we have seen far too many people trust in everything the political leaders say and do in Washington – without logical and discerned question. This is just plain foolish on the part of the blind followers.

More than what these national leaders and politicians are doing to Americans, consider what they are they telling the rest of the world – the rest of the world who figured out the nation was 9/11-attacked again as soon as it happened. Our leaders told the world that we are a nation led by either ignorance via doubt or by liars. Neither, of course, is an admirable trait to display when one claims to be “the” world leader. Beyond causing America to be embarrassed throughout the world, last week’s denial of what happened on 9/11/2012 makes us look incredibly weak.

Even the thought of blaming the anti-Islamic, Mohammad-disgracing movie for the most recent 9/11 attack on innocent Americans was ignorant – and carrying the thought out through words from the nation’s capital via our top leaders was incredibly inappropriate, totally embarrassing, extremely America-weakening, and – most of all – an ignorant stunt to try to pass on to America and the world.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally telling reporters a week after the incident, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” is too little – far too late.

The goal now is for the United States and Libya to join political forces to bring the attackers to justice. This, of course, needs to be done swiftly and honorably in the name of the four fallen Americans.

Then, there needs to be a full investigation as to why those present in the attacked-United States Embassies weren’t forewarned of the attacks as evidence that there was prior knowledge of the attacks grows. LINK

  1. September 24, 2012 3:58 pm

    Oh-No.. Obama cancelled a meeting with the Libyan president when he might have had a Freedom of Speech Summit over a WH brewski?

    September 24, 2012

    Obama cancels election-season meeting with Egyptian Islamist Morsi

    President Barack Obama has quietly cancelled a politically risky plan to meet this week with Egypt’s new Islamist president.

    The plan was cancelled amid a wave of riots and attacks in Arab countries that have damaged Obama’s campaign-trail claim to foreign policy competence.

    In 2011, Obama had “bilateral” meetings with 13 Arab and world leaders during the annual U.S. summit. This year, amid the foreign policy meltdown, his schedule shows no so-called “bilats” with any foreign leaders.

    The cancelled visit with Morsi was mentioned in a Sept. 23 New York Times article about Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, an Islamist who now governs the Arab region’s most important country.

    Despite critical 2011 support from Obama for the revolt that removed Hosni Mubarak, Morsi is now demanding restrictions on U.S. free speech that is critical of Islam, demanding more U.S. support for the anti-Israeli Islamist governments in Gaza and the West Bank, and more financial aid to help the cash-strapped Egyptian government buy food and fuel for its population of 82 million people.

    The president is in ‘present’ mode. Not taking any questions out of fear he is forced to answer them. Four more years of a ‘Twilight Zone’ presidency? Not gonna happen in my lifetime!

  2. September 24, 2012 4:15 pm

    See! It NOT Just US that DO NOT LIKE Michelle Obama! OUT of the mouths of Babes!

    September 24, 2012

    Nation’s children push back against Michelle Obama-backed school lunch regs

    Children and parents across the country are fed up with the restrictive new school meal regulations implemented by the Department of Agriculture under the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” which has long been touted by first lady Michelle Obama.

    read more:

  3. September 24, 2012 4:32 pm

    WOW- Ulsterman is pumping out news tracking Obama by the truck load today… Big HUGS to Ulsterman…whoever you are! 🙂

    Even NBC Calls Barack Obama’s Schedule “Odd”

    by Ulsterman on September 24, 2012

    Odd is hardly the word for it. Perhaps… Ridiculous? Arrogant? Revolting? Pathetic? Yet more proof that he truly is the EMPTY CHAIR PRESIDENT of the United States?

    Watch as a furrowed brow Chuck Todd gives a media shrug of the shoulders in declaring the odd state of the Obama presidential schedule that has him ignoring world leaders during a Middle East crisis to instead, make yet another talk show appearance – this time on The View:

  4. September 24, 2012 4:35 pm

    This is very very interesting and why Obama campaign is nervous.

    Democrats’ Advantage in Voter Registration Slipping in Key States

    This news release – announcing that there are now roughly 20,000 more registered Republicans in Iowa than registered Democrats – suggests that Hawkeye state Republicans can crow about a dramatic turnaround, pointing out that back in January 2009, Iowa Democrats enjoyed a 110,000 voter registration advantage.

    In terms of how many voters are registered with each major party, Democrats continue to hold advantages in several key swing states, but in all of those states, their advantage is considerably smaller than it was in 2008.

    In Florida, as of last month there are 4,627,929 registered Democrats and 4,173,177 registered Republicans, which amounts to a a 454,752-voter advantage for Democrats. (Keep in mind, Florida has 11.5 million registered voters, so there are a lot of unaffiliated and third-party voters.)

    In 2008, there were 4,800,890 registered Democrats in Florida and only 4,106,743 registered Republicans, a 694,147-voter advantage. So while the number of voters who registered with the GOP is up from four years ago, Democrats are down roughly 170,000.

    In Nevada, there are 447,881 registered Democrats to 400,310 registered Republicans, a split of roughly 47,000. (Keep in mind, the state has 1.4 million registered voters right now.) In 2008, the state split 531,317 registered Democrats to 430,594 registered Republicans, a split of roughly 100,000.

    In New Mexico, as of July 31, there are 582,656 registered Democrats to 385,898 registered Republicans, a Democrat advantage of 196,758 voters. In 2008, there were 594,229 registered Democrats and 375,619 registered Republicans, an advantage of 218,610 voters.

    In North Carolina, as of Friday, there are 2,778,535 registered Democrats and 2,008,609 registered Republicans, a 769,926-voter advantage. But on Election Day 2008, there were 2,866,669 registered Democrats and 2,002,416 registered Republicans, an 864,253-voter advantage. This is another state where Republicans have already gotten more voters registered with their party than the preceding cycle.

    In many states, residents who wish to cast ballots must register to vote within 25 to 28 days before an election.

    In Pennsylvania, as of today, there are 4,185,377 registered Democrats to 3,099,371 registered Republicans, a 1,086,006-vote advantage for Obama’s party. But as daunting as that sounds, it’s smaller than in 2008, when there were 4,479,513 registered Democrats to 3,242,046 registered Republicans, a 1,237,467-vote advantage.

    Virginia does not register voters by party.

    One state where the GOP had and continues to have a small advantage is in Colorado. In that state, as of September 1, there are 837,732 active registered Republicans and 739,778 active registered Democrats, about a 98,000-voter advantage. On Election Day 2008, the GOP had 1,065,150 registered Republicans and 1,056,077 registered Democrats, about a 9,000-voter advantage.


    Which makes a lot of the dem bias polls worthless without acknowledging these changes.

    Since 2008

    Iowa Dems down 130,000
    Florida Dems down 170,000
    Nevada Dems down 53,000
    New Mexico Dems down 24,000
    NC Dems down 95000
    Pennsylvania Dems down 151,000
    Colorado GOP up on dems by 98,000 from their 9,000 advantage in 2008

  5. September 24, 2012 5:00 pm

    Thanks for posting the updated information, moon…

  6. September 24, 2012 5:38 pm

    ooohhhhhhhhhhh changing his tune.

    In intv w/ ABC’s “The View,” #Obama says “there’s no doubt” attack on LIbyan consulate “wasn’t just a mob action.”


    You lied to the american people. Will they pull him on it….doubt it.

  7. September 24, 2012 5:46 pm


    I support Mitt Romney for President and Paul Ryan for Vice President. For most of my life, I have been a Democrat, and I very publicly voted (C-Span, live radio, The New York Times) for Obama-Biden in 2008.
    As I studied Obama’s performance as President, I could no longer support him.
    That was not ideal for the longevity of our eight year old, award-winning drive time radio show “Caplis and Silverman” which ended in June. Our show was somewhat premised as a left vs. right dialogue. So be it. I have another career.
    I am a small business owner (Silverman and Olivas, P.C.), and a Denver trial lawyer who is a proud member of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association. My social policies are libertarian. I am a fourth generation Denver Jew who graduated from Denver George Washington H.S., Colorado College and then CU Law School.
    Some of my fellow members of the above groups may be displeased with my endorsement, but so be that, too. This is not a close choice if you are actually paying attention. An objective person should be enormously disappointed in President Obama and his administration. The economy remains bad. The debt bomb keeps growing. Iran is on the verge of having nukes. The power of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism is expanding rapidly. Our Justice Department is full of politics and political correctness. Fast and Furious is a disgrace. Attorney General Eric Holder needs to go.
    I want leadership in the White House. I want a government with a budget that makes sense. I do not want problems perpetually kicked down the road. I want major legislation to be debated in the public, and not rammed down our throats without even being read by anyone other than the special interests who wrote it.
    I want a leader to stand up against sharia law and jihad – and to articulate to the world how antithetical these concepts are to the American way. I thought Obama was ideally situated to speak some necessary truths to the Islamic world. But this President has not, and he will not in a second term.
    The world is teetering on the brink as a result. We need some Reagan-like truth telling about repressive systems of government and ideologies that are evil. I liked the way Romney spoke up strong for free speech, and was disgusted when Team Obama conspired to shut him up and tear him down.
    How sad and revealing is President Obama’s crazy claim that some obscure, buffoonish anti-Islam video was the spontaneous source of Muslim mayhem and murder. It is part of his world view – these protesters are victims and have legitimate grievances against the USA – and against Israel too.
    Where is the outrage when an Ambassador is slaughtered in Libya, and an Al Queda flag is raised over our Embassy in Cairo? Where the hell are the Dems, Hollywood and the media in this fight for free speech?Islamic blasphemy laws are antithetical to America. Please Mr. President and Mrs. Hillary Clinton, no more apologies for free speech. No more lies about Libya. Or Egypt.
    The Muslim Brotherhood is biding its time, cashing our checks, and hoping for Obama’s re-election. What is next with this Obama administration? Reparations, retributions, extortions, special laws or taxes so religious feelings don’t get hurt?
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I feel deceived and let down by Obama. His autobiography turns out to contain a lot of fiction. What does it tell you about a man and his campaign when truth is repeatedly distorted around an issue as solemn as cancer?
    Obama ran as a positive, bipartisan person. Now, when he is not on “Entertainment Tonight” or “The Late Show with David Letterman,” he is so negative and partisan. Obama claimed he could work with the other side, but he is way too far over to the left.
    This President is a super big spender and we cannot afford that. If we re-elect Obama, we get the same big spending, dysfunctional government. This is no time for that.
    Romney worked well with Democrats in Massachusetts. Some people put down Romney as a Massachusetts moderate, but that works for me. I expect it will work better for America.
    I disagree with Romney and Ryan on many social issues, but there are other, more pressing problems and priorities for America and the free world right now. If Romney wins, abortion rights are not going away. Neither are gay rights. But Israel might go away if certain events unfold.
    I urge other people who voted for Obama in 2008 to make a change in 2012.
    * * * *
    Craig Silverman is a partner in the downtown Denver law firm of Silverman & Olivas, P.C. The firm specializes in personal injury law, criminal matters and problem solving. Craig served for 16 years at the Denver District Attorney’s Office where he was a Chief Deputy District Attorney. Craig has appeared hundreds of times on local and national media. Subjects have included the death penalty, serial rapists, the JonBenet Ramsey case, Columbine, the Oklahoma City Bombing trials, the Kobe Bryant case and the Aurora movie theater massacre. Craig was co-host of the award winning “Caplis and Silverman” afternoon drive time radio show on 630 KHOW (2004-2012).

  8. September 24, 2012 11:08 pm

    Ryan attacks Obama with a blistering speech: yes, Yes, YES! HI-10’s

    Ryan says under Obama, Middle East looks like ‘1979 Tehran’

    By Daniel Strauss – 09/24/12

    Paul Ryan delivered a blistering speech against President Obama on foreign policy Monday, saying because of the president’s policies, the Middle East looks like Tehran during the mob protests on the U.S. embassy in 1979.

    Ryan, speaking in Lima, Ohio, was referencing Nov. 4, 1979, when Islamic revolutionaries in Iran attacked the U.S. embassy and took more than 50 Americans hostage. Ryan said that Obama has failed to fulfill promises to bring peace to the Middle East.

    “I mean, turn on the TV and it reminds you of 1979 Tehran but they’re burning our flags in capitals all around the world. They’re storming our embassies,” Ryan said.

    Romney and Ryan have both strongly criticized Obama over foreign policy in the aftermath of attacks at U.S. diplomatic sites in Egypt and Libya that resulted in four U.S. officials dead in Benghazi, Libya. Ryan continued to criticize Obama in comparing the 2012 embassy attacks to the 1979 attack during his speech.

    “We’ve lost four of our diplomats. And what is the signal that our government is sending the rest of the world? We’re being equivocal on our values, we’re being slow to speak up for individual rights, for human rights, for democracy. We’re seeing countries stifle freedom in Iran, in Russia, and all these other areas. And we’re saying we’re going to gut our military — that projects weakness.”

    In the same speech Ryan also attacked the president for recently saying in an interview with Univision that reform in Washington is difficult. Specifically he said that “the most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside.”

    “Here’s the killer, President Obama just the other day said on TV that ‘I can’t change Washington from the inside,'” Ryan said to boos from the crowd. “Why do we sent presidents to the White House in the first place? Isn’t that why we send presidents to Washington? To change Washington?”

  9. September 24, 2012 11:16 pm

    Funny, Axelrod never answers the Question… because why? Obama has no plan..


    Obviously Axelrod think the questions are too tough and out of line.. Basically saying, do you expect president Obama to walk up a flight of stairs and chew bubble gum at the same time? C’mon!

  10. September 25, 2012 8:18 am

    As my wise old grandmother would say when hearing arrogance spouted with impunity: “Who Died and Made YOU Boss?”

    Of course at the time she said it, she was carrying a Big Stick!

    UPDATE 6-In New York, defiant Ahmadinejad says Israel will be ‘eliminated’

    *” White House calls his comments “disgusting, offensive”

    * Ahmadinejad: Iran “ready to defend” against Israeli attack

    By Louis Charbonneau

    NEW YORK, Sept 24 (Reuters) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be “eliminated,” ignoring a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.

    Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran’s threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie.

    The United States quickly dismissed the Iranian president’s comments as “disgusting, offensive and outrageous.”

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted Israel could strike Iran’s nuclear sites and criticized U.S. President Barack Obama’s position that sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Iran denies it is seeking nuclear arms and says its atomic work is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.

    “Fundamentally we do not take seriously the threats of the Zionists,” Ahmadinejad, in New York for this week’s U.N. General Assembly, told reporters. “We have all the defensive means at our disposal and we are ready to defend ourselves.”

    Ahmadinejad is due to speak at the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met Ahmadinejad on Sunday and warned him of the dangers of incendiary rhetoric in the Middle East.

    Ahmadinejad, who has used previous U.N. sessions to question the Holocaust and the U.S. account of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, did not heed the warning and instead expanded on his previous rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Western envoys typically walk out of Ahmadinejad’s U.N. speeches in protest at his remarks.

    “Iran has been around for the last seven, 10 thousand years. They (the Israelis) have been occupying those territories for the last 60 to 70 years, with the support and force of the Westerners. They have no roots there in history,” he said, referring to the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948.

    “We do believe that they have found themselves at a dead end and they are seeking new adventures in order to escape this dead end. Iran will not be damaged with foreign bombs,” Ahmadinejad said, speaking though an interpreter at his Manhattan hotel.

    “We don’t even count them as any part of any equation for Iran. During a historical phase, they (the Israelis) represent minimal disturbances that come into the picture and are then eliminated.”

    In 2005, Ahmadinejad called Israel a “tumor” and echoed the words of the former Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, by saying that Israel should be wiped off the map.

    In Washington, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security.

    “President Ahmadinejad’s comments are characteristically disgusting, offensive and outrageous,” he said. “They underscore again why America’s commitment to the security of Israel must be unshakeable, and why the world must hold Iran accountable for its utter failure to meet its obligations.”

    The United States also officially linked Iran’s state oil company to the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a move that enables Washington to apply new sanctions on foreign banks dealing with the company.

    Attending what will likely be his last U.N. General Assembly as he nears the end of his second term next year, Ahmadinejad also spoke at a high-level U.N. session on the rule of law, prompting a walkout by Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor.

    “Ahmadinejad showed again that he not only threatens the future of the Jewish people, he seeks to erase our past,” Prosor said in a statement. “Three thousand years of Jewish history illustrate the clear danger of ignoring fanatics like Iran’s president, especially as he inches closer to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

    Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a brigadier general in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was quoted on Sunday as saying that Iran could launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel if it was sure the Jewish state was preparing to attack it.

    Ahmadinejad said the nuclear issue was ultimately between the United States and Iran and must be resolved in talks.

    “The nuclear issue is not a problem,” he said. “But the approach of the United States on Iran is important. We are ready for dialogue, for a fundamental resolution of the problems, but under conditions that are based on fairness and mutual respect.

    “We are not expecting a 33-year-old problem between the United States and Iran to be resolved in a speedy fashion,” Ahmadinejad said. “But there is no other way besides dialogue.”

    Obama will underscore his commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and address Muslim unrest related to an anti-Islamic video in his speech to the General Assembly on Tuesday, the White House said.


    At the meeting on the rule of law, Ahmadinejad said states should not yield to rules imposed “by bullying countries.”

    Ahmadinejad said on Monday that conditions in Iran, which is under U.N., U.S. and European Union sanctions over its nuclear program, were not as bad as portrayed by some and the country could survive without oil revenues.

    Britain, France and Germany called for fresh economic sanctions on Iran in a letter to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, a top French official told reporters.

    “If we want to reach a diplomatic and peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear program, then we must increase the pressure,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said.

    Western sanctions on Iran tightened markedly this year with an EU ban on crude oil purchases from Iran and U.S. sanctions targeting banks that deal with Iran’s central bank. Those sanctions have not yielded tangible progress toward a diplomatic solution.

    There will be high-level side meetings on Iran’s nuclear program and the Syrian conflict during the General Assembly but U.N. diplomats do not expect either issue to be resolved soon.

    Ahmadinejad’s annual visits to New York, a city with a sizable Jewish population, are routinely met with protests against his anti-Israel rhetoric. United Against Nuclear Iran, a U.S. group that opposes Iran acquiring an atomic bomb, protested at the Iranian official’s hotel with a banner reading “Out of the Warwick, out of New York, out of the U.N.!”


    Ahmadinejad rejected charges by the United Nations and Western officials that Iran is sending arms to pro-government forces in Syria fighting rebels trying to topple President Bashar al-Assad. “The so-called news that you alluded to has been denied vehemently, officially,” he said to a question.

    “We see both sides as equally our brothers,” he said. “The intervention and meddling from outside have made conditions that much tougher. We must help to quell the violence and help … (facilitate) a national dialogue.”

    Ahmadinejad also was asked about a move by an Iranian religious foundation to increase its reward for the killing of Rushdie in response to a California-made anti-Islam video called “The Innocence of Muslims” that has sparked anti-American protests around the Muslim world.

    “Where is he now?” Ahmadinejad asked of Rushdie. “Is he in the United States? If he is, you shouldn’t broadcast that for his own safety.”

    Rushdie, an Indian-born British novelist who has nothing to do with the video, was condemned to death in 1989 by Khomeini, Iran’s late leader, because of his novel “The Satanic Verses,” saying its depiction of the Prophet Mohammad was blasphemous.

    Ahmadinejad appeared to reject Washington’s position that while it condemns the video’s content, freedom of expression must be upheld. “Freedoms must not interfere with the freedoms of others,” Ahmadinejad said. “If someone insults, what would you do? … Is insulting other people not a form of crime?”

  11. September 25, 2012 8:39 am

    It appears Obama isn’t looking out for America’s best interests when he disrespects one of his own employees set in a hostile country advancing his agenda for him!

    Romney, Obama focus on US posture abroad

    NEW YORK (AP) — President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are sparring over how best to address U.S. challenges abroad in nearly back-to-back addresses at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting.

    Following deadly anti-American protests in Muslim countries over the past two weeks, Romney was to outline plans Tuesday to rework the U.S. foreign aid system, tying development money to requirements that countries allow U.S. investment and remove trade barriers. Obama also was to address top foreign leaders, CEOs and nongovernmental organizations at the gathering spearheaded by former President Bill Clinton.

    The event puts the two presidential contenders in front of the same audience on the day Obama also was delivering a major address to the United Nations General Assembly. Both men were drawing contrasts in a presidential contest in which the state of the U.S. economy has been paramount, but which shifted focus this month to foreign policy after attacks in Libya killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador there.

    In interviews and at campaign events Monday, Romney assailed Obama’s leadership abroad, leading a chorus of Republicans in criticizing the president for what they said was minimizing the death of the Ambassador Chris Stevens. Obama, in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” said recent violence in the Mideast was due to “bumps in the road” on the way to democracy. Romney on Monday also suggested Obama was leaving American foreign policy at the mercy of events instead of working to shape global politics in America’s interest.

    At the United Nations, Obama planned a sweeping defense of his policy of engagement overseas. The president planned to “send a clear message that the United States will never retreat from the world, will bring justice to those who harm Americans and will stand strongly for our democratic values abroad,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in an email.

    Romney’s focus on foreign aid was likely to draw attention to the situation in Egypt, a U.S. ally and the recipient of billions of dollars in American assistance each year. That aid has come under new scrutiny in the wake of protests that saw Egyptians scaling the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Romney has said he would put stricter conditions on U.S. aid to Egypt’s newly installed government, now headed by an Islamist president. The Obama administration reinstated military aid to Egypt earlier this year despite concerns about abuse as the country transitions to democratic rule.

    Romney’s campaign said Monday that the current system of foreign aid “reflects an outdated way of thinking about the world.”

    Both Romney and Obama will appear on a stage at the gathering led by Clinton, who just a few weeks earlier was offering a forceful defense of Obama’s economic record and plans for the future at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

    “I think the president’s plan is better than the Romney plan, because the Romney plan fails the first test of fiscal responsibility: The numbers don’t add up,” Clinton said in that speech, one of several jabs at the Republican nominee.

    During the last presidential election, both Obama and 2008 Republican nominee John McCain spoke at Clinton’s annual meeting. That year, the former president had warm words for both men. He praised McCain’s stance on global warming and complimented Obama’s approach to a meeting the two had held earlier in the month at Clinton’s Harlem office.

    After his speech to the Clinton meeting, Romney planned to discuss education policy at a forum sponsored by NBC News. He also planned to join running mate Paul Ryan at a campaign rally in Ohio.

    AP Link

  12. October 2, 2012 2:05 pm

    Reblogged this on theconservativehillbilly.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: