« | »

Gee, Romney Was Right About Mali, After All

An editorial from Investors Business Daily:

Algeria Attack Vindicates Mitt Romney On Mali In War On Terror


War On Terror: In the final debate, GOP candidate Mitt Romney was mocked for bringing up the spread of terrorism to Mali, which has been implicated in the weekend’s Algerian terrorist massacre. So who is out of touch?

‘Mitt, do you know that most of America thinks Mali is one of Obama’s daughters," tweeted hipster television personality Bill Maher last October, to ridicule Romney’s debate statement that global terrorism was not dead at all and in fact was spreading.

This from a man who could not fine Mali (or Libya) on a well marked map.

"Mali has been taken over … the northern part of Mali, by al-Qaida-style individuals," Romney said in the first four minutes of the Oct. 23 debate.

A "mini-seminar on Mali," sniped the New Yorker. "Mali Appears On Mitt Romney’s Radar" mocked France’s Le Monde. "Was that in the morning briefing book?" sneered a New York Times editorial. "Molly? Oh, Mali," live-blogged The Guardian.

Needless to say, all of these publications are weirdly silent on France’s ongoing attack on the terrorists in Mali. And they are especially silent about Obama’s providing of US assistance in that attack.

Which means we are once again supplying weapons to fight soldiers to whom we had previously supplied weapons. In this case, the Libyan ‘rebels.’

Romney campaign staff later scrambled to assure the press that Romney was not a hopeless wonk out of touch with the electorate by bringing up obscure countries in the middle of an election, but was in fact receiving U.S. intelligence briefings, as all presidential candidates do after their convention…

Romney listened to those briefings, understood the reality and stated it: that far from being over, terrorism was spreading dangerously through Africa, which the Algerian attack now underscores.

Romney actually attended his intel briefings? What a weirdo.

But notice it was Romney who was accused of being out of touch. Not Obama, who claimed throughout the campaign that Al Qaeda ‘was on the run.’

That contrasts sharply with current U.S. foreign policy led by President Obama, who is still, even today, going out of his way to downplay any extended war on terror even as two more Americans are being pulled from the rubble of an Algerian terrorist attack over the weekend.

"A decade of war is now ending. And economic recovery has begun," President Obama grandly declared at his second inaugural Monday.

The perpetually tone deaf Obama even declared: ‘Peace in our time.’

It’s what he’s said all along — that al-Qaida has been "decimated," terrorism "is on the run" and now is the time to forget about it as a relic of President Bush’s era and turn to gay rights, gun control and global warming.

But there’s reason to think he knows better.

Word is out that the attack was organized from Mali by al-Qaida-linked terrorists using weapons spirited out of the chaos of Libya, a blunder that culminated in the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack in Benghazi which still has yet to be adequately explained by the Obama administration

And, according to some reports, these terrorists are also getting arms and assistance from our good friends in Qatar. Hence:

The Algeria attack shows a vast, well-armed, well-financed organization capable of taking over failed states and launching attacks on Western energy interests.

That signals the war on terror will be an extended slow-motion engagement, part of a long-term trend that will be about as easy to cure as cancer and can no longer be ignored.

Yet Obama has said he wants "a fuller understanding" of the terrorists, and is firmly in denial about the extent of commitment that leadership requires:

"We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war," he told his inaugural audience, to thunderous applause…

But they do require the perpetual preparation to fight a war.

Anyway, speaking of how Mr. Romney was mocked by our one party news media for his prescience, here is just one example from U.S. News and World Report:

Despite Romney Claims, Mali Is No Afghanistan, Expert Says

By Paul D. Shinkman | October 25, 2012

Many in the West believe the arid Sahel region of north Mali will "become the new Afghanistan," according to an Associated Press report this week.

At the presidential debate on Monday, neither candidate discussed much about America’s longest war, aside from stressing the importance of thanking U.S. troops and bringing them home. But Mitt Romney singled out Mali as the new hotspot for al Qaeda activity…

But one intelligence expert believes comparing Afghanistan to Mali is incomplete.

"I really don’t see the Sahel as being conducive to setting up training camps," says Scott Stewart, vice president for tactical intelligence at Stratfor. "It’s a really easy place to surveil." …

Okay, then. That’s settled. We must be dreaming everything we see happening over there.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Gee, Romney Was Right About Mali, After All”

  1. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Gee, Romney Was Right About Chrysler building Jeeps in China, After All

  2. untrainable says:

    “We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war,”

    No, what is required for lasting peace is that when you DO fight a war… that you fight to WIN. If we had unleashed the full fury of the American military on the middle east, this war would already be long over. But our government overlords have effectively opened the battlefield as yet another place for the practice of political correctness.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »