Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Richard Clarke: Romney’s Libya Questions Reveal Someone with No Experience in Terrorism
Richard Clarke Calls Romney Out for Asking Novice Questions about Libya
Richard Clark weighed in on Mitt Romney’s attacks on Obama over Libya. Clarke, whose resume gives him far more credence on the issue than most people’s– including by far Mitt Romney’s, wrote for the New York Daily News, “Mitt Romney seems fixated on why Washington did not know with better clarity and sooner what went on during a terrorist attack. It is the kind of question that comes from someone who has no experience dealing with terrorism crisis management or, indeed, combat.”
You might recall Richard Clarke as the guy who issued the August 6, 2001 Daily Briefing Memo, entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US” that George W Bush ignored, which warned that Al-Qaeda was going to strike the US. (The Bush administration tried to argue that the memo didn’t actually discuss being attacked in the U.S. in order to redact it, but it did.) Clarke is a national security expert who worked under Reagan and Bush – he’s no partisan hack. After Clarke objected to invading Iraq, his character was assassinated by the Bush regime, but he was proven correct with time.
Clark continued, “I dealt with scores of incidents and military operations over 30 years in the Pentagon, State Department and White House. I never saw a case where there was initial and accurate clarity about what happened.”
Boom goes Mitt Romney’s wishful talking point about Libya.
Clark indicts Romney, “If there were not a presidential campaign going on, a campaign in which the incumbent (Obama) has a stellar record of fighting terrorism, I doubt Romney would care about the details of what happened in Benghazi. In 20 years of running for office, he has never demonstrated any expertise or even real interest in the details of national security.
But it is politics to rush out with a press release critical of the President’s handling of a crisis while the crisis is still going on, while American diplomats are still under fire. The Romney campaign did just that and got many details wrong in so doing.”
Romney’s foreign policy team is made up of former Bush Cheney neocons. They are desperate to clear their names from the WMD lie and the failure to read intel.
Unlike Romney’s rush to judgment, the 9/11 Commission and subsequent investigations and outings have proven that Bush ignored the intel and that we were led into war on a false premise. It took so long for us to learn these facts that Bush won a second term before the public knew what had happened.
Yet Romney and Republicans expect that this administration would know the second something happened in Libya exactly who, what, why, and how. And not only know, or suspect, but deem it safe for all (including the CIA base the Republicans outed in their “investigation”) to disclose this information to the public.
What happened in Libya is a tragedy, but there is no evidence that the administration withheld any information. In 30 years, Clarke never saw a situation where the intital intel was correct. Maybe, just maybe, this is why there was conflicting information in the beginning and new info trickling in still.
This line of attack by Romney is clearly a Rovian political strategy by a man who couldn’t even manage to show up at the Summer Olympics without insulting our greatest ally by suggesting that their security wasn’t ready for the games, because that’s what all terrorist experts recommend — get on international TV and tell the entire world that you are not prepared and cannot defend yourselves now, at this particular time and place (not). This is also not so good for tourism (read: economy). That’s our Mitt.
It has yet to occur to Mitt Romney that perhaps caution is warranted when making public statements about acts of terror or the possibility thereof. His own behavior demonstrates that he sees no need for caution — he just rushes to the nearest microphone to blurt out whatever info he thinks he has about a situation he doesn’t understand.
Romney wasn’t done stumbling through national security and foreign policy like an eager, panting puppy. He later broke protocol and security by revealing his secret meeting with M16, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service. Romney sounded like a hyper active kid who got to sit at the grown ups’ table. Once was probably enough for M16.
Romney has no experience with terrorism or combat, whereas Obama’s record on getting the bad guys is a devastating rebuke to Republicans. This won’t stop Romney from trying to smear Obama with Bush’s failures at the next debate, which will be centered around foreign policy. Romney promised his wealthy friends that he would take advantage of any hostage-like situation, and he is doing just that.
Related Posts :
In preparation for Monday night's debate centered on foreign policy, the Obama camp is hitting Romney ha ...
The Romney camp let it fly that Mitt will ask Obama to 'man up' tonight in the debate. Yes, the man who ...
With the third and final presidential debate happening on Monday, the Obama campaign has helpfully put o ...
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) has placed several Libyans lives at risk in the c ...
The reaction is pouring in, and the consensus is that Mitt Romney lost the second presidential debate. T ...
9 Responses to Richard Clarke: Romney’s Libya Questions Reveal Someone with No Experience in Terrorism
Public Service Advertisements
RMuse
Oct. 19th, 2012 at 10:52 am
Seems odd that everyone under the Sun sees Willard as clueless except Mrs. Willard, their sons, and corporate media. Clarke’s analysis should be front page news.
Blade
Oct. 19th, 2012 at 11:23 am
It is funny that Romney says his sons are liars, and then one of his sons says he wanted to PUNCH the President of the United States.
Mitt and his clan do not have a clue, and they can win the White House.
Nefer
Oct. 19th, 2012 at 11:24 am
“Romney promised his wealthy friends that he would take advantage of any hostage-like situation, and he is doing just that.”
I would like to see this get the same coverage as the 47% part of the video, especially as the debate approaches.
It is bad enough that he said he would do so, but truly despicable that he actually did.
I would also like to see him slapped for his loathsome insult of the actual diplomatic staff who were trying to defuse a touchy situation. He twisted what they said prior to an attack, into what the President allegedly said following the attack. Talk about getting things wrong!
JT
Oct. 19th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
The real take-down of Romney incompetence will take place in the the last debate. He’s going to try to get away from his disasterous Libyan comments by going after China. He is SO in over his head! His “advisors” from the Bush era are going to push him with the sabre-rattling line on Iran and the only people who will buy this line are the pseudo hawks in his base. Independents will see the potential warmonger crap and turn away from him and his band of bushie holdovers.
Suzie
Oct. 19th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
This skirts the issue, but doesn’t address it head on. Haven’t we had enough of cowboy politicians? Any public official who would rush into a situation as volatile as this isn’t fit for public office. It’s ok for the press to speculate on matters, but we expect the people in charge, to get the facts straight before they speak. The president has to be a diplomat, not a cowboy. Romney keeps saying that he wouldn’t allow Iran to have nuclear capability, China to mess with their currency, and get rid of terrorists. We can’t go into other countries and run them. We have enough problems of our own. I certainly don’t want to have more wars.
Deanne
Oct. 19th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Too bad the media didn’t take the interest to ask questions about the WMD. The media took a vacation on the subject — for years. In fact, I’d say many ignored asking as they were too excited that they were able to ‘ride around with the men in uniform’.
The ‘boys’ were all excited they got to ride in tanks with guns. It’s like they crapped their brains out cause they were playing soldiers and forgot what their real ‘day jobs’ was supposed to be.
stenc
Oct. 19th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
It’s not the August 6th, 2013 Daily Briefing Memo that gets “ignored” I’m worried about.
It’s the Spring of 2013 warnings that get “ignored” I’m concerned with.
Romnesia is not an African nation, Mitt. It’s our foreign (and domestic) policy should your friends find a way to flip Ohio.
And it scares the sh!} out of me.
Anne
Oct. 19th, 2012 at 11:43 pm
The day that Willard Romney shot off his mouth about the Libya killings before anyone knew the facts showed his lack of diplomacy or discretion, and his readiness to politicize the killings to make cheap political points. This is what we would be stuck with for at least 4 years if this idiot got elected. A true leader shows appreciation for the gravity of such situations by quietly gathering all the facts and then acting on them. The fact that he’s willing to exploit such tragedies for political gain does even more to show what an unappealing human being he is.
Deanne
Oct. 20th, 2012 at 12:48 am
Romney also shot off his mouth without facts in April 2012 — not that long ago — when Hillary had just begun tense negotiations with China with regard to the blind dissident. Romney stepped in it there too.
It’s unfortunate that when media speaks of Romney’s knee jerk reactions, this is one that has fallen off the radar.