[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The Mistake is the lack of security, the issue is covering up your mistakes with lies in order to keep ahead in the polls.[/quote]
With one line, this.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
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).[/quote]
No, I think most reasonable people recognize that the administration made bad decisions re: security of the Libyan embassy (for whatever reason, we don’t exactly know yet), which are certainly fair game to criticize. But most importantly, I think the criticism is that the administration engaged in a cover-up of what really happened because of its proximity to an election and the obvious negative ramifications on the President’s foreign policy record.
For whatever reason - and I really don’t know - you have a difficult time criticizing this President, even when it is obvious he and his administration deserve to be criticized regardless of partisan angles. And, no, it’s not an answer every time to say “well, every president has done [bad act]” - such contextualizing doesn’t get to the truth of the matter.
I mean no offense by pointing that out - you’re a bright poster and I always enjoy your posts - but what gives?
Okay…
“Political Negligence” I can buy…in the U.S. stance that it can somehow have secure Embassies and Consulates that sit right in the middle of places that want nothing less than the complete annihilation of both the U.S. and Israel.
“Political Ass-Covering” and “Political Grandstanding” by ones opposition often go hand in hand, and are often in direct proportion to one another.
Mufasa
As I posted earlier, (by using President Bush as part of a greater narrative TB)…
I don’t tend to criticize PRESIDENT’S, not just this one, especially if it’s not (in the grand scheme of things) FUBAR.
This latest “incident” (IMO) I would classify as a terrible tragedy that NO one wished for…that has layered on top of it a lot of “Rightious Indignation” because of a very partisan and divisive Political Race.
I’ll be glad when it’s over.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay…
“Political Negligence” I can buy…in the U.S. stance that it can somehow have secure Embassies and Consulates that sit right in the middle of places that want nothing less than the complete annihilation of both the U.S. and Israel.
Mufasa[/quote]
That’s not the story here. You’re still treating this like a debate over security. Whatever security is reasonable, might have been the debate. Be it negligent, or a reasonable miscalculation. But now it’s not. The hint of scandal revolves around the Administration’s talking points.
I’ll ask you directly.
-
Are you aware that for days (4 or 5, I believe) the Administration went with talking points about a spontaneous mob reaction to a youtube video?
-
Are you aware that the mainstream media is reporting that our intelligence was sure, within 24 hours, that this was a terrorist assault.
-
That the State Departments has now said it NEVER concluded that this was the act of mob, during a protest gone wrong.
-
That were wasn’t even a protest.
Do you not see the gulf between what has come to light, and what the Administration’s talking points were? What possible excuse is there? How is that chasm bridged? This is no longer a partisan issue, if it ever was. Heck, it might have been, I’ve no problem saying that. If those talking points never made it to the UN, and on air to Americans. But they did. And they need to be reconciled BEFORE the election. Again, partisan time IS over. Answers need to start coming, because I sure as hell can’t imagine a legitimate explanation that doesn’t fatally damage this Administration.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
As I posted earlier, (by using President Bush as part of a greater narrative TB)…
I don’t tend to criticize PRESIDENT’S, not just this one, especially if it’s not (in the grand scheme of things) FUBAR.[/quote]
Why? The President works for you?
You don’t think there is anything wrong with the choices the administration has made in dealing with the attack? The attempt to claim a protest was occurring in response to an anti-Islamic film when we now know there was never a protest and we knew it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours of it happening?
No offense, Mufasa. I respect you, but there is some other explanation. You are well-studied in presidential politics - you are more than capable of recognizing that, setting aside Tea Party affiliation, birther arguments, etc., the way this tragic event has been handled deserves sharp criticism.
By the way, it appears that even though Sesame Street has requested that the campaign take the Big Bird ad down, they are not going to adhere to those wishes.
I don’t think I have ever seen anything quite this odd and dumb from a campaign.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By the way, it appears that even though Sesame Street has requested that the campaign take the Big Bird ad down, they are not going to adhere to those wishes.
I don’t think I have ever seen anything quite this odd and dumb from a campaign.[/quote]
This is no longer a Partisan issue, Sloth?
Are you saying that with a straight face?
Not to worry. As I write this, the “Non-Partisan” House Oversight Committee chaired by Darrell Issa is investigating the whole thing.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is no longer a Partisan issue, Sloth?
Are you saying that with a straight face?
Not to worry. As I write this, the “Non-Partisan” House Oversight Committee chaired by Darrell Issa is investigating the whole thing.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Mufasa. Do you have any comments about the Administration’s talking points vs. what the mainstream media, through multiple channels now, has brought to light?
We’ve been considerate enough to take the time to correct you on what the issue in question is. We were very deliberate and clear in doing so. We did it politely enough, in my estimation. But at some point you start feeling like that respect isn’t being returned in kind. It seems to me to be a bit rude to continue to dance around the issue. I took the time to remind you of the Administration’s talking points. Talking points used over a period of days. Then, compared them to what the mainstream media is now reporting. They, themselves, question the Administration’s use of the talking points in question. This isn’t Glenn Beck Radio, Mufasa.
Deliberately, patiently, and with respect, I (we) have made it clear what the issue actually is. Yet, you seem completely unconcerned. I mean, after zeroing it in for you, you still haven’t tackled it. Not even to discuss it in the most general of terms. You seem to care less if Obama ever even attempts to explain the gap. Don’t you think it deserves some kind of explanation? It burns for one. And again, it isn’t right-wing radio bringing this stuff up.
Same respect here, TB…
I’ve indicated on more that one occasion (and a couple of times personally) how you, Push, Zeb and a few others have added greatly to my Political awareness and maturation. We don’t always have to agree…and maybe a time or two I’ve been frustrated and swiped at you guys…but it’s NEVER been out of lack of respect.
To your question.
Criticism…yes…but millions spent on committees and investigations?..Public “weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth” by Political hacks and a media hungry for blood? Grandstanding by political operatives?
I’ll just have to go on record (perhaps blind and mis-informed) that the response seems so out of proportion to the offense.
Mufasa
If I’m the President of the United States, fighting to win re-election, and the mainstream media begins to call into question the talking points my administration used with regard to an event such as this, I’m holding a press conference before the first questionable story finishes airing. “Here’s where the oopsie came in, blah, blah. Our bad.” What the heck is going on?
(Sorry, Sloth…I posted my last response while you were posting yours…)
I don’t know what to say…
I’ll just have to go on record (perhaps blind and mis-informed) that in the Grand Scheme of problems that we face as a Country…the response to this seems so out of proportion to the offense.
Mufasa
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…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.
[/quote]
Obama promoted himself as a radical in his autobiography bragging about surrounding himself with Marxists. Obama was a leading figure in numerous radical organisations and was elected to the Illinois Senate on a split socialist Party/Dem ticket. You’re talking shit again.
How would you know? Instead of reading the news you consistently try to discredit the source.
Does that go for Obama too? He mentions “Uncle Frank” 22 times in Dreams from my Father.
I agree that Zeb is a good poster, but why are you trying to discredit other posters by dishonestly labelling them “conspiracy theorists?” Mufasa does the same thing by implying that I’m a birther and so on. Pretty weak.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(Sorry, Sloth…I posted my last response while you were posting yours…)
I don’t know what to say…
I’ll just have to go on record (perhaps blind and mis-informed) that in the Grand Scheme of problems that we face as a Country…the response to this seems so out of proportion to the offense.
Mufasa [/quote]
Mufasa, Americans, including an Ambassador, were killed by an AQ assault operation. There were talking points put out over the incident which, with what we know through mainstream reporting, don’t make any sense. And it’s happened as the end rapidly nears for an election cycle. It so happens that a spontaneous mob reaction would be a far less damaging story in that cycle, than an outright planned AQ attack.
There is no bigger story. The hint of can-kicking past the election is a tangible one. If it happened, as the information is now suggesting, this man has no business being the President of the US. You do not cover your ass on something like this. This isn’t a blue dress.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…I won’t do it to President Obama.
[/quote]
Ha ha…yeah…I know.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We’re not talking about a conspiracy to have Stevens killed. I don’t know where that comes from…
[/quote]
It comes straight from mufasa as an attempt at misdirection, obfuscation and labelling anyone who criticises “President Obama” as a nutjob.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…I won’t do it to President Obama.
[/quote]
Ha ha…yeah…I know.[/quote]
“…I didn’t do it to Bush (or Washington or Truman)…and I won’t do it to President Obama…”
(At least post the whole quote, SM…)
Did I call you a “birther”?
Are you?
Mufasa