Our foreign policy discussion on death by drone hasn’t reached the useful stage. Hasn’t even reached puberty. Assassination by remote is evil, terrorism is evil, but this is no better than trivial:

Is it okay to pour water on a terrorist’s face if it’s dropped from an unmanned drone?
Jim Treacher | Daily Caller

. . Water on the face: “You monsters. It’s the end of the republic!”

Hellfire missile in the face: “Whatever you think is best, Barry.”

These are not serious arguments. Jim Treacher’s an idiot.

For what it’s worth, I’m okay with both waterboarding and taking out terrorists with drone strikes, no matter where they were born. But then, I’m not the one who thinks it all depends on whether or not Bush did it. It’s almost as if lefties don’t really believe the things they harangue the rest of us about. It’s almost as if their only principle is obtaining and maintaining power.

The UAV programs we use to hold on to the presidency. Right. It’s all about you.

Killing Us Softly
Daniel Foster | National Review

Dear Mr. President,

I noticed that your administration leaked a white paper from the Justice Department outlining your purported authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad when you determine them to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force.” Since I was planning a trip abroad this spring, I thought I’d write to ask if you would please not kill me while I am there.

Hyuk hyuk!

I should say that I sincerely wish you success with all of your other targeted killings. Honestly, I do. It’s not that I don’t want you to be able to rub out the folks you think need rubbing out, because that’s not my place — and, YOLO, right?

I’m smart! And as if I care.

I won’t pretend it’s an idiot’s place to push the nation into taking stock, morally, of how we behave. These people think ‘Barry’ reads their shit, that’s their shot at sophistication. But they both don’t want the program to succeed and don’t want the techno blasting to stop. Meanwhile, most of everything else Obama does is moral and fine and for that they’d kill him, if they could.

Charles Krauthammer writing in the Boston herald on the Benghazi attack: “An epic collapse of foreign policy.” Oh dear.

In the week following 9/11/12 something big happened: the collapse of the Cairo Doctrine, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. It was to reset the very course of post-9/11 America, creating, after the (allegedly) brutal depredations of the Bush years, a profound rapprochement with the Islamic world.

Chuck looked at all this and sneered that the “President must live in a world of his own.” That’s a funny charge coming from a crank who wholly invented the “Cairo Doctrine” at his darkened desk. And made it up it solely for the purpose of ripping his perceived enemy, the President. Feel free to criticize him for your haircut too, Chuck. And good luck getting a decent view of China or France through the lens of Egypt.

Chuck is an angry man with an agenda. Like many other wingnuts this election season, he’s got a plan. He’d like to wipe the President off the political map using this Benghazi tragedy.

The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism. From Tunisia to Lebanon, American schools, businesses and diplomatic facilities set ablaze. A U.S. ambassador and three others murdered in Benghazi. The black flag of Salafism, of which al-Qaeda is a prominent element, raised over our embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan.

The administration, staggered and confused, blames it all on a 14-minute trailer for a film no one has seen and may not even exist.

But he’s an idiot. Look at this picture of people in Lebanon protesting that non-existent scapegoat film:

Half a million citizens, buddy. Much as it hurts the Chucks to admit it, regular old peace-loving Muslims across the world have been insulted by the “Innocence of Muslims” clip. And one Muslim-bashing American is to blame for it all.

Why point this out? Because yesterday the wingnuts sought to turn the same Islamophobia to their own larger aims. Republicans held a congressional grandstander for the purposes of scoring cheap political points during an election. They sought to call the reaction to Benghazi a cover-up, as if the administration’s original thinking that the attack resulted from the protests was corrupt politics. It couldn’t be a mistake, they swore to themselves, and everyone else. Obama loves the Muslims too dangerously much.

So they gaveled a snipe hunt. They sought to tie Obama to Al Qaeda through an appeasement foreign policy. The President compromised national security by being nice to Muslims, they’d say, and now people are dead. But look what happened:

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base.

They exposed a CIA installation.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks. “Point of order! Point of order!” he called out as a State Department security official, seated in front of an aerial photo of the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, described the chaotic night of the attack. “We’re getting into classified issues that deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this.”

Thank you Rep. Chaffetz.

A State Department official assured him that the material was “entirely unclassified” and that the photo was from a commercial satellite. “I totally object to the use of that photo,” Chaffetz continued. He went on to say that “I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you’re showing here today.”

When you freak out over a routine photo of an American installation, you give up the game. The hanging party so worried about national security compromised the country’s national security.

I’m no fan of Buzzfeed’s writing. Or much of anything else they do. But if they’re accurately reporting Republican reaction to Mitt Romney’s criticism of Obama after the death of our Libyan ambassador, Mitt better do something. He might shamble his way back to a microphone pretty quick.

Mitt Romney’s sharply-worded attack on President Obama over a pair of deadly riots in Muslim countries last night has backfired badly among foreign policy hands of both parties, who cast it as hasty and off-key, released before the facts were clear at what has become a moment of tragedy.

This was Romney last night: “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” he said. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Romney keyed his statement to the American Embassy in Cairo’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim video that served as the trigger for the latest in a series of regional riots over obscure perceived slights to the faith. But his statement — initially embargoed to avoid release on September 11, then released yesterday evening anyway — came just before news that the American Ambassador to Libya had been killed and broke with a tradition of unity around national tragedies, and of avoiding hasty statements on foreign policy. . .

“They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it’s just completely blown up,” said a very senior Republican foreign policy hand, who called the statement an “utter disaster” and a “Lehman moment” — a parallel to the moment when John McCain, amid the 2008 financial crisis, failed to come across as a steady leader.

That one’s anonymous. But maybe you’d like a name. How about Bill Kristol?

“I guess we see now that it is because they’re incompetent at talking effectively about foreign policy,” said the Republican. “This is just unbelievable — when they decide to play on it they completely bungle it.”

More and more:

“It’s deeply unfortunate when the circumstance of the statement becomes the story,” said Rick Perry’s former foreign policy adviser, Victoria Coates, who is now an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and who suggested that Romney should simply have “gone earlier rather than save it for midnight” to avoid appearing to play politics on September 11. “It’s unfortunate that it’s playing out this way, and hopefully they can get back on message, because their point is sound,” she said.

Other conservatives were less sympathetic.

“It’s bad,” said a former aide to Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “Just on a factual level that the statement was not a response but preceding, or one could make the case precipitating. And just calling it a ‘disgrace’ doesn’t really cut it. Not ready for prime time.”

A third Republican, a former Bush State Department official, told BuzzFeed, “It wasn’t presidential of Romney to go political immediately — a tragedy of this magnitude should be something the nation collectively grieves before politics enters the conversation.”

The third Republican did support Romney’s essential message after disparaging the timing and politics of it. Romney however isn’t interested in whatever these foreign policy experts have to say. He’s lagging in his campaign for the presidency with only eight weeks to go. So this morning he doubled up on the attack:

“I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions,” Romney said, echoing a provocative statement the campaign released late Tuesday night. “It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.”

Before violence broke out, the Egyptian consulate commented on the growing controversy by denouncing anti-Muslim rhetoric [see here]. After the deaths, the consulate re-posted the comment, but the administration disavowed it. Instead, both the President and the Secretary of State issued statements strongly denouncing the killing. Romney knows this but chooses to ignore it. Because he’s desperate. What a sad campaign.

Incidentally, did you see Vladimir Putin yesterday thank Mitt Romney for calling Russia “our number one geopolitical foe”? He said Mittens made Russia’s case for opposing the missile defense shield. Well played, foreign policy expert.

If you think having a fidgeting hyper-competitive teenager for your president is a good idea, you may want to think again. In foreign policy terms, it can be a real disaster.

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that Mitt Romney’s characterization of Moscow as the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe” has actually helped Russia.

The Russian leader said Romney’s comments strengthened his resolve to oppose NATO’s plan for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a system Russia believes will degrade its nuclear deterrent. The U.S. insists the system is aimed at Iran, not Russia.

When a man is so bent on dinging his perceived international lessers that he can’t compliment the British for heaven’s sake during their Olympics, this is what you get. In Mitten’s unsure and undeveloped mind everybody stinks, but it’s still the Soviet-Russians who are really evil. What brilliant foreign policy. He couldn’t wait to tell everybody on the campaign trail, so this is what you get.

And of course Putin will use this idiocy to his advantage. But unlike Romney, Putin has a logical base for ratcheting the mutual tension. It is not crazy for him to say that missile defense could be used against his country. After all 1.) Mitt Romney could easily become president, and 2.) Russia then would be America’s greatest geo-political foe. What would Iran be in comparison? An annoyance?

“I’m grateful to him (Romney) for formulating his stance so clearly because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems,” Putin told reporters, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

This is why ambassadors should be silver-tongued devils. The president is our ambassador to the whole planet. Choose one wisely.

Believe it or not, this is good news. Whatever messaging Fox News is engaging in usually indicates what’s going on with the collective right-wing psyche. And the psyche apparently feels threatened. This was Sean Hannity talking election strategy with Frank Luntz on Tuesday night:

“They’ve got a foreign policy that shows a lot of weakness,” Hannity said. “I know the President will say they got bin Laden, putting that aside.”

Ha. I know the President complains about being skinny, but putting that aside. We can attack his obesity, I think. Just wait, it gets better:

“And the public gives him credit for that,” Luntz interjected.

A reluctant Hannity replied, “But it wouldn’t have happened if he had his way, and I think that could be proven as well on tapes.”

What? Bwah ha ha. I know, you’re thinking, “How does a president — A PRESIDENT FOR MORON’S SAKE — defy the wisdom of many of his advisers, including his Vice President, and order a Navy Seal operation to kill Osama bin Laden, BUT oppose it?” I don’t know. Maybe Hannity’s brain is being directed by the same hacks who used to write for “Dallas”?

“Frank — my sources tell me that Bin Laden is not dead.”

“Really?”

“They tell me that Obama has only been issuing press releases from his dreams.”

“You don’t say?”

“Arugula is not the new Irish stew. Chicago doesn’t have a chocolate city hall. And Bobby Ewing is as alive as you or me.”

“What the HELL?”

Hullooo, Sean. And all this mess, whatever way you fantasize it, will be on tape, you say? That I’d like to see.

“Alright, people. I’ve had enough advice. I’ve decided, instead, to authorize the attack to proceed. Tell Navy Commander Jones to alert and authorize Seal Team 6. That’s an order.”

“Yes sir.”

“Oh — and Bobby? The nearest video camera?”

“Uhh . . upper right, mounted on the wall, sir.”

“ . . 2 . . 1 . . *ahem* . . NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”

Sean Hannity must be the single stupidest man who ever lived. Yes, putting that aside, they don’t call it ‘Fox’ for nothing. These are tactics invented by Karl Rove. You take an opponent’s strength and try to turn it upside down. Rove pulled this on John Kerry, unfortunately and successfully.

That’s how the former senior officer on a swift boat in Vietnam became a knee-knocking draft dodger. Kerry once had to shoot a young Vietnamese point blank and kill him. He was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for his service. But by the time Bush-era shitstormers were done with him, Kerry might as well have been a spineless little coward. You know, somebody like Karl Rove.

That’s why Hannity looks even more idiotic than usual. Because Republicans are terrified of Obama’s foreign policy record. This is good news.

It’s getting harder and harder to comment on this stuff. The editorial board at Milwaukee’s Journal Sentinel asks Herman Cain if he agrees with Obama on Libya. Cain has no clue. Can’t figure up from down, isn’t really sure which country that is.

How can any candidate remain unaware of the revolution in Libya? How can he not know that his own armed forces (the United States, Herman) played a crucial role in it? (We won.) And, no, Herman, Libya isn’t Egypt, much as your brain argues with you.

And, no, it’s not the Journal Sentinel’s job to remind you.

Let’s not waste too much time on these things:

“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” said Romney.

Look, I realize these Republicans have a tough road to fabricate given how strong President Obama’s been foreign policy-wise. It’s especially tough when a war-first-and-last Party wants to draw distinctions with a President fond of war himself.

But if this is Mitt Romney rolling out the Mitt Romney Warrior Guy product, it didn’t make much of a splash with me, certainly. Teddy Roosevelt dash and rising-temper declarations fall flat when you’re but a spineless flopulator (reminder: the spineful flopulator was a politic-free invention of sheer masochism). No one even believes Mr. Invisible would jawbone with a kook like Ahmedinejad. Republicans can hope he hires John Bolton to do his dirty work, but then you’ve got another massacre on your hands, haven’t you, fools? Time-tested truth: weak people get into wars, kill your family and friends.

Michele, you agree with Mitt?

. . on the level of a parent, I think about my children, if that was my child, and I think my automatic reaction, even though I’m a small woman, I’d want to find that guy and beat him to a pulp . .

Oops, that was Michele on the Penn State scandal. CBS moderators didn’t seem too interested in her opinions, and that’s about all I could find she said this weekend. Nice populist touch, Crazy Eyes.

Rick Perry:

The foreign aid budget in my administration for every country is going to start at zero dollars. Zero dollars. And then we’ll have a conversation. Then we’ll have a conversation in this country about whether or not a penny of our taxpayer dollars needs to go into those countries. And Pakistan is clearly sending us messages, Mitt. It’s clearly sending us messages that they don’t deserve our foreign aid that we’re getting [sic] because they’re not being honest with us.

Speaking of populism, this was about as far as I could stand to watch. Can you imagine zeroing out the foreign aid budget? And what next — demand a parade of foreign envoys drop by the Oval Office and beg for the money back?

Perry is what you’d call a dunderhead. This is how you piss off friends and influence nations. Sure, dozens of African countries would humbly beg for it — plenty of childrens’ lives hang in the balance. But what about Israel? They’d prefer the billions of dollars go unmentioned. While Perry puffed his chest, basking in his chessmaster isolationism, his campaign and supporters, wiser than he, freaked out. Quoth the Rickster minions:

“Gov. Perry is a friend to Israel and understands the challenges faced by the country. He has visited the country several times and has personal relationships with Israeli leaders. While in Israel in 2009, he was also awarded . . ”

This multi-faced self-wrestling prompted ‘me toos’ from other candidates, but then it also drew the strangest of occurrences. A miraculous event, like the sighting of a flying pig at an aeronautics symposium. Sheer sanity flew out of the mouth of Rick Santorum:

Well, let me just stop back and, and — and say I disagree with a lot of what was said up here. Pakistan must be a friend of the United States for the reason that Michele outlined. Pakistan is a nuclear power. And there are people in this– in that country that if they gain control of that country will create a situation equal to the situation that is now percolating in Iran. So we can’t be indecisive about whether Pakistan is our friend.

. . wha – What?

And it’s important for us, with a nuclear power, with a very vast number of people in Pakistan, who are radicalizing, that we keep a solid and stable relationship and work through our difficulties. It is that important, and we must maintain that relationship.

You kidding me? Santorum spends his time migrating from one cloud of evangelical purple haze to another, talking up Jesus, bad-mouthing gays and women and propping up The Crusades. Back in February, he somehow landed on the side of the Christians in that centuries-old, Continental controversy. So he’s on a big roll.

Few things, I would say (just watch), categorically exclude a candidate from becoming president. Conservative politicians are stupid, but that’s just generally true.

What specifically prevents someone from being considered for the presidency?

I believe that the role of an ally is to stand behind your friends and let them speak for themselves, rather than be spoken for by the United States of America.

How about pledging to do whatever another country asks?

The transfer of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a great symbolic aid to Israel. Is that something that you would consider?

The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do.

Jaw —> floor. I’ve never heard a candidate talk like this. I can’t imagine a president promising to hand his policy reins to a foreign country. Romney guesses this beggar’s posture will please the right-wing because, when it comes to Israel, they ask we go limp. Rejoice, wingnuts, because Mitt Romney has wilted:

But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally.

He’s also gone insane. We should abandon the peace process, why? We’re hurting Israel’s feelings, I suppose. Here come big Mitty hugs and a sloppy bang on the ear. So we line up behind Israel, and then . . what? Hope they beat some ‘sense’ into the Palestinians? Pray the terror-darkies finally leave? They don’t want to carry this mess on much longer, so this is a good strategy.

This sort of pact-like devotion to Israel isn’t just stupid, it’s historically evil and dangerous. As a result of seemingly endless early 20th century European associations, empires, agreements and alliances, the shooting of a kangaroo-hunting archduke resulted in the deaths of 9 million people. When you tie your country’s future to the whims of people on the other side of the globe, you’re asking for trouble. Mitt Romney would be a disastrous president. That’s obvious.

Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

No man so devoid of spine, or loyalty, deserves your vote.