The Greatest Orator in the History of Forever reveals yet again that Bush never had a monopoly on dumb:
GOLDEN, Colo. – Hours after President Obama declared Egypt was neither an ally nor an enemy, the White House on Thursday tweaked that answer to say the strategically important nation was a “longstanding and close partner.”
Downplaying the tension evident in the president’s remarks in an interview late Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama was speaking in the technical terms of diplomacy and that nothing about U.S. policy toward Egypt has changed.
"‘Ally’ is a legal term of art,” Carney said. “We do not have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, like we do, for example, with our NATO allies. But as the president has said, Egypt is a long-standing and close partner of the United States, and we have built on that foundation in supporting Egypt’s transition to democracy and working with the new government.”
What? Even sitting here in the peanut gallery I can say with confidence that Israel is an ally with whom we do not have a mutual defense pact. Politico pounced:
The State Department affirmed Egypt's legal status as an ally Thursday — an apparent contradiction to what President Obama said in a Wednesday interview.
Asked repeatedly if the State Department still considered Egypt a major non-NATO ally — a designation they were awarded in 1989 — State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said simply: "Yes."
...
But Egypt was one of the first non-NATO allies designed [sic. designated is better] by the U.S. government along with Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. [link]. While the status does not imply a mutual defense pact, it does confer certain benefits.
Israel, for example, is also a major non-NATO ally without a formal security agreement — and is often called an ally by U.S policymakers and leaders.
Obama has been President for three and a half long years and literally does not know who our allies are. Rachel Maddow was leaning forwrd; let's see if she falls over with the White House clarification:
President Obama described Egypt as neither a friend nor a foe in a televised interview that aired first on The Rachel Maddow Show Wednesday.
"I don't think we would consider them an ally. But we don't consider them an enemy," Obama told Telemundo's José Díaz-Balart. "They are a new government that's trying to find its way."
Obama continued: "They were democratically elected. I think that we are going to have to respond to this incident, how they respond to maintaining the peace treaty with Israel."
...
Maddow highlighted the significance of Obama's comment."In diplomacy, at the presidential level, words are chosen very, very carefully," she said. "And those words represent news in terms of the U.S. relationship with a country which had, during the time of Hosni Mubarak, been among America's closest allies in the Arab world."
At the presidential level words are chosen very carefully, except by the President. This puts a twist on the media's attempt to debate whether Romney is ready to be CinC. And let's flash back to Matt Yglesias's spin on Obama's 2007 declaration that he would meet with Iran with no pre-conditions:
...at the YouTube debate on July 23, 2007, when Obama was asked whether he would be willing to meet “without precondition … with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,” the right answer, conventionally speaking, was a qualified “no.” But Obama answered in the affirmative. Initially, even sympathetic observers like The Nation’s David Corn called this statement a “flub” at best. Hillary Clinton, the quintessence of Democratic establishment thinking, had answered that she would use “high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way,” before holding direct meetings with heads of state.
Few observers believed that Obama genuinely intended to break new ground with his response—his campaign had never articulated any such policy before, and seemed ill-prepared to defend it on the spot. The Clinton campaign dutifully pressed the attack the next day, calling Obama’s statement “irresponsible and frankly naive.” But then a funny thing happened. Obama’s team did not try to qualify (or, in political parlance, “clarify”) his remark, and no one said he misspoke. Instead, the campaign fought back, with memos to reporters and with a speech by the candidate himself, aimed squarely at the sort of “conventional wisdom” that had, in the words of his then-foreign-policy adviser, Samantha Power, “led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy.”
Rationalize the gaffe - that's a firm foundation for foreign policy! However, by June 2008 when the Greatest Orator itHoFflubbed his lines on Jerusalem, his team's powers of rationalization were exhausted:
(Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama misused a "code word" in Middle East politics when he said Jerusalem should be Israel's "undivided" capital but that does not mean he is naive on foreign policy, a top adviser said on Tuesday.
Addressing a pro-Israel lobby group this month, the Democratic White House hopeful said: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
The comment angered Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, as the capital of a future state. "He has closed all doors to peace," Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said after the June 4 speech.
Obama later said Palestinians and Israelis had to negotiate the status of the city, in line with long-held U.S. presidential policy.
If Obama weren't so self-evidently brilliant, people might actually judge him by his words and conclude that he has a pattern of bloviation guided by ignorance and arrogance.
WARNING-- SWEARING TO FOLLOW: Wind can you link to that story. It's a fucking outrage that lying fucking Obamaniac weasels will lie without shame to cover up their negligence in the deaths of 4 good men. And it's an even bigger fucking outrage that JournoWhores are willing propaganda mouthpieces for the fucking government lying weasals. That is all.
Posted by: NK | September 14, 2012 at 09:15 AM
...and I love how Dick doesn't want to be labeled as a Dem.. If Americans knew half of the stuff we know here at JOM, there is NO WAY they would vote Dem.
Posted by: Janet - Why does Johnny Depp hate the poor? pourquoi? | September 14, 2012 at 09:16 AM
NK, I was bundling the Fed's looming bankruptcy into "GOP introduces the right reforms and the economy turns around." I hadn't considered state bankruptcies. Federal reforms will have to include regulation reform, big federal employee layoffs, fiscal reform, and tax reform, at least.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | September 14, 2012 at 09:19 AM
Fed's = federal gummint's
Posted by: Jim Ryan | September 14, 2012 at 09:20 AM
Politico: Shawn Turner, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, emailed: “This is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
I wonder what spokesman Shawn majored in and what makes him an authority on actional intelligence or anything else?
Posted by: DebinNC | September 14, 2012 at 09:21 AM
Converted a 2008 iBama supporter this AM. She's going to see what's in 2016. She's Jewish and pissed.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 14, 2012 at 09:23 AM
Ruth Marcus really blew it today. IF the tweet/memo was sent out before the attacks in Egypt, how did they know to send them if, as the Obama administration claims, they had no prior warning?
Apologize, NFW.
LUN
Posted by: Stephanie | September 14, 2012 at 09:24 AM
Here you go NK
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81198.html
Posted by: windansea | September 14, 2012 at 09:26 AM
We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.
Which is, of course, a non-denial denial. The story from the UK doesn't say there was actionable intel about a specific attack on Benghazi. What the UK story says is that there was credible intel of a plan to attack a US diplomatic site in the ME (specific target unknown), and that no warning was issued to any of the Embasies or Consulates that there was a real threat of attack, and they might be the target, so plan accordingly.
This non-denial denial tells me that the UK story is accurate. There was general intel of a planned attack, and no warning was given.
Posted by: Ranger | September 14, 2012 at 09:32 AM
--In the first half (I think ) of the podcast Dick and I nearly had a fistfight. It wasn't pretty. It was about Congress and Harry Reid.
Posted by: Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you! | September 14, 2012 at 08:15 AM --
I know you can take him Jane.
Just remember to keep your right up and if you need a corner man let me know and I'll be there.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 14, 2012 at 09:39 AM
--WARNING-- SWEARING TO FOLLOW......
Posted by: NK | September 14, 2012 at 09:15 AM--
Weren't you the guy praising those who kept their posts clean and tidy? :)
Posted by: Ignatz | September 14, 2012 at 09:41 AM
CBS noting Romney is still not getting security briefings, even though he's been the nominee for two weeks:
............................................
Typically, presidential candidates begin receiving briefings after securing their party's nomination, which Romney did in Tampa two weeks ago. "It's a long-standing practice for presidential candidates and select advisers to be provided intelligence briefings following the party's nominating convention," Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told CNN in June. "During the last presidential campaign, all the candidates began receiving briefings in September following the conventions." Turner tells CBS News the process is "moving forward." "The Intelligence Community is working closely with the Romney campaign to finalize the logistics for the candidate briefings," he told CBS News. "The process is moving forward on schedule and we are not aware of any concerns."
...........................................
That's the same Shawn Turner, a mere NIH spokesperson, who emailed his assurance that there was no actionable intel prior to the embassy attacks.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 14, 2012 at 09:41 AM
Wind, thank you. Ranger you are absolutely correct. The UK story was careful to say that the warnings related to attacks on embassies in ME/NA -- butnot specific to Benghazi. Clearly, that had to do AQ revenge for the Drone strike in Yemen.
WARNING: SWEARING TO FOLLOW: for that fucking POS 'Shawn Turner' to fucking refuse to respond to the specific statement shows that it was true, the Obamnaiac fuckers had intel that embassies were going to be hit by AQ, and they did fuck all about it. Not fucking actionable? Embassies you fuckers, but the fucking embassies on alert and protect your people. I hate these fucking bastard Obamaniacs. That is all.
Posted by: NK | September 14, 2012 at 09:43 AM
Ig@9:41-- I was indeed. I praised them and acknowledged they had more discipline than I do. In fact ALOT more discipline, see my more recent swearfest.
Posted by: NK | September 14, 2012 at 09:45 AM
LAT notes Obama started receiving security briefings soon after his nomination in 2008, but Romney is still being denied them two weeks after his nomination.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 14, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Deb-
There will be no briefings until it gets written up in the NYT.
I'll put money down on that.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 14, 2012 at 09:52 AM
Thanks Janet and Iggy. My favorite part is when I recited common knowledge and Dick said (mockingly) "you know more than the FBI".
Low information voters will be the death of all of us.
On another note, start saving your pennies. Mext August NR is going to tour the Fjords of Norway.
Posted by: Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you! | September 14, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Jane -- how does someone who isn't just ignorant, but apparently proud of it, like Dick, get on the radio?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 14, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Stephanie.
Re: Your 9:24 LUN. Over 4,400 comments and some are pretty rich. I like this one.
The muj are laughing their obama's off. They have attacked multiple embassies, burned our flags at will, flown aq flags over American property and murdered an American ambassador.
And all this country can do in response is blame the one politician who had nothing to do with it.
But most are your typical leftwing whining. Why are liberals whiner? There should be a study:)
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 14, 2012 at 10:32 AM
I don't think of Dick as ignorant. He's like a medium informed voter...& he is ready to abandon the Dems. It is really valuable to know how other citizens view the news.
Posted by: Janet - Why does Johnny Depp hate the poor? pourquoi? | September 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM
"I think you got your embroidered knee pads from the White House, buddy"
You tell them, Lady:)
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 14, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Rob,
He runs the station. I think he has me on because it gives him an opportunity to be on, and pontificate, which he loves to do. He started on Radio 6 decades ago and has spent all his life running stations.
He thinks he is very wise. He is however, stuck in the 50's.
Posted by: Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you! | September 14, 2012 at 10:41 AM
The Axelturf crowd is busy refuting every complaining post. Quite funny. Smells like desperation.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Hi, after reading this awesome post i am too happy to share my knowledge here with colleagues.
Posted by: クロエ バッグ | September 14, 2012 at 08:06 PM