The Tragic Optimism of an American Diplomat (to Libya)

Vatic Note: compare this picture below with the one where he is walking with McCain we put up in a previous blog, and he was very very unhappy and it showed on his face, that he did not like what McCain had to tell him about the money and weapons being supplied to the mossad, CIA rebels  to  create hell in Libya.  When you read  this below, you will understand why he was upset.  What McCain was there to do goes against everything diplomacy is about.  

This total rag is trying to make it look like he was some stupid idiot goyim that did not have a clue what was really going on, therefore his optimism was a result of his stupidity.  Give me a break.  this was a seasoned professional diplomat who was anything but dumb.  This rag treats us as if we are as dumb as they try to make Stevens out to be.  You saw the photos we put up of the Libyans saying good things about this diplomat.  

He had to be good because the Libyans' knew who sodomized, tortured and killed their beloved leader who had done much for them in achieving self sufficiency and independance.  He was able to divert their anger into more positive ways and solutions,  now messed up by the khazars running our country.  They are so bad at it, they should never have a country of their own in a civilized world.  Maybe off world is best.  Lizards sound familiar? 

The Tragic Optimism of an American Diplomat

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/12/the_tragic_optimism_of_an_american_diplomat

Remembering Ambassador Chris Stevens and reflecting on the power of the United States to shape the new Middle East.

BY JAMES TRAUB, Foreign Policy on line | SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

In July, in the course of writing a column about Libya, I spoke by telephone with U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, then in Tripoli. Libyans had just gone to the polls to elect a National Assembly, and he was feeling optimistic. The moderate National Forces Alliance had defeated an Islamist coalition, and the Islamists had accepted their defeat. 

The country was still in the grip of militias, but Stevens said that the security situation was "not bad," and getting better. "The Libyan public attitude to the U.S. is quite positive," Stevens said. "This is a great opportunity for us."  (VN:  Now you know why he was killed.  He was working toward peace and healing relationships between the Libyans and America.  Now that won't work if one is trying to get a world war where Muslims hate Christians (or the east vs the west) since the khazar Zionists goal  and their illuminati masters are to garner control and population reduction in order to get that control over the globe.

I cannot help wondering, in the wake of Stevens' murder by a mob in Benghazi --   where he had spent months working with the transitional council that served as the political wing of the forces fighting Muammar al-Qaddafi -- if I should understand his optimism about the U.S. role in Libya as a ghastly irony. (VN:  recruited, trained and funded by the CIA, Mossad and MI6.  We have just posted a slew of articles showing who is what and many of them were in Egypt and other rebellions started by the three intel agencies for Rothschild and the oil companies, and were recognized by some reporters as having spent many years in Virginia working for the CIA, foreign policy is an owned MSM rag, so keep that in mind.  Now you know why STevens was upset when McCain came with weapons, money, ammo etc to give to the rebels to create havoc and you can tell by the photo we posted, he was very mad/disturbed about our plans and I think that is why they killed him. McCain was laughing and happy as a little psychopath.)

How many times have I heard American diplomats talk about what the United States was doing or could do or should do, in Egypt and Pakistan and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world to improve its image? Americans are optimistic by nature, and so are American diplomats. I am, too: I incline toward hopefulness, though perhaps by now experience should have taught me otherwise. At the time, I wrote, "Libyans are generally well disposed towards the United States thanks to the Obama administration's role in the NATO bombing." 

From his very first day in office, when he gave an interview to Al-Arabiya and called Arab leaders, President Barack Obama has tried to make gestures, and shape policy, that would change the feelings of people in the Islamic world toward the United States. He delivered his celebrated speech in Cairo in June 2009 in the hopes that by offering a new posture based on "mutual interest and mutual respect" he could end the "cycle of suspicion and discord" governing U.S. relations with Arab publics. Obama's speech sparked a wave of euphoria -- and then, as it became clear that he had offered a new tone of voice but not a new policy on the Palestinian Territories, or on America's autocratic allies, a new wave of disappointment. A third of respondents in Muslim countries viewed Obama positively in 2009; now a quarter do.  (VN:  Well, I guess not all goyim are dumb, they were right to view us with suspicion since OBAMA DOES NOT RUN THIS COUNTRY.  He is the Wizard of Oz and the bankers and Israel are the man behind the curtain, while Obama is the front guy.  Bush Jr. was the same way!)

So much effort has gone into the campaign to pull the United States from the ditch into which it had sunk in the Middle East and the broader Islamic world. The late envoy Richard Holbrooke insisted that U.S. aid to flood-ravaged Pakistan carry the Stars and Stripes in order to ensure that Washington got the credit it deserved among Pakistani citizens. But billions in civilian and military assistance have had the opposite effect. Since 2009, the fraction of Pakistanis who view the United States as an enemy has risen from 64 to 74 percent.

President George W. Bush tried to win Arab publics through democracy promotion; Obama, through deference and respect. Bush made things far worse, but Obama didn't make them much better. Perhaps it's not their fault. Resentment of the United States -- of which the most toxic form is the rage which fuelled the crowds in Libya and Egypt, and before that in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- serves political and psychological purposes that make it very hard to uproot. Blaming the West, and above all the United States, allows leaders to distract attention from their own failings, ordinary citizens to live with their sense of humiliation, and Islamist and anti-Western parties and factions to burnish their "resistance" credentials. Of course, if  that's true, then nothing the United States does matters -- not even using force to help the Libyan people free themselves from their hated dictator, or sending an experienced and dedicated diplomat to prepare the rebels for the burden of governance. Libya is the test case for the belief that Washington can change the way it is seen in the Middle East by doing the right thing. (VN: See what I mean?  We were not using force, helping the Libya "PEOPLE" from their "hated" dictator.... we were using force to remove shia banking with no interest and currency backed by gold and replace it with Rothschilds fiat currency,  interest payments on debt and no gold backed anything..... we were forcing them to allow oil companies to take control of Libya's oil fields.  AND THE PEOPLE KNEW IT and that is why they were mad at us. I believe this ambassador was trying to sell Obama as different than others in the past with out telling the Libyan people the stronghold Israel had at the very top of our government.  I just told my congressman and senator that declaring loyalty to a foreign nation is treason, so make sure they did not sign that document.  I believe he acted surprised that I said that.   They are getting a real education about what htey are doing supporting Israel and I told them that American Jews are now turning against the zionists as well. He said he would pass that on. Everyone should call their congressmen and say the same thing.  Its definitely treason and American Jews are beginning to stand with the American people as shown in a New York paper, their demonstrating against radical Zionism.)

---

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.