2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

“Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."

How comes the UK has the same policy there and as far as I can no one whether they are left or right wing has considered anything other than a success (at least compared to Iraq or Afghanistan).

Nobody staged a coordinated, pre-planned assault with mortars and other military style weapons, invaded your embassy, killed embassy staff, and kidnapped and executed your Ambassador, then pretended it was a spontaneous protest over a stupid video, and apparently denied repeated requests to lend assistance to the folks being attacked despite said assistance being within range, and apparently affirmatively told folks that were in the area to "stand down" instead of going in and helping, and then dodged the questions as to what happened, choosing to put it off until after the election. That's probably why.

[Coito ergo sum]

Joe!!! http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... day/58559/

[Ian]

“Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."

How comes the UK has the same policy there and as far as I can no one whether they are left or right wing has considered anything other than a success (at least compared to Iraq or Afghanistan).

Nobody staged a coordinated, pre-planned assault with mortars and other military style weapons, invaded your embassy, killed embassy staff, and kidnapped and executed your Ambassador, then pretended it was a spontaneous protest over a stupid video, and apparently denied repeated requests to lend assistance to the folks being attacked despite said assistance being within range, and apparently affirmatively told folks that were in the area to "stand down" instead of going in and helping, and then dodged the questions as to what happened, choosing to put it off until after the election. That's probably why.

There are lots of points conservatives could bring up for the point of slapping Obama. But the Benghazi incident is particularly weasel-like. Don't think that's fair? Shove it. Some points are worth a well-articulated retort, but this is worth me telling you to shove it.

When the parents of the deceased are telling the Romney campaign to STFU and stop politicizing their dead sons, you STFU and stop politicizing their dead sons. And you stop claiming that the Obama administration must have known everything they needed to know right away and yet tried to obscure the truth until after the election (false), all the while your own candidate isn't even talking about his own plans for the US economy until after the election.

[MrJonno]

“Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."

How comes the UK has the same policy there and as far as I can no one whether they are left or right wing has considered anything other than a success (at least compared to Iraq or Afghanistan).

Nobody staged a coordinated, pre-planned assault with mortars and other military style weapons, invaded your embassy, killed embassy staff, and kidnapped and executed your Ambassador, then pretended it was a spontaneous protest over a stupid video, and apparently denied repeated requests to lend assistance to the folks being attacked despite said assistance being within range, and apparently affirmatively told folks that were in the area to "stand down" instead of going in and helping, and then dodged the questions as to what happened, choosing to put it off until after the election. That's probably why.

As a security for embassies its definitely an issue (through probably not as high as the executive in any country), its not a foreign policy one through. Should presidents be dealing with live security issues?, they should be the ones to decide whether to fight a war not how to fight it. A terrible crime took place but I just don't see how that has become politicised

[Coito ergo sum]

“Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."

How comes the UK has the same policy there and as far as I can no one whether they are left or right wing has considered anything other than a success (at least compared to Iraq or Afghanistan).

Nobody staged a coordinated, pre-planned assault with mortars and other military style weapons, invaded your embassy, killed embassy staff, and kidnapped and executed your Ambassador, then pretended it was a spontaneous protest over a stupid video, and apparently denied repeated requests to lend assistance to the folks being attacked despite said assistance being within range, and apparently affirmatively told folks that were in the area to "stand down" instead of going in and helping, and then dodged the questions as to what happened, choosing to put it off until after the election. That's probably why.

There are lots of points conservatives could bring up for the point of slapping Obama. But the Benghazi incident is particularly weasel-like. Don't think that's fair? Shove it. Some points are worth a well-articulated retort, but this is worth me telling you to shove it.

You don't think the criticism is fair? You shove it.

The first sign of an issue that actually IS worth something is when someone tries to tell you it is so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant the response that could so easily and quickly dispatch it.

When the parents of the deceased are telling the Romney campaign to STFU and stop politicizing their dead sons, you STFU and stop politicizing their dead sons. And you stop claiming that the Obama administration must have known everything they needed to know right away and yet tried to obscure the truth until after the election (false), all the while your own candidate isn't even talking about his own plans for the US economy until after the election.

Which parents of which deceased? Have you been following the story? http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/ed ... R6Hbp8SXzK and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... 39121.html

I'm not politicizing their dead sons. I am looking at the facts that have been released, and I am dissenting. You can shut the fuck up, if you like.

The Obama administration claims it got advice from the CIA which the CIA claims it never gave them.

And, they are trying to obscure the truth until after the election, which is why Obama wouldn't answer a simple question posed to him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxfwpheSE9A The question is very simple -- Obama didn't answer it. He dodged.

He and Clinton both blamed the video for the "spontaneous protest" that erupted in Benghazi, and they promised to prosecute the video maker.

Take note of what Charles Woods says he was told by Hillary Clinton: “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”

And, your nonsense about Romney not talking about his plans is bullshit. He talks about his plans in at least as much specificity as Obama talked about his plans in 2008, and with at least as much specificity as Obama is talking about his plans now.

This is just another example of you getting your panties in a bunch because somebody is saying something you don't like about your guy. You can't bear it. You don't want him asked questions, and you don't expect answers from him. You start with the basic assumption that everything he is doing is well-intentioned, and the best that can be done at the time, and your conclusions are drawn from that. You think he must have done the best he could with what he had at the time in Benghazi, and anyone questioning any of the details we know so far is "politicizing" it.

The CIA says they were denied requested help. This contradicts what the White House says. State Department officials have revealed that at the time -- at the time -- they knew it was not a spontaneous demonstration. Yet, we get Rice at the UN and several times announcing that it was, we have Clinton announcing they're going to prosecute the culprit who published the video.

You just don't want to know the truth: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... even-care/

On the eleventh anniversary of the original September 11th attacks, radical Islamists with confirmed ties to al Qaeda launched coordinated attacks on United States embassies and consulates in Libya.

Four Americans were murdered, including United States Ambassador Chris Stevens.
The Obama administration blamed the attacks on spontaneous outrage over a video that most people have never seen.
The Constitution and freedom of speech took a major hit when the filmmaker was arrested and held without bail on low-level white collar charges. The ACLU and other civil libertarians seem uninterested in finding out where he is or why an American citizen is being detained without bail. Regardless of the charge, this is about scapegoating someone, not getting to the truth.
In recent days the story of Benghazi has gotten much worse. Emails now prove that the Obama administration knew within two hours of the attacks who the perpetrators were and what was motivating them.
Video of the tragedy is available for all to see, but it is graphic.
As bad as this all seems, it is even worse. The firefight lasted seven hours. There was plenty of time to save Ambassador Stevens. The Obama administration simply refused to do so.
Two Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were at a safe location one mile away from where Ambassador Stevens and some thirty others were being attacked. Both Woods and Doherty reportedly were given orders to "stand down," to not try to rescue anybody.
These two heroes defied orders and rushed to help their fellow Americans. They saved some lives, but lost their own.

The parents of these two courageous men want to know who ordered them to stand down. Just as important, we now know that those at the Consulate begged for help themselves and were refused three times.
"I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same level of moral courage and heroism that my son displayed," Charles Woods, father of slain Navy Seal Tyrone Woods told Fox News.
"They (Obama administration) refused to pull the trigger," Woods said. "Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son."
The Obama administration claims that it is conducting an investigation that will not be concluded until after the presidential election. In the words of the Church Lady, "How convennnnnient."
The President has said, "Nobody wants to find out more than I do, but we want to be sure to get it right because I have made a committment ... to bring those folks to justice."
Reports from the administration are that the President, in the situation room, said people were to "do what they can" to insure the safety of "our people." The military response was far different than "do what you can." No jets where sent to disperse the attackers, and no boots were sent from Italy, less than an hour away. The first calls for help were at 9:40pm. The heroes maintained their position until 4:00am the next morning, when they were killed in the conflict.
The question remains: Did President Obama contradict himself by not backing up his words to do "what they can" with the military order to stand down? While Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were on the CIA annex rooftop, disobeying that "stand down" order so that they could try to save those inside the embassy, did the Obama Administration stand by with its collective hands behind its back?
The last thing in the world President Obama wants is for the truth to come out before the election. His entire foreign policy rationale comes from Osama bin Laden being dead and al Qaeda being on the run. We now know that al Qaeda is stronger than they have been in years. They murdered Americans on American soil and on Obama's watch, and he failed to prevent the attacks.
Yet the biggest tragedy besides the deaths themselves is the real reason why the entire truth over what went wrong has not come out.
A large number of liberal voters, and liberal media, don't care about the facts.
Let that sink in. There are dead Americans, and a plurality of the electorate does not care.
This is where some liberals hurl charges of bias and howl with righteous indignation at anyone who questions Obama's leadership. They criticize Governor Mitt Romney for pointing out that Obama failed to prevent the attacks and the deaths, instead continuing his re-election meme, "Al Qaeda is on the run".
There are liberal issues that truly get liberals angry. They will fight to the death for abortion, free contraception, and against global warming. Dead humans receive a shrug of the shoulders, while trees and bunny rabbits and the right to kill the unborn are where they draw their lines in the sand.
Obama and his liberal base pretend to care about three things: healthcare, education, and the environment. These are the words Obama repeats like a mantra. Everything else is a distraction for him. Every question about foreign policy results in his rambling that investing in education and hiring more teachers will solve the problem.
President Obama lied, Americans died, and the integrity of the American left died with them. Far too many liberals no longer pledge allegiance to America, instead offering their fealty to Obama. His reelection at any and all costs supersedes a few pawns that may, however unfortunately, get sacrificed along the way.
So what if Obama gets our bravest soldiers killed? He is pro-choice, favors gay marriage, and believes in the Chevy Volt. The liberal left does not care about dead Americans. They care about 270 electoral votes.
Prove me wrong. Lets have an overwhelmingly American, not liberal or conservative, demand for an investigation that concludes before the election. Be willing to risk losing an election if the truth shows President Obama to be less than what the American people want in a leader.
No sane person should care if some liberals are angry over being accused of putting party over country. The left has had six weeks to seek the truth, and they have done everything possible to demonize anybody demanding answers.
Let those liberals be angry for being accused of loving one overrated mediocre man over the remaining 300 million Americans who are the real bosses of this country. Conservatives are angry over four murdered Americans and a President who is more concerned with his own reelection then in telling the American people the truth about Benghazi.
There are four murdered Americans and we want to know who made the decision to not come to their aid and why.

[Coito ergo sum]

“Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."

How comes the UK has the same policy there and as far as I can no one whether they are left or right wing has considered anything other than a success (at least compared to Iraq or Afghanistan).

Nobody staged a coordinated, pre-planned assault with mortars and other military style weapons, invaded your embassy, killed embassy staff, and kidnapped and executed your Ambassador, then pretended it was a spontaneous protest over a stupid video, and apparently denied repeated requests to lend assistance to the folks being attacked despite said assistance being within range, and apparently affirmatively told folks that were in the area to "stand down" instead of going in and helping, and then dodged the questions as to what happened, choosing to put it off until after the election. That's probably why.

As a security for embassies its definitely an issue (through probably not as high as the executive in any country), its not a foreign policy one through. Should presidents be dealing with live security issues?, they should be the ones to decide whether to fight a war not how to fight it. A terrible crime took place but I just don't see how that has become politicised

Well, they deal with military assaults to American soil, including US Embassies. That's why Clinton dealt with the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

[Ian]

Shove it, spinmaster. You're full of shit and you know it.

[kiki5711]

.Mitt Romney Oct 31 2012, This is the real Mitt Romney. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... pFLBYsFvpY

[Ian]

But I do understand Coito's position - a desperate mindset. Republicans know Romney's not likely to win, so they've got to pin something bad to Obama. Anything. That Libya thing, that must be bad for him, right? Surely we can blame him for it, right? It looks like there was some two-bit conspiracy to obscure an obvious truth, right? People will see what an incompetent/apathetic/secretive/lying/no-good commander-in-chief he is, right? It'll stick and people will be outraged, right?

Fuck the entire GOP for politicizing it to the Nth degree. You know what John Kerry's campaign didn't do in 2004? They didn't spend their campaign's time and money constantly blaming the Bush administration for 9/11. That was left up to Michael Moore as a loudmouth kook on the left. Well, the loudmouth kooks on the right are the ones running the GOP these days.

[Coito ergo sum]

Shove it, spinmaster. You're full of shit and you know it.

Your head is so far up Obama's ass you couldn't view anything objectively if you tried. Your idea of objectivity is to "start with the assumption that everything Obama says is true, and we interpret all events in the light most favorable to Obama" and "we assume that all his intentions are good, and he acted the best way possible given what he knew at the time." Right? If he lied about something, he had a good reason for it.

And, he's just "too important," right? Can't let anything get in the way of the mission which is "so important."

If you didn't know, deep down, that there was something to this, you'd not be so angry about it right now. If it was so baseless and silly as you claim, you'd dispatch my posts substantively. But, you don't. Your response is "shut the fuck up -- you're full of shit." No, sir. You're full of shit. The facts are on my side. I posted them and linked to them. You prefer to say "all that is shit" -- go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and hear no evil. That's up to you.

But, fuck off with your "STFU" and "you're full of shit." This is real, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

[Ian]

Does it look like I'm ignoring it?

On most other issues I'd be happy to debate with more civility. When it comes to this, I'm telling you to STFU because you're full of shit, and shove it again. It's disgusting, and harping on it says more about you (not to mention Romney) than it does about Obama or anyone else involved.

Now... if these are my feelings on the subject vice others, do you suppose others across the country might have similar feelings about it? Something to ponder, perhaps.

tr1020heel.jpg (20.81 KiB) Viewed 932 times

[kiki5711]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... pFLBYsFvpY

check it out....what Mitt thinks about the second coming of Christ....guest on radio show

[Coito ergo sum]

But I do understand Coito's position - a desperate mindset. Republicans know Romney's not likely to win, so they've got to pin something bad to Obama. Anything. That Libya thing, that must be bad for him, right?

It can only be pinned on him because our Embassy was attacked in a concerted and pre-planned effort that they knew about in real time was a concerted and pre-planned effort. They knew it was not a spontaneous demonstration generated by a video. They knew that at the time. They lied afterward and blamed it on the video, and announced that at the UN, and in all public addresses for weeks. They claimed to have told the intelligence and military to do everything they could, but now we know that there were orders to "stand down" given to two of the dead men, who went in to help anyway. The father of one of the dead men reports that Hillary said that they would prosecute the bad guy, the one who produced the video. And, they did move to do just that. There is evidence also that help was available, and help was denied.

Surely we can blame him for it, right? It looks like there was some two-bit conspiracy to obscure an obvious truth, right? People will see what an incompetent/apathetic/secretive/lying/no-good commander-in-chief he is, right? It'll stick and people will be outraged, right?

See, that's where you come from on this. You assume in your mind that Obama is clearly competent, caring, transparent, truthtelling and very good. Therefore, if an incident occurs like Benghazi, your interpretations must always follow those basic assumptions. That's why you can't imagine this to be anything other than a smear campaign. Your guy can't even have fucked up, let alone affirmatively done something wrong. It's just not his nature.

Fuck the entire GOP for politicizing it to the Nth degree. You know what John Kerry's campaign didn't do in 2004? They didn't spend their campaign's time and money constantly blaming the Bush administration for 9/11. That was left up to Michael Moore as a loudmouth kook on the left. Well, the loudmouth kooks on the right are the ones running the GOP these days.

Fuck the entire Democratic Party for ignoring this, and never seeking to ask even basic questions of their own President. Fuck the White House press corps for not even complaining that this President hardly ever has a White House press conference, and instead does public relations on late night talk shows. When there is a press conference, the President chooses in advance which reporters are going to ask a question, to the point that hardly any of them raise their hands. And, clearly, if you ask a question he doesn't like, you may not get another question later.

Fuck the Democratic Party for not holding their guy to the standard of "most transparent President," and demanding answers when answers are easily forthcoming. I mean -- for fuck sake -- why do you think the fact that Univision's reporter actually asked Obama a probing question was itself front page news?!?? Why? Easy answer: because Obama never gets probing questions, and they were all amazed that the Spanish language channel would be anything other than fawning and ingratiating.

Nobody is blaming Obama for the fact that an attack occurred on 9/11/12 -- they're complaining about the bullshit and fucking utter bollocksed handling of the attack, by Obama's administration.

The rare reporter that does ask these questions, is dodged: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -for-help/ Months go by without press conferences -- http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/0 ... -question/ - no major outcry, of course. Why should the press need to ask questions?


Instead -- this is the treatment Obama usually gets:

Here are the first five questions that Hunter S. Thompson's literary executor asked a sitting president of the United States on behalf of the sixties' most famous living counterculture magazine:

Let's start with how the campaign has been going. Ever since the first debate, Romney has abruptly shifted his position on a whole host of issues, from his tax plan to financial regulation.

Many observers have commented on how Romney has misrepresented or even changed his positions in this last leg of the campaign – that he's been like a chameleon on plaid. Do you feel that he has lied to the American people?

Where were you when you first saw Romney's speech in Boca Raton about the 47 percent? What was your first reaction?

What has surprised you the most about the Republican campaign this year?

Do you have any fear that Roe v. Wade could be overturned if the Republicans win the presidency and appoint another Supreme Court justice?

A later question begins with the statement, "The auto bailout helped rescue states like Ohio from economic disaster." And though Brinkley didn't have time to get to all that droney, druggy, civil-liberties stuff that Rolling Stone readers would presumably be interested in, he did end on this important note:

Halloween's coming up. If you could have Mitt Romney dress in a costume, what should he be for Halloween?

I don't know a good answer to that, but I do have a costume suggestion for Douglas Brinkley and Rolling Stone: Next time, dress as a journalist.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/26/rolli ... -tradition

The real probing questions were asked by People magazine. http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 46,00.html - we can get to the bottom of Obama's policies on Jay-Z and Beyonce.

So, yeah -- it pisses me off that we can't get good answers from the White House. It pisses me off that we have such a feeble and sycophantic press that pussy-foots around this President as if he is some sort of anointed deity, not to be questioned unless one averts one's eyes, prostrates oneself and let's the President write the questions for him.

[Santa_Claus]

“Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."

How comes the UK has the same policy there and as far as I can no one whether they are left or right wing has considered anything other than a success (at least compared to Iraq or Afghanistan).

I really can't stand the current British government but Libya was one of the few things they did right

Actually I think that the US did very well in Libya. and that includes the Benghazi incident.


Whether that be by accident or design I don't know (probably a lot of both) - but certainly avoiding the easy option of bombing and sending in ground troops was the best option over the longterm to bring the locals onside to the West / US (how many locals in Iraq or Afghanistan held spontaneous demonstrations after US personnel were killed in support of the US?). Of course the US did play a pivotal (and essential?) role in Libya through the resupply and non-combat capabilities, as well as diplomatically.

My initial reaction to Benghazi was that it was very dumb of the US to have had such a lightly defended Embassy - but from what I have read of the Ambassador he does seem to have had the knowledge to have had input into the decision to not create a "Fortess USA" inside Libya for the same reason that it was not a long term good idea to carpet bomb the locals to peace and democracy.....My guess is that he knew there were risks to the strategy - but at the end of the day if the USA can get and keep Libya (locals as well as the Govt) onside with the west then that a small price to pay (sad as it is for the families concerned). Helluva lot cheaper than the other US "success" stories in Muslim countries.

Of course I am sure Romney (or Donald Trump?) will soon reveal that Obama personally executed the Ambassador .

[Coito ergo sum]

Does it look like I'm ignoring it?

Yes, because just saying "spinmeister" and "STFU" and bleating about how it's "politicizing" is not addressing the substance. It's dodging.

On most other issues I'd be happy to debate with more civility. When it comes to this, I'm telling you to STFU because you're full of shit, and shove it again.

Right back at you chief. You're full of shit, mainly from having your head rammed so far up Obama's ass you can see light when he's giving a speech.

It's disgusting, and harping on it says more about you (not to mention Romney) than it does about Obama or anyone else involved.

Bullshit, and fuck off with your childish little slurs. If anyone is disgusting, it's you, for being a snarky little sycophant.

Now... if these are my feelings on the subject vice others, do you suppose others across the country might have similar feelings about it? Something to ponder, perhaps.

Oh, I'm sure. The average Democrat thinks Obama's shit smells like roses. I wouldn't contest that there are people who wouldn't criticize Obama if he admitted that he personally gave a stand down order and personally decided not to send in available help. You and your ilk would find a way to justify it, no matter what. It happens on many, many issues. Doesn't matter what he does. You're for it.