2012 Presidential Election Run-Up

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Edit:

This was supposed to be in response to Mufasa…

Do you have any comments about the 2007 Obama video, where he lies his ass off, in an act of total hypocrisy, in order to agitate by income and race, against Bush and his administration?

How about the completely nonsensical response by the administration concerning Benghazi? Is Obama too stupid to understand intel briefings? Is he that dangerously stupid? Or, was it likely political ass covering. Do you have ANY comments about a response that even CNN, CBS, and NBC are now tearing apart? A response that wasn’t informed by the State Department? Any comments?

How about Fast and Furious? Where Univision broke the story that the program was much larger than we had been ALLOWED to know? Anything there? [/quote]

My response is what it’s been for months…

Romney will win this election by a larger margin than people think.

Mufasa

282

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’m shocked at how bad Obama’s campaign is coming into the home stretch. Yeah, it’s like he’s still trying to win the last debate. So there he is, still talking about Big Bird, trying to score zingers in a debate already gone by, when everyone else is starting to wonder what the hell actually happened in Benghazi. Where, you know, people died and stuff. Seriously, who the heck is making the decisions at Obama HQ? [/quote]

It is baffling. I mean, I know left-wwing hipsters like smug, ironic humor and they think it wins political arguments (it doesn’t), but that aside, this is self-immolation and gives Romney a bucketload of talking points.

How easy is it for Romney to skewer over and over the lack of seriousness on the part of the President? No pressers in 16 days, despite the new information we have on Benghazi, and the death of an ambassador (and others)? And Obama wants to keep trying to trash-talk with the Big Bird bit?

Forget liberal or conservative - Obama’s actions from the debate forward show something bigger than basic political ideology: they show the incredible smallness of the man occupying the biggest seat in the world.

And as for his campaign - why haven’t there been mass firings?[/quote]

And apparently our instincts are right. Forget which side of the aisle we’re all on, as T-bolt says, it’s baffling. Unless these decisions actually came from me, obviously, I’d be shaking up my campaign staff.

Matt Lauer, NBC

283

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Edit:

This was supposed to be in response to Mufasa…

Do you have any comments about the 2007 Obama video, where he lies his ass off, in an act of total hypocrisy, in order to agitate by income and race, against Bush and his administration?

How about the completely nonsensical response by the administration concerning Benghazi? Is Obama too stupid to understand intel briefings? Is he that dangerously stupid? Or, was it likely political ass covering. Do you have ANY comments about a response that even CNN, CBS, and NBC are now tearing apart? A response that wasn’t informed by the State Department? Any comments?

How about Fast and Furious? Where Univision broke the story that the program was much larger than we had been ALLOWED to know? Anything there? [/quote]

My response is what it’s been for months…

Romney will win this election by a larger margin than people think.

Mufasa

[/quote]

Right, but I’m wondering about your feelings on these issues. They’re sort of huge, so I’m curious. In addition, how do you feel about Obama’s post-debate campaign?

284

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

My response is what it’s been for months…

Romney will win this election by a larger margin than people think.[/quote]

I understand your prediction (and the basis for it), but I’d be curious as to your own personal take on these issues.

285

Chris Matthews perplexed by the Big Bird air time.

edit: Bah, that didn’t work out. Just google it.

Seriously, what is going on with his campaign?

286

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Edit:

This was supposed to be in response to Mufasa…

Do you have any comments about the 2007 Obama video, where he lies his ass off, in an act of total hypocrisy, in order to agitate by income and race, against Bush and his administration?

How about the completely nonsensical response by the administration concerning Benghazi? Is Obama too stupid to understand intel briefings? Is he that dangerously stupid? Or, was it likely political ass covering. Do you have ANY comments about a response that even CNN, CBS, and NBC are now tearing apart? A response that wasn’t informed by the State Department? Any comments?

How about Fast and Furious? Where Univision broke the story that the program was much larger than we had been ALLOWED to know? Anything there? [/quote]

I’ll gladly respond.

I’ve never be overly critical of Presidents because of my clear understanding of what they actually do and do not have control over. And if they DO…their inability to often control outcomes.

My understanding of a President’s roles goes back to my youth and extends (adult wise) to Clinton; the Bush’s; and now President Obama; and dissertations that involved looking at Lincoln and Harry Truman.

Everything you listed, Sloth…even if you magnified it 100-fold; pales in comparison to the amount of “Blood and Treasure” we have lost in a) an ill-conceived War in Iraq and b) “missing the mark” in Afghanistan. That’s neither “left” nor “right”…it’s reality.

Yet I was not; and will not be someone who picks and over-analyzes each and every decision that President Bush made. He made good ones; he made piss-poor ones; he made informed decisions; he made stupid ones.

And so has every President from Washington to Obama…(and I guarantee that Romney will make them too).

The President is in the middle of a heated campaign where it appears huge miscalculations and stupid mistakes are not only being made, but are being exploited at every turn…

However; I will not be one who will translate the mistakes made, while holding the most difficult job in the World, into a negative critique of a President’s intelligence or Love for this Country.

I didn’t do it to Bush (or Washington or Truman)…and I won’t do it to President Obama.

Mufasa

288

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
into a negative critique of a President’s intelligence or Love for this Country.

[/quote]

These two really sum up any responce to this, and some general themes of the last couple pages:

I couldn’t said why I’m “anyone but obama” better.

edit: more v better

289

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

And so has every President from Washington to Obama…(and I guarantee that Romney will make them too).

The President is in the middle of a heated campaign where it appears huge miscalculations and stupid mistakes are not only being made, but are being exploited at every turn…

However; I will not be one who will translate the mistakes made, while holding the most difficult job in the World, into a negative critique of a President’s intelligence or Love for this Country.

I didn’t do it to Bush (or Washington or Truman)…and I won’t do it to President Obama.

Mufasa

[/quote]

To follow-up, you believe Obama mistook what had happened in Benghazi? From what mainstream media is now reporting, intelligence was convinced it was a terror attack within 24 hours. Further, just last night we find out that the State Dept. never informed the Administration that this was a mass protest over a video that went out of control. That there wasn’t even a protest at the consulate…So for days the Administration mistook all of this? I hope not, because you’re suggesting that the President of the United States is mentally retarded. I’m know, I know, how could I say that’s what you’re suggesting. But the story that was pushed for days, compared to what we know now…If it was a case of somehow mistaking the content of briefings that damn badly, somebody isn’t playing with a full deck.

Or, are you saying it was a mistake to try and cover his ass, hopefully through the election?

290

I’m just curious as to what you believe the nature of the mistake was. Complete inability to read, listen, and follow briefings. Or, ass covering. The only other option is that the State Department and intelligence community set him up, changing their story now as they talk to the press, in order to bring low Obama.

291

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Edit:

This was supposed to be in response to Mufasa…

Do you have any comments about the 2007 Obama video, where he lies his ass off, in an act of total hypocrisy, in order to agitate by income and race, against Bush and his administration?

How about the completely nonsensical response by the administration concerning Benghazi? Is Obama too stupid to understand intel briefings? Is he that dangerously stupid? Or, was it likely political ass covering. Do you have ANY comments about a response that even CNN, CBS, and NBC are now tearing apart? A response that wasn’t informed by the State Department? Any comments?

How about Fast and Furious? Where Univision broke the story that the program was much larger than we had been ALLOWED to know? Anything there? [/quote]

I’ll gladly respond.

I’ve never be overly critical of Presidents because of my clear understanding of what they actually do and do not have control over. And if they DO…their inability to often control outcomes.

My understanding of a President’s roles goes back to my youth and extends (adult wise) to Clinton; the Bush’s; and now President Obama; and dissertations that involved looking at Lincoln and Harry Truman.

Everything you listed, Sloth…even if you magnified it 100-fold; pales in comparison to the amount of “Blood and Treasure” we have lost in a) an ill-conceived War in Iraq and b) “missing the mark” in Afghanistan. That’s neither “left” nor “right”…it’s reality.

Yet I was not; and will not be someone who picks and over-analyzes each and every decision that President Bush made. He made good ones; he made piss-poor ones; he made informed decisions; he made stupid ones.

And so has every President from Washington to Obama…(and I guarantee that Romney will make them too).

The President is in the middle of a heated campaign where it appears huge miscalculations and stupid mistakes are not only being made, but are being exploited at every turn…

However; I will not be one who will translate the mistakes made, while holding the most difficult job in the World, into a negative critique of a President’s intelligence or Love for this Country.

I didn’t do it to Bush (or Washington or Truman)…and I won’t do it to President Obama.

Mufasa

[/quote]

It’s amazing how there is not one person on this site who can defend Obama without mentioning the words “George Bush.”

Here is the narrative:

“You want to know why Obama is a cool guy? Well I’ll tell you…GEORGE BUSH kills people!!”

That was very unexpected coming from you.

293

And I knew that kind of response was going to come from you, Zeb.

Bush was mentioned only within the context of a greater narrative on how I view and critique Presidents.

Mufasa

294

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m just curious as to what you believe the nature of the mistake was. Complete inability to read, listen, and follow briefings. Or, ass covering. The only other option is that the State Department and intelligence community set him up, changing their story now as they talk to the press, in order to bring low Obama.[/quote]

“The Mistake” is believing that we can somehow have “secure” Embassies and Consulates in what are amounting to Sectarian run “Mob-States”.

Mufasa

295

CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, Newsweek are all throwing a flag on this. They are all questioning WHY the administration continued to frame the event as it did, when they HAD TO HAVE known it was a terror attack. Do we really believe somebody forgot to inform the White House? I haven’t even seen them try to claim something like that. All I’m seeing are canceled pressers (as T-bolt pointed out). Silence.

296

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m just curious as to what you believe the nature of the mistake was. Complete inability to read, listen, and follow briefings. Or, ass covering. The only other option is that the State Department and intelligence community set him up, changing their story now as they talk to the press, in order to bring low Obama.[/quote]

“The Mistake” is believing that we can somehow have “secure” Embassies and Consulates in what are amounting to Sectarian run “Mob-States”.

Mufasa[/quote]

Sorry Mufasa. The story is mainstream now. And, you know very well what I’m questioning you on. And it’s not embassy/consulate security. Not providing sufficient security, that would be a miscalculation. A bad one, but a miscalculation. But, you know this isn’t what I’m getting at. You’re a smart guy.

What happened with the statements from the Administration. We know intelligence was looking at a terror attack within 24 hours. We know the State Dept. never pushed the protest scenario. I’m not asking about security. I’m asking about your thoughts on the Administration’s statements not reflecting reality for days.

297

Mufasa: while I believe that these guys are probably on to something re: Libya and that answers MUST be given and given in full by the administration, great posts regarding the critique of presidents and the usual “Obama is a radical” paranoia. People may draw as many past nefarious connections as they’d like, but the truth is that Obama has not been some sort of leftist radical leader in office, and the more someone whines about somebody who knew him in the '70s, the more I tend to picture them wearing tin-foil hats to block out the NWO’s telepathic signals.

Which is not to say he’s been a spectacular President. The kinds of critiques that Zeb habitually makes carry much more weight than those of the conspiracy theorists, in my opinion. That is, the numbers aren’t great at the moment and haven’t been for years (though, as you’ve alluded to, it may be a mistake to assume that these kinds of things are entirely or even substantially under the administration’s power to control). The anemic recovery is enough to pretty much guarantee that great reviews elude his first (and possibly only) term. But we have been in recovery, we’ve been adding jobs for quite some time now, we avoided what would very likely have been a depression by acting quickly on the auto industry (that Romney says he would have let GM and Chrysler fail is enough on its own to make me mildly happy that Obama and not he has been President for these 3 years).

And I think the Bush comparison is fair. They were both Presidents after all. People absolutely love flinging hyperbole about Obama as the worst President in modern history, etc. I can only imagine what they’d say if he had presided over the collapse rather than inherited it, or started a fatuous and aimless war/occupation of unmanageable economic–and unforgivable human–costs.

298

What is this; “PWI’s” form of Waterboarding or something?

This whole Forum (and the Media, now that they smell Chum in the water) has come to the conclusion that, what…the President wanted an Ambassador killed for Political Gain, and “knew” that this particular Consulate (among a few dozen in the Hell Hole of the Middle East) was going to be “the” one for such an act to occur?

And that this was the only Consulate continually asking for more and more security, therefore it should have taken priority over all others?

And that somehow, the Administration wanted to make itself “look good” by saying that the attack was FUELED by Anti-American sentiment? (Certainly there is none of that in the Middle East).

Again…“The Mistake” is a fundamental one…secure Embassies and Consulates in most of the Middle East are delusions at best.

Mufasa

299

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What is this; “PWI’s” form of Waterboarding or something?

This whole Forum (and the Media, now that they smell Chum in the water) has come to the conclusion that, what…the President wanted an Ambassador killed for Political Gain, and “knew” that this particular Consulate (among a few dozen in the Hell Hole of the Middle East) was going to be “the” one for such an act to occur?
Mufasa[/quote]

You have it completely backwards. Myself, the media, and millions of Americans do not suspect Obama set this Ambassador up to die for political gain. Honestly Mufasa, I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is the implication.

The ambassador dying was never going to be anything but politically damaging as time runs out on the board. Yes, questions would be asked about security. Not with some plot to get Stevens killed in mind. The questions would be about a reasonable miscalculation vs. a negligent miscalculation. Potentially damaging. Potentially not. But it would cast a shadow on Obama’s campaign.

The question isn’t if Obama set the ambassador up. None of the stories posted here suggest as much. What incumbent wants that just as he’s nearing the end of his campaign? And THAT is what begs the actual question. Did the Administration attempt to push the actual nature of the attack out past the election?

A spontaneous mob action that we simply couldn’t have predicted is a hell of a lot less of a hot potato than questions about security requests and denials. Less of a risk than an unforeseen pre-planned attack by AQ (or affiliate) that was supposed to be unraveling. Spontaneous and unpredictable mob action vs. pre-planned AQ attack during the term of a President trying to win re-election. And again, the story would’ve been a question of POSSIBLE negligence, not of a deliberate set-up.

So, the question is, did Obama take a risk to avoid the worse story, by cherry picking (if not outright misleading on) what he absolutely had to have been briefed on, in order to punt this past the elections? It’s not my fault, or the medias fault, that this question is now in play. Something doesn’t add up.

We’re not talking about a conspiracy to have Stevens killed. I don’t know where that comes from, as it makes zero sense. The smell of scandal revolves around what looks like political ass-covering.

300

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What is this; “PWI’s” form of Waterboarding or something?

This whole Forum (and the Media, now that they smell Chum in the water) has come to the conclusion that, what…the President wanted an Ambassador killed for Political Gain, and “knew” that this particular Consulate (among a few dozen in the Hell Hole of the Middle East) was going to be “the” one for such an act to occur?

And that this was the only Consulate continually asking for more and more security, therefore it should have taken priority over all others?

And that somehow, the Administration wanted to make itself “look good” by saying that the attack was FUELED by Anti-American sentiment? (Certainly there is none of that in the Middle East).

Again…“The Mistake” is a fundamental one…secure Embassies and Consulates in most of the Middle East are delusions at best.

Mufasa[/quote]

No. Just like Clinton. The issue isn’t as much what happened, as it is POTUS making up bullshit and lying while standing in front of the caskets. No one cares Bill got a BJ, they care he lied about it.

The Mistake is the lack of security, the issue is covering up your mistakes with lies in order to keep ahead in the polls.