[metaglypto]

That comment jars with your other comments, in that it's a liberal or 'anti-war' objection to Obama's policies. You usually come from the conservative or 'hawkish' standpoint (painting him as an appeaser or dove-ish lightweight). Which side of the argument do you actually stand on, or is any argument against Obama valid purely by being an argument against Obama?

When have I commented about Obama's policies his handling of anything going on in the Mideast? You must have me confused with someone else. When have I ever painted him as "an appeaser or dove-ish lightweight"? Or is it just the fact that I generally take a more conservative view of things that compels you to try and cast me in a role of your choosing? I have stated that he and his White House have really screwed this situation up, and they have. I include Obama in the "they" as if he didn't know what was going on at the time, then he sure as hell should have known. If he didn't know then he is still responsible as he should have known. I personally find it hard to believe that he wasn't watching the whole thing go down via drones.

Their attempt at duping the public still stands. "They" knew the truth before trying to paint the picture that it was a spontaneous attack perpetrated by demonstrators and rioters, and they continued with that line for a week before anyone said anything different.

As for my comment, while there is truth in it, it was meant tongue-in-cheek, and intended more as a cynical criticism of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, than a criticism of Obama. I find it hard to believe that there was a need to explain that. Fact is, if he had not fired ANY cruise missiles I would likely be far more critical of him. It would all depend on the reasoning though.

As for your suggestion that I am merely anti-Obama for the sake of being anti-Obama, that appears to be a knee jerk reaction on your part for someone criticizing him for any reason, including valid reasons. I certainly don't like a lot of things about him, I have heard him say some stupid things that I have commented on, but your suggestion that I am a Republican sycophant or simply an Obama basher seems to be seriously tainted by your own political biases.

[MRRiley]

Can't even spell "missile" correctly.

Regardless, most Nobel Peace Prize winners have no access to cruise missiles and of the 4 U.S. presidents who've won the prize, only Carter and Obama had/have access to them and we didn't shoot at ANYONE during Carter's administration.

I'm quite confident that Bush had far far more fired (supposedly 800 in just the 1st 48 hours of Gulf War 2... remember "Shock and Awe"?) in his first term of office, but I am unable to locate any firm numbers... but then no one in their right mind would give him a "peace" prize would they?

[normhead]

As for your suggestion that I am merely anti-Obama for the sake of being anti-Obama, that appears to be a knee jerk reaction on your part for someone criticizing him for any reason, including valid reasons.

Actually your Obama criticisms seem to be criticisms of Obama for the sake of criticizing Obama. I look at what you've posted and it sounds like the kind of smoke and mirrors people post when they have nothing. So instead of seeing this a a great condemnation of Obama, I see these weak, silly statements as proof Obama hasn't done much wrong. If he had, you'd be publishing it. You say they knew the truth.. you say so, no corroborative evidence, some one just made that up...on the other hand when you look at Bush and WMDs, we know they were wrong, their mistake cost trillions and we yet he's OK., and not a war criminal, even though he invaded foriegn country on the weakest of pretexts violating the basic principal of the sovereignty of nations that is the key to international law.

The fact that someone can make up a scenario where Obama might have done something wrong, doesn't mean he did. And if that's all you have....

[normhead]

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.


Read more: EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say | Fox News

they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied.

Who did they ask for military help? HOw can you even read such tripe when it's clearly speculation, not news..Obama? The military attaches at the white house? The local police department? This is just bad journalism. There are no credible sources quoted in the article. There is no source attributed to the whole article.... and the fact that the only CIA person quoted says it's inaccurate would lead one to believe they didn't get the story right.. The trouble with quoting Fox news, is they make no effort to differentiate between truth and fantasy. No one who has an ounce of credibility would cite a Fox New article as a source. Do I think Fox would make up stuff to discredit the President. Of course they would, and have lots of times... quote a news paper with higher journalistic standards. Once again, if Fox had something, they'd have a lot more than hearsay and innuendo. This is proof they have nothing.

[ihasa]

As for my comment, while there is truth in it, it was meant tongue-in-cheek, and intended more as a cynical criticism of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, than a criticism of Obama. I find it hard to believe that there was a need to explain that.

There can we find some common ground! No, you don't have to explain that, but fact is you are bringing that into a discussion about criticism of Obama - not the Nobel committee. Hence my suggestion that any criticism of Obama is fair game for some anti-Obama extremists - whether it reflects there own political viewpoint or not.

Fact is, if he had not fired ANY cruise missiles I would likely be far more critical of him.

Yep this is kind of what I was getting at.

[jeffkrol]

One only has to peruse the thread titles to see criticism after criticism of Mitt Romney, or other Republicans with barely a peep about Democrats. In the face of Benghazigate where four Americans, including the ambassador were killed, and the White House and Obama himself have obviously lied to cover up the details of what happened, why no criticism? Not a peep that I can find. This happened a month ago. Does every one agree with Obama that the death of an American ambassador, not to mention three other Americans, is nothing more than a "bump in the road"?

Maybe after thousands were killed due to an illegal war of aggression in Iraq.. 4 seem so mundane... (if one uses context as an argument)
It is clear that Obama does not view 4 deaths as a "bump in the road".. that is taking a bit of poetic liscense

Asking does everyone agree.. dumb statement..and trying to color a subject..

Not a peep......where have you been........

Implying that the pres. WANTED the 4 to die (for political or any other bizarre reason) is ridiculous though in all honesty I believe the Iraq war helped keep terrorism off our shores because it became much easier to kill Americans in their own "turf"...........Do I believe this was a conscious "plan" of the Bush admin??? Judge for yourself.

I look at Behngazi as at most an honest mistake.. Any "coverup" would be to avoid an overreaction by small minds........

Yes 4 dying is a tragedy.. Thousands die every day.. many by even more grotesque "tragedies".. One innocent life is not great than another.......as you seem to be assuming.. by raising these 4 above and beyond countless others.

When problems arise it is often not the problem but the fix that defines the leadership.'' like not going all "whoop ass" without a full assessment of a foggy situation..

If the safe room had o2 or adequate ventilation the ambassador may not have died.. Maybe you should blame the architects of the safe room..or is that not convenient...?

Then again we go down at path of what if ad infinitum..........

[GeneV]

The premise of this thread is basic propaganda--cynically make up a scandal from a tragedy, name it "gate" then criticize others for not buying the assertions. Every president has to make tough decisions that sometimes cost the lives of those who serve. They may or may not be able to fully explain the details of intelligence and diplomatic operations. We haven't had an administration without losses in the last 50 years, and maybe never before that. Rightly or wrongly, President Obama's administration may have made decisions which cost the lives of four. At the point of Reagan's re-election, you would multiply that by about a hundred, the same at the end of Bush I (mostly by accidents and friendly fire, BTW) and at the time of the last Presidential re-election, you would need to multiply that by thousands.

True liberals like Glenn Greenwald or Chris Hedges have in fact heaped condemnation on the President for foreign policy. From them, it is consistent. Moderate Democrats and independents are less upset by a record which compares well with other presidents.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 10-29-2012 at 07:47 AM.

[mikemike]

The most important criticism of Obama and the reason that he is going to lose is not one specific story but the millions of personal stories of struggle that gets further hampered by governmental incompetence which touch just about everyone in this country. I am 29 and am doing just fine for myself but many of my friends are barely getting by with jobs that are insufficient in compensation and/or security to allow them to start families. So I have two children and I am having find a new group of friends that have kids so that they can have friends and this group is generally about 5+ years older than us. There isn't the focal point needed to write a story or a thread, there are 9 million people who are officially unemployed, an equal number who are officially underemployed, a greater number who have given up looking for jobs, and a damn lot who are tacitly underemployed. But everyone knows, or should know why Obama needs to go so that these people will have a chance to succeed and live happily.

[jeffkrol]

How have I displayed narrow political parameters?

More like a narrow band of tolerance.. but fair enough please do define your "broad" political parameters..

But to me you do seem to have narrow political parameters .. and do not really care to define them..

i'll start.. Bush/Cheney are war criminals
Romney is a flip flopping out of touch rich white guy who's business experience actually disqualify him from being a president (US is NOT nor for the sake of citizens should EVER be run as such)

Obama is a centrist and too pragmatic for my taste..Romney (and most of the current rep. party) are just to much in favor of a plutocracy.and are selling snake oil to the masses (i.e tea party)

70% of our economy is based on consumer spending and neither "gets it" though Romny/Ryan policies will make it worse..

Prejudice plays into the current election.

Based on a reading or the Mormon "prophecies" and it's basic tenants I do not trust him.. and neither does one of his own.. Mr. Reid (which definitely transcends pure party affiliation and is therefore more "scarey"). Theocracy is NOT a founding principal of this country..

Gov. doesn't need to tax to spend, there is no bankruptcy, QE targeted the wrong segment of the problem.

Medicare/soc sec can never actually go broke... any more than can the military spending (5 trillion and not one cent paid for in over 10 years tells ME something)

Romneys "moral directive" is for the 30's not the 2030's..

The current trouble and polarization is due to the fact both parties are half wrong.. yet one must choose which is more likely to cause the least amount of pain

On foreign policy Romney exhibits the "ugly American syndrome" and is therefore unqualified for the most important part of a presidents job.

He was gov. of Mass. and they will not vote for him in the majority.. He was born in MI and most likely the same thing there.. Says something to me..

I could go on expanding my "narrow parameters" but I believe it is your turn.............

current silly idea......

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/mitt-romney-in-2011-we-c...relief/264206/

Mitt Romney said America shouldn't be in the business of providing federal disaster relief and that it would be better for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's functions to be handled by individual states or even the private sector.

Queried directly on the topic by CNN's John King during the June 13, 2011 Republican presidential primary debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, Romney said the federal government "cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids."

IF the Fed.. with it's money printing machine can't afford it HOW are states and priv. going to solve this? Charge per rescue.. Check credit histories before "helping" rely on the Mormon "storehouses"?.. THIS is INSANITY....in my narrow parameter of thinking.........

[kswier]

As I recall, Nixon was unaware of the break-ins until after they occurred, and it was only after he learned of what happened that he tried to gain from it and then cover it up. And it was the cover up and the lies after the fact that got him into so much trouble. Though I will admit my memory may not be serving me correctly here.

Ha, you are probably right (and I might need a history lesson). I still believe that there is a difference trying to cover up a illegal operation (Watergate) and a legal, but poor decision (where we are using hindsight).

It is also being reported that much of the intelligence was contemporary with the attack and that three different requests were made for military intervention, and nothing was done. It is conceivable (barely) that Barry knew nothing about the fresh intel, but that just leads me to believe that he was seriously out of touch.

I would be curious why the requests for military intervention were denied. Was it because it would have been detrimental to our relationship with the new Libyan government? Was it because of financial or resource issues? If military intervention was requested, I am sure that there was a reason for denying it (whether it was a good reason or not is a different question, and one that could be answered by a more open discussion of the events that occurred).

I agree that covering something like this up is never a good policy.

[kswier]

The most important criticism of Obama and the reason that he is going to lose is not one specific story but the millions of personal stories of struggle that gets further hampered by governmental incompetence which touch just about everyone in this country.

I suppose the question I would ask is whether it is realistic to expect the government to be able to fully recover from the worse financial crisis in a period of four years? Is the pain people are feeling the fault of Obama or the fault of previous presidents? If Romney was elected president four years ago, would we be in a better place? The answers to these questions will determine how everybody votes.

[metaglypto]

Who did they ask for military help? HOw can you even read such tripe when it's clearly speculation, not news..Obama? The military attaches at the white house? The local police department? This is just bad journalism. There are no credible sources quoted in the article. There is no source attributed to the whole article.... and the fact that the only CIA person quoted says it's inaccurate would lead one to believe they didn't get the story right.. The trouble with quoting Fox news, is they make no effort to differentiate between truth and fantasy. No one who has an ounce of credibility would cite a Fox New article as a source. Do I think Fox would make up stuff to discredit the President. Of course they would, and have lots of times... quote a news paper with higher journalistic standards. Once again, if Fox had something, they'd have a lot more than hearsay and innuendo. This is proof they have nothing.

"Who did they ask for military help?" As YOU quoted, from their headquarters.
"HOw can you even read such tripe when it's clearly speculation" Speculation? I guess that is why the White House is silent correct?
"There are no credible sources quoted in the article. " Leaks seldom quote the source, ever heard of Watergate? That source wasn't identified for decades.
"The trouble with quoting Fox news, is they make no effort to differentiate between truth and fantasy." Similar to the other American media outlets.

[cardinal43]

Obama has fired more Cruise missiles than all the other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined.

This is all you have? Seriously? And you wonder why people question what you say.

[MRRiley]

The most important criticism of Obama and the reason that he is going to lose is not one specific story but the millions of personal stories of struggle that gets further hampered by governmental incompetence which touch just about everyone in this country. I am 29 and am doing just fine for myself but many of my friends are barely getting by with jobs that are insufficient in compensation and/or security to allow them to start families. So I have two children and I am having find a new group of friends that have kids so that they can have friends and this group is generally about 5+ years older than us. There isn't the focal point needed to write a story or a thread, there are 9 million people who are officially unemployed, an equal number who are officially underemployed, a greater number who have given up looking for jobs, and a damn lot who are tacitly underemployed. But everyone knows, or should know why Obama needs to go so that these people will have a chance to succeed and live happily.

So basically, Obama hasn't cleaned up the mess that developed during the Bush years fast enough for you so you want to throw him out and put Bush-like policies back in place. Sounds like a recipe for success to me. <(sarcasm off)> We won't mention the fact that a hyper partisan congress has obstructed Obama at every possible turn and it is they who hold the purse strings, not the president.

[les3547]

Their attempt at duping the public still stands. "They" knew the truth before trying to paint the picture that it was a spontaneous attack perpetrated by demonstrators and rioters, and they continued with that line for a week before anyone said anything different.

You spend paragraphs trying to portray yourself as objective, and then you post the above which instantly destroys any possibility that informed people will take you seriously. Do you understand you are presenting doctored info and speculation as facts? That's why everybody is all over you, not because you are conservative. Like Gene said, "The premise of this thread is basic propaganda--make up a scandal, name it 'gate' then criticize others for not buying the assertions."