The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / New Paradigm Investing
|Subject: Re: New Yorker Magazine Cover Next Week||Date: 10/8/2012 6:45 AM|
|Author: rjf53||Number: 64112 of 76084|
read each of the links.......
I did read all the links and I also considered the sources, did you?
Let me start with the quality of your sources. Breitbart? Really ? A right wing website that’s entire existence is dedicated to furthering the Rightwing cause by waging a non-stop anti-Obama campaign. Am I exaggerating? Hardly, all one needs to do is peruse the entire website and whether your interest is Hollywood, Government or Journalism, all one finds are anti-Obama pieces. Admittedly, I don’t visit rags like this, but I’m certain that this simple fact which is easy to demonstrate today, would be equally applicable on any day one chose to visit since the day Obama was elected president.
Does this in itself prove any of the “facts” you cite are false. No, it doesn’t and I will readily concede that some ultimately may be proved to be based in fact. But our discussions have never involved the accuracy of any individual charges, but rather it has been a discussion of getting to the truth as opposed to the cherry picking of facts that you have been involved in to advance what you want to believe for political purposes.
On this subject we can indeed use your Breitbart source because we know precisely what you have chosen to cherry pick from the piece and also can see what you have chosen to overlook Just one small example…
The picture of who provided security inside the mission at Benghazi, how many were in this security team, and what arms, if any, they had in their posession is still unclear.
Oops, did you miss that one, or did you deliberately choose to ignore it? The whole piece is based on “sources close to Breitbart news” so tell me if you can, just how exactly do you determine the credibility of a statement if you don’t even know who the source is?
Sorry duma, but you have made it abundantly clear what your agenda is and it is clearly not a pursuit of the truth.
Personally I look forward to the congressional hearings that are sure to follow. While I know they too will be politicized, as virtually all hearings are, at least they will involve actual participants with real knowledge of events giving testimony under oath. I’m sure that doesn’t matter to you because you have already made up your mind but for those of us that care about the truth it just may help us get there.
Two other comments and then I’m going to ignore this thread because you have made it abundantly clear that nothing could cause you to alter your preconceived notions.
On private security…
On this like you, although likely for very different reasons, I have already made up my mind. It’s wrong, but not because it would have likely altered the outcome in this case, but because it goes to the heart of Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the military industrial complex. It is wrong in Libya just as it was in Iraq (although on a much larger scale) and it continues to be in Afghanistan.
This IMO is just another example of the disturbing trend in this country where we are turning “we the people” over to the corporations. It’s dangerous, it’s wrong and I am opposed to it. It completely undermines the concept of “we” paying a price to support our values and replaces it with corporations chasing profit in wars initiated by politicians, which are lobbied by and rely on contributions from the very corporations that profit from the wars in the first place. A virtuous circle if you will except for the part that it lacks any virtue.
Finally, on the question of whether the guards “had bullets in their guns”. Any question I may have had about your previous military status and or experiences with matters such as this have now been answered. While I am sure to you hearing something like this might indeed sound quite damning to you the simple fact is the practice is far from uncommon. Its intent is simply designed to prevent a situation that may involve crowd control for example to escalating into something much bigger from a rash or ill-advised decision by one or more individual guards. In isolation, it say’s nothing about the security plans ability to react or respond to a more serious threat. As an example from our history, although clearly this case in Libya is quite different, can you imagine how things may have turned out different if the decision to equip the National Guard at Kent State with live ammo might not been made?
It’s precisely because of events like Kent State that we need to have thorough investigations, determine if mistakes were made and then hopefully adjust allowing for better decisions going forward.
Unless of course you don’t care about such things, then a strategy like yours, of creating your own reality, makes perfect sense.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|