Benghazi, a Heaven-Sent Gift for Romney?
Published in Rue 89
(France) on 12 September 2012
by Thomas Snegaroff (link to original)
(France) on 12 September 2012
by Thomas Snegaroff (link to original)
Translated from
by Louis Standish.
Edited by Rica Asuncion-Reed.
The Republicans could not have dreamed up anything better. Imagine. The ones who for some time have tried to make Obama out to be weak and incapable of leading the world’s premier military power, who see in him (Oh, supreme insult!) a Jimmy Carter in power — [their purposes] have been served.
It’s Christmas Time for Romney
In September 1980, the President led Ronald Reagan by four points in spite of a very difficult economy. And then the Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran, taking 52 hostages. Foolishly, Carter decided to suspend his campaign to concentrate fully on liberating the hostages — a liberation that occurred, but on the very day that President Ronald Reagan took office. Thus, it was too late. In the meantime, Carter was caught up in foreign policy and his lack of “leadership”: this dose of virility that Reagan made his stock in trade in Hollywood as well as while he was governor of California at the end of the 1960s.
With details of the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi still unknown, Mitt Romney released a statement. Red with excitement, he looked like a little boy entering a toy store on Christmas eve. “My God, my dreams are coming true!” he must have thought when he spoke. “America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. … I think it’s a … a terrible course … for America … to stand in apology for our values. … An apology for America’s values is never the right course.”
The “shameful statement” the Republican candidate referred to is a message from the American embassy in Cairo denouncing the dissemination of anInternet video, which presents a portrait that, to say the least, insults Muhammad in a film of abysmal ignorance. Well, since then, we have learned that, on the one hand, the embassy’s condemnation of this video had been made BEFORE the attacks. And on the other hand, according to the site Politico, it did so without consulting with Washington. The next day, Romney got somewhat tangled up in holding on to his position. … (Watch out especially at 5:45.)
Obama’s America, an “Emasculated America”
It’s little matter to Romney. What matters is hitting Obama where it hurts: his difficulty with embodying American power. And it has been some years since Americans have heard this speech.
The just barely elected Obama was the target of conservative commentators who, one after another on Fox News, were sickened to see the American president criticize the past attitude of their country and ask for forgiveness when traveling abroad. For them, Obama’s America apologizes too much: to have been “arrogant” with the Europeans, to have used nuclear weapons on Asians, to have toppled democratic governments with Latin Americans and to have been humiliating with the Muslims. …
Here they denounce a “confession tour” (Karl Rove), there an “apology tour” (Mitt Romney) that, according to them, can only crumble America’s leadership in the world a little bit more.
And when Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, they went nuts. For polemicist Rush Limbaugh, having this award constituted a certificate of weakness. "And with this “award” the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States. ... They love a weakened, neutered U.S. and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too."
For a large part of the American right, dialogue is a sign of weakness and femininity. Their two idols have perfectly formulated this rejection.
• Theodore Roosevelt defined his foreign policy like this: “Speak softly … and carry a big stick.”
In one of her sallies to show that she has the secret, Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page: "We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one."
The phallic allusion surely did not escape you. …
• Some years later, regarding the USSR, Ronald Reagan said, "We only speak with the devil from a position of strength."*
That is far from Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, in which he proposed a constructive dialogue with Islam, guided by a good dose of reciprocal empathy. … No, for neoconservatives like Robert Kagan, Americans must be strong: so strong that no one will be able to attack it. That said, one can better understand why and how the attack on a consulate and an American embassy clearly speaks volumes to them of the weakness of Obama.
This Anti-American Obama
But there is more. In talking about Obama’s “sympathy” regarding the Libyans who attacked the consulate, Romney is suggesting something else. Though he isn’t a Muslim himself, Obama remains one of their principal supporters. The idea finds its theoretical origins in a book, recently adapted into a film, which has had mind-blowing success.
In "2016: Obama’s America," Dinesh D’Souza explains that we can’t understand the political, and especially diplomatic, views of Obama without digging into his personal history — in particular his father’s story, the struggle against British colonial oppression in Kenya. That is necessary to understand “the roots of his rage” against the West. For D’Souza, Obama is neither more nor less anti-American.
That is how, in a muddled and ill-planned manner (John McCain came to defend the Obama administration’s position, and Paul Ryan came to calm things down), he looked to politically exploit the events in Libya and Cairo. Has Romney, whom many present as weak and without charisma or force, found a way to take the virility of his adversary? It’s doubtful. …
For certain commentators, Romney’s outburst is embarrassing and even dramatic for the rest of his campaign! And Obama didn’t delay in responding, accusing Romney of a “shoot first, ask questions later” [mentality.] Not super for a cowboy apprentice. …
*Editor’s note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified in English.
It’s Christmas Time for Romney
In September 1980, the President led Ronald Reagan by four points in spite of a very difficult economy. And then the Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran, taking 52 hostages. Foolishly, Carter decided to suspend his campaign to concentrate fully on liberating the hostages — a liberation that occurred, but on the very day that President Ronald Reagan took office. Thus, it was too late. In the meantime, Carter was caught up in foreign policy and his lack of “leadership”: this dose of virility that Reagan made his stock in trade in Hollywood as well as while he was governor of California at the end of the 1960s.
With details of the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi still unknown, Mitt Romney released a statement. Red with excitement, he looked like a little boy entering a toy store on Christmas eve. “My God, my dreams are coming true!” he must have thought when he spoke. “America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. … I think it’s a … a terrible course … for America … to stand in apology for our values. … An apology for America’s values is never the right course.”
The “shameful statement” the Republican candidate referred to is a message from the American embassy in Cairo denouncing the dissemination of anInternet video, which presents a portrait that, to say the least, insults Muhammad in a film of abysmal ignorance. Well, since then, we have learned that, on the one hand, the embassy’s condemnation of this video had been made BEFORE the attacks. And on the other hand, according to the site Politico, it did so without consulting with Washington. The next day, Romney got somewhat tangled up in holding on to his position. … (Watch out especially at 5:45.)
Obama’s America, an “Emasculated America”
It’s little matter to Romney. What matters is hitting Obama where it hurts: his difficulty with embodying American power. And it has been some years since Americans have heard this speech.
The just barely elected Obama was the target of conservative commentators who, one after another on Fox News, were sickened to see the American president criticize the past attitude of their country and ask for forgiveness when traveling abroad. For them, Obama’s America apologizes too much: to have been “arrogant” with the Europeans, to have used nuclear weapons on Asians, to have toppled democratic governments with Latin Americans and to have been humiliating with the Muslims. …
Here they denounce a “confession tour” (Karl Rove), there an “apology tour” (Mitt Romney) that, according to them, can only crumble America’s leadership in the world a little bit more.
And when Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, they went nuts. For polemicist Rush Limbaugh, having this award constituted a certificate of weakness. "And with this “award” the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States. ... They love a weakened, neutered U.S. and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too."
For a large part of the American right, dialogue is a sign of weakness and femininity. Their two idols have perfectly formulated this rejection.
• Theodore Roosevelt defined his foreign policy like this: “Speak softly … and carry a big stick.”
In one of her sallies to show that she has the secret, Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page: "We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one."
The phallic allusion surely did not escape you. …
• Some years later, regarding the USSR, Ronald Reagan said, "We only speak with the devil from a position of strength."*
That is far from Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, in which he proposed a constructive dialogue with Islam, guided by a good dose of reciprocal empathy. … No, for neoconservatives like Robert Kagan, Americans must be strong: so strong that no one will be able to attack it. That said, one can better understand why and how the attack on a consulate and an American embassy clearly speaks volumes to them of the weakness of Obama.
This Anti-American Obama
But there is more. In talking about Obama’s “sympathy” regarding the Libyans who attacked the consulate, Romney is suggesting something else. Though he isn’t a Muslim himself, Obama remains one of their principal supporters. The idea finds its theoretical origins in a book, recently adapted into a film, which has had mind-blowing success.
In "2016: Obama’s America," Dinesh D’Souza explains that we can’t understand the political, and especially diplomatic, views of Obama without digging into his personal history — in particular his father’s story, the struggle against British colonial oppression in Kenya. That is necessary to understand “the roots of his rage” against the West. For D’Souza, Obama is neither more nor less anti-American.
That is how, in a muddled and ill-planned manner (John McCain came to defend the Obama administration’s position, and Paul Ryan came to calm things down), he looked to politically exploit the events in Libya and Cairo. Has Romney, whom many present as weak and without charisma or force, found a way to take the virility of his adversary? It’s doubtful. …
For certain commentators, Romney’s outburst is embarrassing and even dramatic for the rest of his campaign! And Obama didn’t delay in responding, accusing Romney of a “shoot first, ask questions later” [mentality.] Not super for a cowboy apprentice. …
*Editor’s note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified in English.
Previous article![]( "Islam Cannot Make Sense of Senseless Violence")
