Anyways anyone have a link to the fast and furious story?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Fast and the furious story?[/quote]
Holy shit, really?
Do you not know what is going on or are you riding the “blame bush” train?[/quote]
Your comments cut deep, I have truly taken them to heart.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to “cut deep”, I am just taken a back you aren’t aware of Fast & Furious…
You are a bright dude, so I am pretty surprised.
If this is any sort of representation of the electorate, I am scared for our country.
We’ve had/have stonewalling already. But now it seems that even the scope of Fast and Furious has been covered-up. It appears to have been considerably larger than the administration wanted us to believe. Hot-Air? Yep. But it’s pretty much lifting straight from the Univision story, which was then followed up by ABC. In fact, the Univision report is embedded on the page. Also too hot to leave on the back burner, now.
This should be, with the mentioned scandals in mind, the end of an Administration. If, there’s an ounce of sanity left in this nation. It’s time for Obama voters to stay home, and take another shot at it in 2016. Do the right thing.
It’s a story that isn’t going away, and for good reason.
“Jon Stewart Rips White House Over Benghazi Inconsistencies”
Snippet from Alana Goodman’s article, plus video.
“…The Jon Stewart demographic isn?t going to vote for Romney anyway (if they vote at all), but this does get the story out to an audience that might otherwise be unaware of it. The same goes for USA Today, which published a scathing editorial criticizing the Obama administration?s inconsistent narrative:…”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
This should be, with the mentioned scandals in mind, the end of an Administration. If, there’s an ounce of sanity left in this nation. It’s time for Obama voters to stay home, and take another shot at it in 2016. Do the right thing.[/quote]
smh23: this is what I meant by “obama’s response to this is unconscionable” comment in my original post on the subject. It looks like the information of advanced knowledge is true after all. This, in my opinion, would be enough to make me vote for the opposition candidate even if I was “OK” with Obama beforehand. Leaving an Ambassador, as your senior representative of the country of the US, out on a limb to be killed is inexcusable.
I don’t understand how Romney’s superPACs aren’t all OVER these scandals, inundating the TV with constant reminders of Obama effectively leaving his Ambassador to die. Perhaps they will be and are just putting together the attack ads as we speak.
I have to ask.
To what political end would a President want to leave an Ambassador open to harm?
In other words; what is the political “motive” of the President in the case of Stevens?
I’m just not getting it.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I have to ask.
To what political end would a President want to leave an Ambassador open to harm?
In other words; what is the political “motive” of the President in the case of Stevens?
I’m just not getting it.
Mufasa[/quote]
Obama obviously didn’t want to see the Ambassador harmed in any way for a variety of reasons. However, if you hadn’t noticed yet there is an incompetence that permeates this White House. It begins with a solid lack of understanding of foreign policy and who our enemies are and goes straight through to communications.
In short, Obama was not ready for this job and in addition to naivete, his far left leaning tendencies to coddle the Muslim world and berate Israel has brought us the above scenario.
Certainly if this story continues to have legs should matter to a great many people in the upcoming Presidential election. Even though Obama has a better smile than Romney…
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I have to ask.
To what political end would a President want to leave an Ambassador open to harm?
In other words; what is the political “motive” of the President in the case of Stevens?
I’m just not getting it.
Mufasa[/quote]
From what I understand: he wanted to rely on the home country for “security” in order to prevent America looking like the big bad bully.
At least that is what the dude on the radio said last week.
It’s probably from missing half the intelligence meetings.
[quote]Menthol wrote:
It’s a story that isn’t going away, and for good reason.
“Jon Stewart Rips White House Over Benghazi Inconsistencies”
Snippet from Alana Goodman’s article, plus video.
“…The Jon Stewart demographic isn?t going to vote for Romney anyway (if they vote at all), but this does get the story out to an audience that might otherwise be unaware of it. The same goes for USA Today, which published a scathing editorial criticizing the Obama administration?s inconsistent narrative:…”
[/quote]
Good for Stewart. I rip the guy (well more his views & their high opinion of themselves, he is a smart dude) so only fair I give him a hand for at least being honest about the situation, for the most part.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I have to ask.
To what political end would a President want to leave an Ambassador open to harm?
In other words; what is the political “motive” of the President in the case of Stevens?
I’m just not getting it.
Mufasa[/quote]
Obama obviously didn’t want to see the Ambassador harmed in any way for a variety of reasons. However, if you hadn’t noticed yet there is an incompetence that permeates this White House. It begins with a solid lack of understanding of foreign policy and who our enemies are and goes straight through to communications.
In short, Obama was not ready for this job and in addition to naivete, his far left leaning tendencies to coddle the Muslim world and berate Israel has brought us the above scenario.
Certainly if this story continues to have legs should matter to a great many people in the upcoming Presidential election. Even though Obama has a better smile than Romney…[/quote]
I hate it when I get the feeling the reasonable thing to do is agree with you. At least concerning the middle east. I wonder what Hillary is thinking through all this. And it took forever for Obama to finally defend free speech. At least he did eventually do it.
I’m still for increasing special forces and decreasing conventional ones. The last time we’ve had anything close to a conventional war might be the Korean war.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I have to ask.
To what political end would a President want to leave an Ambassador open to harm?
In other words; what is the political “motive” of the President in the case of Stevens?
I’m just not getting it.
Mufasa[/quote]
Obama obviously didn’t want to see the Ambassador harmed in any way for a variety of reasons. However, if you hadn’t noticed yet there is an incompetence that permeates this White House. It begins with a solid lack of understanding of foreign policy and who our enemies are and goes straight through to communications.
In short, Obama was not ready for this job and in addition to naivete, his far left leaning tendencies to coddle the Muslim world and berate Israel has brought us the above scenario.
Certainly if this story continues to have legs should matter to a great many people in the upcoming Presidential election. Even though Obama has a better smile than Romney…[/quote]
I hate it when I get the feeling the reasonable thing to do is agree with you. At least concerning the middle east. I wonder what Hillary is thinking through all this. And it took forever for Obama to finally defend free speech. At least he did eventually do it.
I’m still for increasing special forces and decreasing conventional ones. The last time we’ve had anything close to a conventional war might be the Korean war. [/quote]
Just breath deeply free up your mind and you’ll find yourself agreeing with me more often.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Menthol wrote:
It’s a story that isn’t going away, and for good reason.
“Jon Stewart Rips White House Over Benghazi Inconsistencies”
Snippet from Alana Goodman’s article, plus video.
“…The Jon Stewart demographic isn?t going to vote for Romney anyway (if they vote at all), but this does get the story out to an audience that might otherwise be unaware of it. The same goes for USA Today, which published a scathing editorial criticizing the Obama administration?s inconsistent narrative:…”
[/quote]
Good for Stewart. I rip the guy (well more his views & their high opinion of themselves, he is a smart dude) so only fair I give him a hand for at least being honest about the situation, for the most part.[/quote]
The problem is his zombie like followers will use this one isolated incident to portray him as even handed. And nothing…NOTHING could be further from the truth. He’s a left wing hack who continually shills for the democratic party, like so many other so called “comedians”.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Menthol wrote:
It’s a story that isn’t going away, and for good reason.
“Jon Stewart Rips White House Over Benghazi Inconsistencies”
Snippet from Alana Goodman’s article, plus video.
“…The Jon Stewart demographic isn?t going to vote for Romney anyway (if they vote at all), but this does get the story out to an audience that might otherwise be unaware of it. The same goes for USA Today, which published a scathing editorial criticizing the Obama administration?s inconsistent narrative:…”
[/quote]
Good for Stewart. I rip the guy (well more his views & their high opinion of themselves, he is a smart dude) so only fair I give him a hand for at least being honest about the situation, for the most part.[/quote]
The problem is his zombie like followers will use this one isolated incident to portray him as even handed. And nothing…NOTHING could be further from the truth. He’s a left wing hack who continually shills for the democratic party, like so many other so called “comedians”.[/quote]
He will rip on the Obama administration pretty hard at times. More than just this one instance. But he’ll almost always close with ‘look at how much worse Romney is’.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Menthol wrote:
It’s a story that isn’t going away, and for good reason.
“Jon Stewart Rips White House Over Benghazi Inconsistencies”
Snippet from Alana Goodman’s article, plus video.
“…The Jon Stewart demographic isn?t going to vote for Romney anyway (if they vote at all), but this does get the story out to an audience that might otherwise be unaware of it. The same goes for USA Today, which published a scathing editorial criticizing the Obama administration?s inconsistent narrative:…”
[/quote]
Good for Stewart. I rip the guy (well more his views & their high opinion of themselves, he is a smart dude) so only fair I give him a hand for at least being honest about the situation, for the most part.[/quote]
The problem is his zombie like followers will use this one isolated incident to portray him as even handed. And nothing…NOTHING could be further from the truth. He’s a left wing hack who continually shills for the democratic party, like so many other so called “comedians”.[/quote]
He will rip on the Obama administration pretty hard at times. More than just this one instance. But he’ll almost always close with ‘look at how much worse Romney is’. [/quote]
True. I wouldn’t argue that he’s unbiased, but he’s not so terribly unfair either.
He is funny though, in my opinion. And Colbert even more so.
I’m actually looking forward to the O’Rielly debate. Not that I think that it’s going to be some enlightening public service, but they are pretty damn good with each other. Always funny, slightly insulting, etc. And neither of them is a partisan automaton, though they certainly are both ideological.
^
x100000000 on the the debate.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but are not consulates and embassies considered U.S. soil?
A country attacked our embassy, killed our ambassador along with tow other people…and all the President can say is “that was an outrageous act”
What in the world have we come to.[/quote]
It’s okay. Offending Prophet Mo is the worst offense in the world according to the racist Liberals in this country.
I’m not sure the average Obama voter even cares much about foreign affairs. As long as their government check isn’t late they’ll still vote for Obama. Say what you want about the Romney 47% tape, but he’s right on the money!
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Will the death of 4 justify the death of 4000?[/quote]
I believe it passes the Just War doctrine.