RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas102512.php3?printer_friendly

After watching the third presidential debate, are you clear on America’s foreign policy? I thought not. That’s because there appears to be no singular foreign policy, rather a series of foreign policies, which must be tailored to fit each nation.

I expected Mitt Romney to go after President Obama on his most recent foreign policy failure, the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans were killed, including the U.S. ambassador. The president had no explanation as to why there was inadequate security in Benghazi, preferring instead to say only that we are “going after the killers.” Romney refused to press him on it. Some may have viewed this as a missed opportunity, but I think it was designed to show Romney’s restraint and to counter the “do you want to get us into another Middle East war?” charge.

One of Romney’s better lines was, “we can’t kill our way out of this mess,” meaning terrorism and the Middle East, but he failed to go for the political “kill;” instead he agreed with the president several times. Possibly for the same reasons I mentioned?

When moderator Bob Schieffer asked the ultimate question, “What is America’s role in the world?” neither candidate’s answer was revealing beyond their campaign speech bromides.

What was surprising was the reaction to the debate by some in the “liberal media,” which has been in the tank for Mr. Obama since he began running for president. Some of them seemed to retreat from the worshipful attitude they have displayed toward the president since beginning four years ago to assist his self-promotion as a messianic deliverer from our national sins.

Former White House aide David Gergen said on CNN, “I think Mitt Romney did something that was extremely important to his campaign tonight and that was he passed the commander-in-chief test.” Indeed, that was all he had to do, much like Ronald Reagan in his 1980 debates with Jimmy Carter. If voters want to “fire” a president, they want to be assured his replacement is up to the job. Chuck Todd of NBC News said on MSNBC, “…the president’s got bigger problems than trying to disqualify Mitt Romney now. The president has to re-qualify himself for a second term.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/president-s-policy-denies-purple-heart-to-fort-hood-terrorist-attack-victims Unfortunately for these brave Soldiers, the circumstances surrounding their deaths and wounds were that they ran didn’t fit into President Obama’s narrative that terrorism perpetrated by Muslim extremists doesn’t exist. On November 5th, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan was standing among his fellow Soldiers at the Personnel Processing Center on Fort Hood, Texas. The center […]

http://vinienco.com/2012/10/24/obama-betrays-victims-fort-hood-terror-william-murray/ Obama betrays victims of Fort Hood terror Will Gov. Mitt Romney reverse the decision of President Barack Hussein Obama and issue the Purple Heart to the victims of the jihad attack on Fort Hood in 2009? The day before the general election, Nov 5, is the third anniversary of the jihad attack by Maj. […]

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/24/obamas-nameless-war-with-a-nam

Islamism as such might as well not exist — except inside his Administration.

In the final presidential debate on October 22, President Barack Obama spoke briefly about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on U.S. officials and personnel in Benghazi. He outlined why the U.S. had gone into Libya before the attack. He outlined the answers he is still seeking following the attack. But he did not say why this terrorist attack had occurred or why the U.S. had been ill-prepared to meet it in what is, after all, a volatile city alive with militias recently freed from dictatorial rule. Nor did he tell us why his Administration strenuously avoided calling it a terrorist attack for two weeks, preferring instead to speak of a spontaneous assault in the course of a demonstration of Muslims offended by an anti-Muhammad video.

Mitt Romney did not pursue the subject, so we got no closer to the heart of the matter, yet the implication of this apologetic gloss of the first two weeks is obvious: Ambassador Chris Stevens was not murdered by Islamists who hate America and its allies and mean to attack us again; he was the victim of the local reaction to one of the products of American freedom of speech. Once the attack was acknowledged as the handiwork of terrorists, however, followers of al Qaeda, virtually the only officially acknowledged extremists, were cited as the perpetrators. And here lies the problem: the Obama Administration will not acknowledge that an extreme and violent segment of the Muslim world ranging far beyond the confines of al Qaeda is at war with us. To do so would have required him to explain why the U.S. had been empowering Islamists, including in Libya, some of whom may have been responsible for leaking information that enabled the terrorists to locate and kill the Americans.

Just why and how has this refusal to name the Islamist enemy come to characterize the four years of Obama’s presidency? Because President Obama agrees with the view that Islamists as a force in world affairs are not be shunned and that wisdom dictates coming to terms with those among them who are hot engaged in active hostilities at this moment. The idea is defective, because common to all Islamists is Muslim supremacism and the undeviating pursuit to subvert the non-Islamic world.

Yet, since Barack Obama took office, Islamist antagonists, other than those involved in active hostilities like al Qaeda and the Taliban, whose hostility cannot be denied or ignored, have gone unnamed. Presidential statements on the anniversaries of the 1983 killing of 242 U.S. servicemen in Lebanon by Hizballah or the 1979 seizure by Islamist students of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, to name two examples, failed to even mention the perpetrators of these acts, as it had become U.S. policy to propitiate both parties.

Indeed, the Obama Administration has refused to associate terrorists attacking America with Islam. Administration officials have spent four years speaking of particular terrorists at home and abroad as isolated “extremists,” even when Islamist terrorist connections (for example, between Fort Hood sniper Nidal Hassan and the American-born al Qaeda in Yemen leader, Anwar al-Awlaki, who advised him) were readily traceable.

In a May 2010 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney-General Eric Holder only grudgingly and hypothetically conceded that radical Islam could be the inspiration for some individuals involved in recent acts of terrorism, before immediately asserting that such people were acting on a “version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it.” Similarly, in March 2011, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough told a Muslim audience that extremists in their midst “falsely claim to be fighting in the name of Islam.” When Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, held hearings on homegrown radical Islam the same month, the Administration publicly opposed it.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/foreign-policy-debate-too-much-agreement/article/2511521 In Monday night’s debate, Mitt Romney’s mission was to demonstrate the clear contrasts between his foreign policy and President Obama’s. Knowing this, Obama’s strategy was to show that Romney’s foreign policy ideas were either wrong or not very different from his own. Through most of the 90-minute debate, Romney’s policies left him open to […]

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/10/23/interview-on-presidential-foreign-policy-debate-with-americas-morning-news/ Interview on Presidential “Foreign Policy Debate” with America’s Morning News Posted By Andrew Bostom On October 23, 2012 This morning (10/23/12), during an interview with John McCaslin and Dana Mills of America’s Morning News [1] I pointed out that the final Presidential debate, ostensibly devoted to “Foreign policy,” (predictably [2]) did not address jihadism […]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/where_was_hillary_clintons_state_dept_on_the_eve_of_benghazi.html The question of what Hillary Clinton’s State Department was busy with during the days and weeks before the September 11, 2012 terrorist strike in Benghazi, Libya needs to be asked insistently and often. What was happening at Foggy Bottom as Islamic terrorists planned the murder of United States Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens […]

Consulate emails are evidence of false story
Blogs
American Spectator
by: Ross Kaminsky
Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Consulate emails are evidence of false story
In this photo taken Monday, April 11, 2011, then U.S. envoy Chris Stevens attends meetings at the Tibesty Hotel where an African Union delegation was meeting with opposition leaders in Benghazi, Libya. Photo Credit:AP
Fox News is reporting that they have acquired copies of e-mails sent from the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya during the assault which killed Ambassador Christoper Stevens and three other Americans.…

They are the most damning evidence to date that the obviously false story about a demonstration in response to a video was known to be a lie from the first time it was uttered by any administration official.

As Ambassador John Bolton said on Tuesday evening, if the video story is an attempt to cover something up, it is a truly stupid cover-up since it is impossible that the existence of these e-mails would not become known.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/consulate-emails-are-evidence-of-false-story#ixzz2ADKSGMgg
Obama getting angry about possible election loss
Commentary
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Commentary
Obama getting angry about possible election loss
More and more, it’s sounding as if President Obama is just plain mad at Romney because of the growing possibility that he’s going to lose the election. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2ADJWOf4i
State Dept. fiddled before consulate burned
American Thinker
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Blogs
At least some of the State Department’s attention (and funds) were being spent on organizing international music tours. Clinton’s staff was literally involved with fiddles (and guitars and drums) while Islamic terrorists where plotting to attack and burn the American consulate in Benghazi. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2ADJqO7pP
Terror group threatens U.K. over extradition
Long War Journal
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Blogs
Somali terror group Shabaab threatened to attack Britain for extraditing radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al Masri, who arrived in the U.S. on Oct. 5 after being held for nine years in a British prison. The al Qaeda affiliate also pledged “to go to every possible length” to free al Masri, who is serving a life sentence in the U.S. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2ADK1vJy2

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/obamas-benghazi-investigator-an-iran-sympathizer/ The freshly appointed chairman of a federal investigation into the Benghazi massacre is an apologist for Islamic terrorism who has a cozy relationship with Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. And to add insult to injury, at press time Tuesday evening the chairman of this new State Department panel, former Ambassador Thomas […]

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/whoopi-goldbergs-assault-on-ann-romney-and-mormonism-on-the-glazov-gang/

Whoopi Goldberg’s Assault on Ann Romney and Mormonism — on The Glazov Gang

On this week’s Glazov Gang, Nonie Darwish, Dwight Schultz and Diane Zinn discussed: Whoopi Goldberg’s Assault on Ann Romney and Mormonism. The discussion occurred in Part II and focused on whether Whoopi would condescendingly interrogate a Muslim cleric about Qur’anic verses. Part I dealt with Why Obama Gambled With American Loves, shedding light on the reasons the president engaged in Benghazi Denial. Both parts of the two part series can be seen below: