http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/10/cover-...Left leaning and serious magazine. Laughing, I am sure at Clint Eastwood's talk to the chair speech. Seems reality has made that profound.Speaks for itself.Tinker
There has been an empty chair in the Oval Office for almost four years.
Looks like the Democrats are gonna flip the bird:http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/05/desperate-democrats-hid...That's what they must do when their policies have been such an unmitigated disaster.
There has been an empty chair in the Oval Office for almost four years.Bin Laden doesn't't think so.Neither does the health care industry.Neither does the auto industry.Neither, apparently, does the Right Wing lunatic fringe, which is apoplectic that he is in office, and tries everything from a phony campaign about his birth certificate to hoping the country fails to get him out.Empty chair? Only in Clint Eastwood's fantasies.
There has been an empty chair in the Oval Office for almost four years.Bin Laden doesn't't think so.Thanks to Bush program oh human intelligence and rendition!Neither does the health care industry.A huge mistake that will send us the way of Greece!Neither does the auto industry.Bush started that tooEmpty chair?Absolutely e deceptive for that on Namcy Pelosi and Harry Reid!Obama has been a disaster!
Obama has been a disaster! This constant stupid thing from Republicans is going to lose them the house.Dave
There has been an empty chair in the Oval Office for almost four years.Bin Laden doesn't't think so.Neither did the Ambassador to Benghazi and 3 other Americans.Perhaps they would have wanted a different administration but we can't ask them that question now can we.
Perhaps they would have wanted a different administration but we can't ask them that question now can we. any weird thing? any sick thing to say for Republican power? Why dont we have a Republican become dictator?Dave
Neither did the Ambassador to BenghaziNot to be petty Mr Duma, but there is not, nor has there ever been a "Ambassador to Benghazi".Perhaps what you meant is Ambassador to Libya?We wouldn't anyone one to think you didn't know what the heck you are talking about, now would we? :<)B
Not to be petty Mr Duma, but there is not, nor has there ever been a "Ambassador to Benghazi".Actually that was supposed to be Ambassador "in" Benghazi........Changes nothing.....he is still dead and the Obama administration didn't heed warnings on none other than the anniversary of 911, despite requests to beef up security, in an unsettled Arab country, mischaracterized it as a mob act, etc.Don't know how much more of a blunder this could have been.
Changes nothing....I agree, you continue to make accusations about things when you couldn't possibly have sufficient or credible enough information to support your position on. Based primarily,I can only assume, on your desire to blame the President.I wonder, as you toss about your accusations if it has ever occurred to you that in your rush to blame the "administration" you are in effect blaming the victim i.e. the Ambassador. Or for that matter how this might affect the families of the victims?They deserve the truth don't you agree? A more complete truth than what some ideologue might think he has uncovered by frequenting his favorite partisan internet site.Just saying,B
Bin Laden doesn't't think so. Bin Laden doesn't't think.
I wonder, as you toss about your accusations if it has ever occurred to you that in your rush to blame the "administration" you are in effect blaming the victim i.e. the Ambassador. Or for that matter how this might affect the families of the victims?What nonsense!! It is their name that this story needs to get out so that they are not as Obama said....."a bump in th road".They are much more than that to me and to most Americans......those who are Americans first.DO your own diligence B......there is information out their from credible sources and sources overseas.Obama did not handle this situation with the precautions even you would have taken.Just say'n.......
Don't know how much more of a blunder this could have been.The blunder is in ascribing the fault to Obama. There was a team in country that was supposed to be working to build anti-terrorism effects, a team that was there because of the administration. Why they hadn't accomplished much yet, I don't know and neither do you. It certainly wasn't because they got a call from the President saying, "be there, but don't do anything".
DO your own diligence B......there is information out their from credible sources and sources overseas.How is it Mr America First, if It is their name that this story needs to get out and you have information out their from credible sources and sources overseas that you would be so uncaring as to send me out and risk me not finding this valuable information?Sorry duma, so far at least, all I have seen is you have chosen to cherry pick a few items that suit the story you wish to believe, while simultaneously ignoring anything that might undermine your accusations.This may fit your definition of caring for the families, or the truth but it certainly doesn't fit mine.Just say'n.......Looks to be more like Just lie'n...B
Looks to be more like Just lie'n...BOne could accuse liberal for caring more about party than what happened at Benghazi......because that is the case.Had this been Bush......you and the media would have been relentless on pursuing the issue.But being Obama......all mum......hardly encouraging for seeking the "truth".......typical liberal jargon for your "convenient truth".So if I got your story correct:1) You think it was perfectly fine for Obama to accuse an unknown obscure third rate movie produced a year ago as the cause of the anti-American violence throughout the Muslim world.2) You believe that there was no request by the embassy personnel to beef up security3) You believe there was no warning from local Libyan forces that this region was increasingly unstable4) You believe there was no reason to increase security and take special precautions on the anniversary of 911.5) You believe that prior attacks on this very same embassy were irrelevant to the risk at that same location on 911 anniversary.If that is what you are saying, then yes we have your "inconvenient truth" moment.........pretty sad what has become our nation when party matters over country and American lives........just a "bump in the road" as Obama explained it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-we-gave...The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part.reported diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place. The alert was issued by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but not made publicA senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. "The situation is frightening, it scares us," he said he had stressed during the meeting. Mr Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-...The journal consists of just seven pages of handwriting in a hard-bound book. For CNN, the ambassador's writings served as tips about the situation in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular. CNN took the newsworthy tips and corroborated them with other sources. A source familiar with Stevens' thinking told CNN earlier this week that, in the months leading up to his death, the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/house-committee-security-requ...Leaders of a House committee said Tuesday that U.S. diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the consulate in Benghazi and were turned down by officials in Washington.In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz said their information came from "individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya." (AP Photo/Ibrahim Alaguri, File)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-evidence-of-warnings-befo...national security reporter Eli Lake, the American consulate in Benghazi was bombed twice prior to the deadly attacks on the consulate on September, 11. The bombing incidents, in which assailants attacked the embassy with explosive devices, occurred on April 2, 2012 and again on June 6, 2012. Furthermore, according to the testimony of whistleblowers that approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Islamist militants posted threats to the consulate on Facebook prior to the attacks. Militants claimed responsibility for a May 22 attack on a Red Cross facility and called that attack a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna” in a post on the online social network. Lake’s report details a number of security threats which Western diplomatic personnel have faced in Libya, including a May 1 carjacking in which a member of the American embassy’s security forces was “beaten and detained” by militant youth. He was eventually freed after Libyan forces engaged in a firefight with assailants to recover the captive. In another incident in June, an attacker fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy carrying a member of the British diplomatic staff.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/18/After-Friday-D...In her daily press briefing on Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland admitted that she provided false information Friday about the State Department's hiring of private security firms for the American mission in Benghazi attacked on September 11th:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/17/British-Firm-P...For this reason, according to the source, American Marines were not stationed at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli or the American mission in Benghazi, as would typically have been the case. In the spirit of a "low profile," the administration didn't even want an American company in charge of private security. Blue Mountain, the British firm the State Department hired, was willing to abide by the "no bullets" Rules of Engagement (ROE), so were a logical fit for the contract. These sub-standard protections for American diplomats were signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the ROE. In essence, the Obama Administration tasked an unarmed British firm with security responsibilities that should have been handled by armed American servicemen, and it was all approved by the Secretary of State. Needless to say, the plan failed and an Ambassador was murdered, along with several others. As of now, the State Department has not disclosed the full State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya.
Had this been Bush......you and the media would have been relentless on pursuing the issue.You are simply making crap up. I had a hell of a lot more reservations/questions when Bush decided to invade Iraq and I waited, hoping they knew what they were doing. It was only after much time and many more facts came out that I decided they had indeed screwed up.1) You think it was perfectly fine for Obama to accuse an unknown obscure third rate movie produced a year ago as the cause of the anti-American violence throughout the Muslim world.Obama needn't have said anything the protesters were making it quite clear why they were protesting.2) You believe that there was no request by the embassy personnel to beef up securityI honestly don't know and if there was I have know idea how the request was handled, who made any decisions or the basis for the decisions made. Do you? If so by all means provide it, but if you can't provide all of the answers to my questions, than this just proves to me you are intent on cherry picking data to fit the story you wish to spread. (I'm not even certain you actually believe it)3) You believe there was no warning from local Libyan forces that this region was increasingly unstableAnd if they did what does this prove if anything. Are you so incredibly naive as to honestly believe we needed the locals to inform us Libya is unstable?4) You believe there was no reason to increase security and take special precautions on the anniversary of 911.From what I understand they did and it is SOP to do this every year everywhere around the world. Was it enough in hindsight? No clearly it wasn't, but if that is your standard, than any incident that happens anywhere in the world should be laid at the feet of the President at the time it happens. 5) You believe that prior attacks on this very same embassy were irrelevant to the risk at that same location on 911 anniversary.I believe that Libya, as many other areas of the world are, is a dangerous place that decent honorable people are doing their very best to make safer. I believe for political purposes you are attempting to besmirch their character & competency with little regard for the truth.Look I'll say this once again. I want the truth to be known and I especially want the families of the victims to know the truth. The 4 families deserve a honest accounting of what happened and do not deserve to be subjected to people like you or anyone else, speculating about things that you are in no position to know the answers to, for purely political gain.It's contemptible behavior and you are engaged in it.End of story.B
It's contemptible behavior and you are engaged in it.End of story.What is contemptible is your willingness to let it be buried!Rather than demand the truth, you seem willing to accept the "bump in the road" on the way to the White House campaign.Furthermore, you have a fox guarding the hen house with Sec Clinton that may have signed the "low profile" policy at Benghazi with no weapons, no US military, etc. All in a clearly hostile, anti-American, unstable place on 911 anniversary.There was a time when our nation put country over politics........that is clearly not the case with Benghazi........sad indeed and contemptible behavior.I do not understand how you can choose to ignore the many reports of failure by this administration regardless of your party affiliation.So much for seeking the truth!!
The problem with your point form scenario, Duma, is that it has little relationship to reason or fact.* You focus now on Libya because someone died, but remember that there was unrest in many areas over that period, much of which was explicitly directed at the film. Therefore, it was, in fact, a reasonable thing initially to think that Libya was more of the same, just with worse consequences. With the benefit of some more time and information, it looks as if what happened in Libya was different, hut this was not necessarily obvious at first blush and it is classic monday morning quaterbacking to suggest that it should have been.* Efforts *were* being made at increased security and anti-terrorism investigations there well in advance. Obviously, it wasn't enough to prevent what happened, but based on the little we know at this point, it is clearly political claptrap to lay the blame at Obama's feet.* It is more monday morning quarterbacking to insist that something more could have been done. A few extra guards would have done nothing to block a *rocket* attack.I.e., your assault has more to do with politics than anything that anyone knows or that could be done that you know.
You know, Duma, as much as you would like all this info to be damning of Obama, it isn't. Perhaps, when all is known .... and we are far from that ... it will turn out that there was a communication breakdown or a lack of responsiveness or something ... we don't know that yet and won't for some time to come ... but, the idea, that somehow you can decide, before any facts are in, that this breakdown happened at the Whitehouse is pure political fantasy.
* It is more monday morning quarterbacking to insist that something more could have been done. A few extra guards would have done nothing to block a *rocket* attack.If you cannot see this in total for the complete failure it was, you are quite clearly the one playing politics......not me.Read each of the links........in the setting of 911 anniversary, previous Benghazi attacks, warnings from Libyan officials, deteriorating conditions with anti-American sentiment, no US military guards but rather unarmed British private group...............if you believe that the precautions that Obama took we're appropriate.............then we are in deep trouble!If this takes Monday morning quarterbacking to figure this out.........how much more obvious could it have been???? Maybe we need the terrorists to call CNN next time to lay out the exact plan and time of the attack.Very troublesome and complete failure on Obama's watch.
So much for seeking the truth!!Truth is a thing that one ferrets out over time by a balanced consideration of sources of information and the likely veracity and reliability of those sources of information. It is not something that one instantly obtains by citing a source with known and conspicuous bias or, even, by simply seizing on the stories one likes.Your pattern is not seeking for truth. You advertise any headline that you think advances your position. You avoid responding to any critique. You treat everyone else's sources of information as slanted and unreliable without, apparently, even bothering to read them while offering us opinion pieces, so labelled, as if they were scholarly presentations of fact.This is either self-delusion or deception.
complete failure on Obama's watch.You do realize that there are dozens, if not hundreds of layers between where any such requests would have been made and Obama personally?So, are you suggesting that Obama issued an executive order that said that the Libyan embassy should tough it out? Or that all embassies should not get help for any threats? What actually happened here? You don't know, but it isn't stopping you from finger pointing and that means it is political.
You treat everyone else's sources of information as slanted and unreliable without, apparently, even bothering to read them while offering us opinion pieces, so labelled, as if they were scholarly presentations of fact.You are personally attacking me with falsehoods that are not consistent with the FOOL' posting guidelines. Do you need to report your own posts now?I object to your harassment and mischaracterizations.You have but a few of many Benghazi links.......I am not the one playing politics with American lives or viewing them as bumps in the road.
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.B
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |