Foreign Policy

Hillary Clinton throws Obama under the bus regarding the murders in Libya.

"By trying to distance her department from the inept and deceptive handling of the Benghazi attack, which left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officials dead, Hillary Clinton could help herself politically for a 2016 presidential run."

"The State Department's insistence it never bought the story - expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations - that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans."

After playing Obama's poodle for four years, Hillary stabs Obama in the back, damages his chances at reelection and sets herself up to run in 2016. She's also cutting down rival Susan Rice. Well played, Clintons. I bet the Clintons have their own polling that shows Obama will lose and that he's vulnerable on this issue. Why were former Navy SEALs in the compound? I bet they were CIA.

Official tells House committee security in Benghazi was weak.

"The former head of a 16-member U.S. military team in Libya said Wednesday the consulate in Benghazi, where the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed, never had the forces it needed to protect itself.
Lt. Col, Andrew Wood said in prepared testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that U.S. security was so weak that in April, only one U.S. diplomatic security agent was stationed in Benghazi."

Why would the State Department have so little security there? Did Clinton leave Benghazi unprotected on purpose as part of a bigger plan to defeat Obama?

"In statements immediately after the attack, neither President Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton mentioned terrorism. And both gave credence to the notion that the attack was related to protests about the anti-Islam video."

Yes she did, but she has changed her tune now. This seems more opportunistic on her part than planned. Then again, that's what they said about the attack on the consulate.

"Nordstrom addressed the diplomatic security issue in an Oct. 1 email to a congressional investigator. He said his requests for more security were blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources.""

Stupid or evil? I don't know. Video of incriminating timeline.

Now it turns out that the guy who made the film, who was reported to be named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is actually named Mark Basseley Youssef. California grabbed him for parole violation because of the movie.

"The First Amendment offers broad protections for filmmaking and other forms of expression. Jody Armour, a professor at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law, said he is troubled that the government went after Youssef only after the movie caused outrage in the Middle East.
"They are saying we aren't going after him on the content, but the reason you are zeroing in on this other behavior is because he was somebody who published a film that caused a violent reaction in another part of the world," Armour said. "That's why there's almost this kind of a dog-whistle quality by this maneuver by the government.""

Sounds like it.

Pat Buchanan says that western governments can reach a nuclear deal with Iran and avoid war. Of course they can. They just don't want to.

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lately mocked the idea of Iran building a bomb in the face of a U.S. commitment to go to war to prevent it:
"Let's even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon. What would we do with it? What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?"
Ahmadinejad did not mention that Israel has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons. He did not need to. The same logic applies.
And Tehran seems to be signaling it is ready for a deal."

You never hear that in the mainstream media.

"According to the United Nations' watchdog agency, Iran recently converted more than one-third of its 20 percent enriched uranium into U308, or uranium oxide, a powder for its medical research reactor. "

Just as the Iranians said they would.

"The New York Times also reported Thursday that Iran had proposed to European officials a plan to suspend the enrichment of uranium in return for the lifting of sanctions. By week's end, Iran was denying it.
Yet common sense suggests that if Iran is not determined to build a nuclear weapon, it will eventually come to the table.
Why? Because, if Iran is not seeking a weapon, no purpose is served by continuing to enrich.
Iran already has enough 20 percent enriched uranium for medical isotopes and more than enough 5 percent enriched uranium for its power plant. Further enrichment gives Iran nothing in the way of added security, but it does ensure that the severe sanctions will be sustained and perhaps tightened. And those sanctions are creating tremendous hardships on the Iranian people."
This is what's coming soon to the US, self-inflicted.
"In two weeks, Iran's currency, the rial, has lost a third of its value. It is at an all-time low against the dollar. Iran's oil exports are down to 800,000 barrels a day, a third of what they were a year ago. The cost of food and medicine is soaring. Inflation is running officially at 25 percent. Foreign travel is drying up. Workers are going unpaid.
"We're close to seeing mass unemployment in cities and queues for social handouts," an Iranian-born economic adviser to the European Union told Reuters. "There are few alternatives for those people, and many will end up on the bread line." Last week, merchants marched on parliament and had to be driven back by police using tear gas.
An Iranian businessman in Dubai told Reuters: "Business is drying up. Industry is collapsing. There's zero investment. ... I see it with my own eyes.""

Our government is doing it to Iran through aggression, and it's doing it to us through aggression too.