U.S. Diplomats Killed in Libya

I guess that would be something akin to Obama saying that Egypt is not our ally, right? Or is that a sore subject for you.

 

Let me see if I can follow your thoughts. I answer your questions about why lying about the attacks on our embassy is important and you think that has something to do with Romney's election. Yep, great logic you have there.

 

Good luck with that, RLM. Even his followers can't follow his thoughts. Being behind him, the only thing they follow is his butt. Which, on second thought, may actually be where his thoughts emanate.

 

IMO, the previous administration's version of how these invasions would play out was more in line with what you prefer. They imagined a flawless invasion of Afghanistan where the enemy would be overwhelmed easily. They thought they would have been able to kill Bin Laden in a matter of days. They wanted to say to America and to the World, "It was nothin'", but nothing went as planned, of course, because the plan was idiotic. The Taliban were thought to be nothing more than an occasional nuisance, something our armies would crush in weeks. Another of their idiotic ideas. Iraq was an epic disaster of a decision.

Invading a country is relatively easy, controlling it's citizens is impossible. The previous administration invaded both countries, thinking it would be a fast and glorious victory for America. They were idiots, yes? I agree we could pull out now, and we are...just at a slower pace than either of us would prefer.

I am relatively happy with how we are pulling out of these countries, but I am still angry that America, punch-drunk with patriotism after 9-11, allowed those idiots to invade in the first place.

 

I wonder what Teddy's silence on this thread is indicating. Maybe Carney's admission that the administration had been lying hit home? Nah! Maybe he actually found BO's promising a new era, but I doubt that also. He would not have bothered to look that hard for proof that he was lying. (BTW, look at FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON A NEW BEGINNING). I am guessing that he just ran out of lies for the moment.

 

Hey, Little Joe! How do you feel about this type of "art"?

WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork​

Religious groups are blasting President Obama for not condemning am anti-Christian art display set to appear in New York City and one Republican lawmaker said he is “fed up with the administration’s double standard and religious hypocrisy.​

“Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” will be displayed at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan on Thursday. The artwork features a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine.”​

The artwork debuted in 1989 and was funded through prize money provided by the National Endowment for the Arts. The art gallery hosting the retrospective salute to Andres Serrano is privately owned.​

Religious groups and some lawmakers have already started sounding off – and making comparisons to the controversy over a recent anti-Muslim film. The low budget movie “Innocence of Muslims” sparked violent and deadly clashes across the globe.​

View attachment 604 ​

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...-demands-to-denounce-piss-christ-artwork.html​

 

What I prefer is that we do not invade other countries that have not attacked us (Bush), that we do not occupy other countries after we have defeated them (Bush and Obama), that we do not use our military forces to try to overthrow leaders in other countries (Bush and Obama) and that we do not try use our military forces to 'bring democracy' to other countries (Bush and Obama).

In other words, I do not like what either administration has done in regards to military actions in other sovereign nations and I refuse to be an apologist for either one.

 

No disrespect intended. I know you'd prefer no War (a "given" for most people, I would think), and Jr. thought it would be a quick in and out affair...or as Bubba calls it, "Why do you have on so many clothes?"-day.

 

I disagree. I think that most people no longer care much about war as long as there aren't too many US dead bodies in the news and it doesn't affect them personally. Otherwise, the 2 longest wars in US history probably would not be the 2 most recent...Iraq and Afghanistan...with Afghanistan still going on.

Both parties have pretty much made a constant state of war the new normal. Even liberals are now ok with it as long as their guy is the one waging it.

 

People in general want peace, but it's their governments that engage in it. After 9-11, Americans raged, and War was more acceptable. After a hangover of a recession, America wonders why it's still involved in such messy occupations.

Maybe America should get a pregnancy test.

 

Well one of the militant groups who are though to be responsible for killing the American diplomats in Benghazi has been cleared out by ordinery Libyans who have decided enough was enough

http://www.channel4.com/news/libyan-protesters-force-islamist-militia-out-of-benghazi

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/mid...disbands-islamist-militias-live?newsfeed=true

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=798035

 

Why can't it be both the result of the "movie" AND a terrorist attack? Maybe the terrorists took advantage of the unrest to launch a terrorist attack? Duh! If anyone shot from the hip it was Fox since they couldn't have known what the situation actually was. Obviously, the initial protests were as a result of the movie. You can't argue that they were not. Besides, terrorism is just how one side defines the other. Maybe the terrorists see themselves as freedom fighters? I don’t but we are simply dealing in labels anyway.

No one has yet been able to tell me why it really matters if this was a terrorist attack or not. I do think that it is fairly disgusting that the Right is trying to make political hay out of the deaths of these Americans especially since the film itself was created by Right-wing nutcases in the first place. You guys remind me of the arsonist that torches a building and then sticks around to criticize the way the firemen are putting out the blaze.

 

And why couldn't they have know? The facts were there. They could see them, but Obama could not. Next, the President of Libya announced it was preplanned terrorists, but Obama still could not admit it. It was blatantly obvious to everyone except the left. Carney actually stated that, but Obama (and you) kept insisting it was only the movie.

I will repeat, the terrorism is indicative of Obama's failed foreign policy and promises. See posts #134 and #145. You choose to ignore Obama's words, that is your prerogative.
You accuse the right of making "political hay out of the deaths" - by telling the truth? You have to be kidding. While the left continues lying through their teeth while the right is spreading the truth and you think it is the right making political hay! Get you head out of the sand and look at the daylight!!!

 

That is a good sign, IMO.

 

A General looking to enhance his retirement package would qualify as an "apologist". After the invasion of Iraq, many Generals (and other high ranking officers) went into the field for the proper amount of time for enhanced benefits, then retired. The military constantly pushes for War, for many reason besides that though. They want their soldiers in battle, again, for many reasons. If you are looking for War apologists, look no further than the higher ranks in your career choice.

 

I see. It was "Obvious" and "terrorism is indictative of Obama's failed foreign policy". Hum?

Backing away slowly.... Going..... Going.... Swoosh!

 

In the Martin/Zimmerman incident, their demand was for people to wait until the trial was over before discussing it. The incident in Libya is much more complicated, yet suddenly they think they know all the facts?

Note that I didn't say it was inappropriate to discuss the latest incident, unlike SOME people in the Martin/Zimmerman thread...

 

OK! Then you explain why he promised great relations with the Middle East and then started lying about the trouble that arose there.

BTW, "Obvious" was a quote from Jay Carney. Look up who he is. You might be surprised.

 

Discuss it all you want. No one here (at least no one on the Right) ever said it was inappropriate to discuss the Martin/Zimmerman case. I and a few others encouraged discussion and facts (and, yes, even opinions) to be presented. I think some of us asked you to get your facts straight before you repeated them as if they came from the hand of God himself. You and your ilk had such a mindset that any presentation of facts was met with a brick wall. Are all liberals that closed-minded (never mind, I already know the answer to that question)?

 

Of course generals want war. That is why we have civilians in charge of all the military branches and an elected President as the Commander in Chief. It is the high number of civilian apologists that base their feelings about war on which party is in charge that are a surprising change to me. You have to go all the way down to the powerless third parties to find anything different.