[UCANSEE2]

The overthrow of Gaddafi was all about the GOLD (and I mean 100% gold, not that tungsten filled crap that many gold bars are made of).

When the 'rebels' ousted Gaddafi, what was the first thing they did ? Form a new GOVERNMENT ?

Nope. They formed a NEW LIBYAN NATIONAL BANK.

Now why would they do that?

And even though they 'ousted' Gaddafi, he remained sole proprietor of the Libyan National Bank (the original one) until he (and his heirs) died.

So... guess what?

[One Name]

We could have had an effect in Iran, but we did nothing, and the anti-fascist rebellion languished. These were the pro-west students, the remnants of the Shah’s libertarian legacy who were squashed.

All other middle-east uprisings were distinctly flavored islamist. Obama supported them.

Here we are, erase 30 years of US effort.

Arab Spring my ass.

[okie01]

In other words, the administration’s entire experience in Libya — and in most of the Middle East in general — has been a bright and shining lie.

An apt and concise summation of Obama's foreign policy.

[AlanGreenSpam]

This is the best paragraph!!

“What the Obama administration could not concede was the truth: The lead-from-behind intervention in Libya had proved a blueprint for nothing. Libya had descended into chaos. Radical Islam had either subverted or hijacked the Arab Spring. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled by the death of bin Laden or by the stepped-up drone assassination missions in Pakistan. Egypt was becoming Islamist. Syria was a bloody mess. Iran was on the way to becoming nuclear. Obama had won America no more good will in the Middle East than had prior presidents.”

[Gene Eric]

Libya and Egypt were stable, and the respective dictators were cooperating with the US and EU. I bet there was a managed escalation to the unrest, and members of the West facilitated in exchange for something. But WTF do I know...

[OrioleFan]

The only thing (goal?) Obama’s middle east policy has done is to make it easier for Al Queda to regroup, organize, and obtain weapons. We are going to be fighting the war on terror for decades as a result.

[gusopol3]

Although what happened after 9/11/12 is important, what the President knew and when did he know it, in establishing Obama’s lying, Romney can’t focus on that during the debate to the exclusion of what happened before 9/11. Obama and his ulta-sophisticate associates, including Stevens, had abandoned the concepts and language of the “War on Terror” as primitive, racist Bushisms. That left the US vulnerable to the true enemy, which can be as close as next door. He must ask Obama point-blank whether the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terror, and have the facts at hand to show that it was, the President’s response to it, etc. This would be a theme on which most Americans had never been educated as they went about their busy lives, getting their news from drive-time top of the hour news headlines. They are engaged now; it may be a blessing in disguise the Obama “won “ the second debate , making the third debate seem crucial, during which Romney’s indictment of the President can, should and must be, devastating—missed intelligence briefings, etc., etc.

[ops33]

Obama also appointed an openly gay Ambassador to a country where gays are not tolerated.

[GOPJ]

Libya had descended into chaos. Radical Islam had either subverted or hijacked the Arab Spring. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled by the death of bin Laden or by the stepped-up drone assassination missions in Pakistan. Egypt was becoming Islamist. Syria was a bloody mess. Iran was on the way to becoming nuclear. Obama had won America no more good will in the Middle East than had prior presidents. In other words, the administration’s entire experience in Libya — and in most of the Middle East in general — has been a bright and shining lie.

Fred, did I ever tell you I'm happy you're here? Thanks for the links to links and the ideas...(you too neverdem - always interesting posts)