The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense


“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Obama And Romney’s Responses To Embassy Attacks Show Who Should Lead


Here’s the Nonsense:  President Obama knows that doing anything other than responding the way he did to the attacks on our embassies will cause a negative reaction in foreign relations.  He knows that it is critical that America be friends with other nations.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  As typical of someone who knows nothing about how to deal with a bully, President Obama foolishly seeks the approval and friendship of those who would try to bully America through attacks on our embassies.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, shows us how to rebuild respect for America in the world and end bullying by thugs who would continue their attacks if not stopped.

In a clear contrast of leadership ability, President Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s responses to the attacks on the U. S. Embassies in Libya and Egypt show who is truly qualified to lead our nation, especially at such a dark time in our history.  One shows a foolish, immature view of how to deal with it and one shows how a nation gets respect in difficult situations.  Once again, we see the obvious differences between two men who want to lead our nation while only one of them is qualified.

The records show that President Obama has only attended 43.8% of his daily intelligence briefings, including missing the week prior to the attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt.  43.8% attendance!  No employer would keep an employee who only worked 43.8% of the time.  This is a crisis and the president is playing hooky from his responsibilities.  And those responsibilities may have given light on what was about to happen and thereby cause our embassies to make sure security was tight enough that they would have been protected. It’s time for his employer (you, the American voters) to fire this neglectful employee and replace him with someone who will work at the job and put America’s safety and best interest first instead of being more concerned with other things like his reelection campaign.

While the White House defends the president’s absence by saying that he still received the written reports for the meetings, it doesn’t excuse his lack of attendance.  Our nation’s security is the number one responsibility of the president and no written report can ever have the same impact as a personal meeting.  But President Obama has been on the campaign trail while treating his duties as president as though they were of secondary importance.

It is the responsibility of a nation to protect the embassies of nation’s they host in their countries, but obviously Libya and Egypt fell short in those responsibilities in this instance.  Because that can happen, it is important for America to make sure our embassies and their personnel are kept safe when serving in foreign lands. 

An article in the Washington Guardian shows that it is being claimed that the Diplomatic Security Office lacks funding for costs of security overseas.  And that that is why security was not as tight as it should have been, which ultimately allowed the deaths of Americans to occur.  As one commenter on the article suggested, since huge sums of money are being given to these countries in foreign aid, then we should just deduct from that foreign aid whatever costs for security that our embassies need.  There is no excuse for a lack of funding.

What happened in Libya with the tragic loss of American lives has shown us very clearly the priorities and abilities of both this president and of his opponent in this election, Mitt Romney.  Romney has spoken out against the poor handling of this situation by Obama and the apology he’s made to those who attacked us.  While Romney was immediately speaking out enraged at what happened and demanding countries take responsibility for the safety of diplomatic personnel while in their lands.  Romney acted like a leader whose concern was for America’s safety and best interest while Obama simply made this an extension of his apology tour in the Middle East a few years ago.  President Obama is more interested in getting people to like us in the Middle East (and around the world).  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is showing true leadership character traits by being more interested in having the world respect us. 

With all the talk these days of bullying problems in schools and other places, this is a perfect example of the difference of how to handle those situations.  President Obama shows sheepishness and cowers while Mitt Romney demands respect.  I can guarantee that Mitt Romney’s response will be far more successful at ending the problems than President Obama’s.  You stand up to bullies, you don’t kowtow to them. 

The immature and politically motivated response from the Obama campaign to Romney’s comments was:

“We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack,” Obama’s campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt said in a statement.

Mitt Romney did not launch a political attack.  But President Obama’s campaign sure did.  As usual, they project what they are guilty of on their opponent.  You can usually look at whatever their claim is against someone and if you really consider it you will find that they are simply accusing their opponent of being guilty of exactly what they themselves are guilty of.  This takes the critical public eye off of them and places it on their opponent, thereby absolving them of responsibility in the eyes of a non-analytical thinking mainstream media and public.

There is no excuse for the casual disregard this administration shows for issues of national security, let alone their constant attempt to deflect blame from themselves by projecting on others.  In my new book, No Tomorrows: How To Halt America’s Imminent Collapse And Return To The American Dream – And Why It Must Start With The 2012 Elections, I identify as one of the core problems our nation faces the fact that we don’t know how to choose true leaders for elected office.

It is time to get a true leader back in the White House.  This situation is a clear example of the difference between the actions of a true leader and a man whose priorities don’t include the best interest of America.  If you value the security of our nation and the future of our children it is time to get involved and make sure to vote in November for change in our government.