Althouse: "So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets."

September 16, 2012

"So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets."

"Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. No, no, a novelist would say; that's too pat, too neat in its symbolic contrast.... Too crude, too telling, too devastating."

332 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 332 of 332

Anonymous said...: David, you are mistaken. I care a great deal about the Embassy attacks and the attack on Camp Leatherneck and the truth of what was behind them. I don't however think that engaging in misinformation and lies helps the situation. Knee jerk accusations, with no real information or military intelligence behind them.; 9/16/12, 12:56 PM
Tarzan said...: Artfags^M^M^M students have been saying it for years:

NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR ART; 9/16/12, 12:58 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Paco Wové said...
Still waiting for an actual critique of Steyn, rather than your usual content-free invective.

My main issue regarding Steyn is his unnatural and obsessive detailing of every negative story he can find regarding Muslims. There's no shortage of negative news regarding Christians and Jews in the world, but Steyn never seems to notice. He has a deeply distorted one-track mind when it comes to viewing what goes on in the world. Literally every one of his posts on NRO relates in some way to Muslims, invariably negatively.

You could argue, he is a partisan, in this case an anti-muslim partisan. The question then is why is it acceptable for him to be such an obssessive anti-muslim partisan when it is so unacceptable for someone like Pat Buchanan to be a much milder anti-jewish partisan.

While I accept that it is legal for Steyn to attack Muslims as much as he wants, and would defend his right to do this, at the end of the day all of his rants contain just one piece of information, "I, Mark Steyn, really hate Muslims". There isn't a lot else going on there intellectually.

This, combined with the fact that he is a treasonous Canadian Nancy boy whom, everyone has now conceded, couldn't beat Allie Oop in a slap fight are my main issues.; 9/16/12, 12:59 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Won't be hearing that one again, methinks.

The government should be able to keep GM out of bankruptcy again until after the election. Should be quite interesting, with a majority of the company being owned by the unions and the Obama government, and the big thing that has to change for the company to actually survive, without more TARP money (oh, wait a minute, wasn't TARP supposed to just go to bail out banks, and not be an Obama Admin slush fund?) is reform of its union contracts and cutting down on its pension and benefits obligations.

The company desperately needs an honest bankruptcy, which it didn't get last time around, and is one of the reasons that it is still sliding down the tube, despite maybe $40 billion in our money to prop up union pensions, benefits, and wages. And, the President has promised to expand this to the rest of industry.; 9/16/12, 1:03 PM
garage mahal said...: I should think that someone of your supreme intellect could find a way

Ne desire to talk to someone who is comfortable with European racists and fascists, and who is also an open genocide denier.; 9/16/12, 1:04 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Quaestor said...
General Motors is alive and Bin Laden is dead bleat. Won't be hearing that one again, methinks.

Last time I checked Bin Laden was still dead.; 9/16/12, 1:06 PM
Darrell said...: and who is also an open genocide denier.

Not even the least bit true. Back it up with a link if you're talking about Steyn. And look up his aunt--the one from Latvia (Akmene) before you beclown yourself further.; 9/16/12, 1:08 PM
ken in tx said...: Reasonable guy, The negative things that Jews and Christians do are contrary to the normal teachings of their religions. Muslim violence is at the heart of Islam—the non-violent ones are not good Muslims.; 9/16/12, 1:09 PM
Quaestor said...: Allie Oop wrote:
Quaestor, think about what he was left with when he took office, if you're able that is.

Delicious. Allie Oop names her poison.

Lets' see...

National Debt as a percentage of GDP in fiscal 2001: 56.6%

National Debt as a percentage of GDP in fiscal 2008: 68.6%

Annual rate of increase under Bush: 1.2%

National Debt as a percentage of GDP in 2010: 93.4 %

Annual rate of increase under Obama: < 11.9%

S&P US Treasury Bond rating under Bush: AAAA

S&P US Treasure Bond rating under Obama: AA (Poland's rating is AAA)

Gallon of unleaded regular in 2008: $1.84

Gallon of unlead regular today: $3.86

Shall I go on?; 9/16/12, 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Quaestor, again you completely absolve Bush for any of the blame in setting up this disaster of an economy, so predictable.; 9/16/12, 1:26 PM
Quaestor said...: Quaestor, again you completely absolve Bush for any of the blame in setting up this disaster of an economy, so predictable.

No, you blame Bush for Obama's mistakes without concrete evidence to support your claim, which is your only defense.; 9/16/12, 1:30 PM
Quaestor said...: I call the debacle that is the Obama policy "his mistakes" in the humane assumption that the woeful state of the Republic is not desired result.; 9/16/12, 1:34 PM
garage mahal said...: Not even the least bit true. Back it up with a link if you're talking about Steyn.

Pam Geller. And very true.; 9/16/12, 1:36 PM
Alex said...: So now Allie is claiming we're all hysterical because Romney is definitely losing. Good to know Allie is the type that likes to rub it in!

Allie - what goes around comes around.; 9/16/12, 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: OK Alex, I take I back, you're all hysterical because you are hormonal. Better?; 9/16/12, 1:41 PM
Paco Wové said...: "Literally every one of his posts on NRO relates in some way to Muslims"

Nothing about Muslims here. That was the very first Steyn article that came up.

So, to recap, you and Garage are denouncing Steyn as a Bad Man, without addressing any of the points in his article. (Which isn't about Muslims at all, really - makes me think you haven't even read it).; 9/16/12, 1:42 PM
Alex said...: No Allie - my hormones are at perfect levels, but I wonder about yours. I mean you are post-menopausal after all...; 9/16/12, 1:43 PM
Michael K said...: Allie says:

" I don't however think that engaging in misinformation and lies helps the situation. Knee jerk accusations, with no real information or military intelligence behind them."

Just another lie to Allie.

Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif said he believes Al Qaeda is responsible for the deadly attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans and said roughly 50 people have arrested in connection with the violence, according to two broadcast interviews Sunday.
Megarif, president of the Libyan National Congress, also reportedly differed with the Obama administration’s position that the attacks Tuesday were sparked by an anti-Islamic video on the Internet.; 9/16/12, 1:44 PM
Cedarford said...: Tim said...
Barry Soetoro will have Steyn arrested, er, detained on suspicions of being an illegal alien.

Because if Americans don't have First Amendment rights, foreigners sure as hell don't.

-------------------
No Rights!! are absolute. I can't won a MANPAD, despite the right to keep and bear arms, even though it would be an excellent thing to have! Free Speech is bounded by things like sedition, inciting riot, shouting fire in a crowded theater, cuss words on airwaves, employer rules and what the police consider crossing over into public disturbance. In wartime, additional restrictions have existed that passed Constitutional muster.
Ability to search without a warrant from a lawyer political hack dressed in robes has around 59 exceptions...starting with the moment you step on US soil (unless you are an illegal covertly entering).

For me, for 45 years, we have had WAY TOO MUCH talk about Rights!! and far less talk and performance than we need to have about OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES that have to accompany those great free stuff Rights!!
You see it all around. Leftists screaming for rights for them and the Islamoids without a shred of believe they must happen concurrently with active promotion and sacrifice for the common defense, domestic tranquility and the blessings of liberty.
Bankers and financiers screaming they are owed Free Markets and Free Trade - while under no obligation personally to safeguard and well manage the capitalist and financial system they seek to get rich in.; 9/16/12, 1:45 PM
Paco Wové said...: "I don't however think that engaging in misinformation and lies helps the situation."

Ah, yes, the "shut up and let me spin in peace!" argument first advanced by phx a day or two ago.; 9/16/12, 1:46 PM
Quaestor said...: garage mahal wrote:
[Pam Geller] is also an open genocide denier.

Darrell demanded you provide the link supporting your claim. You've clarified your statement but not cited your evidence.

Googling "Pam Geller" and genocide I found this.

There may on may not be a genocide underway in SA, I don't know. But claiming the existence of genocide is hardly the same as being a genocide denier, at lest to sane persons.; 9/16/12, 1:46 PM
Sammy said...: I also but the blame on republicans , there the opposition party, if they all spoke with one voice, then the media can't pick a target it, freeeze it and attack it. ie Romney... Why didn't every republican come out and support him......., crickets?

John McCain war hero or not, did all these interviews and not one defense of Romney, when he knows exactly what the media is up to , because they did it to him, coward.

In interviews with a media apposed to Reoublicans they allow themselves to always be put on defense, the media makes them defend instead of attack ... Not saying they should alll be as aggressive as Newt but he doesn't let them set the narrative

Democrats are the same they push back the media, even from the soft ball questioning they get.

Unless Republicans change their media strategy , especally deal with all these coward republicans who want favorable media attention, so instead attack other republicans instead of the opposition party.

Democrats will become more and more dominate, because Americans are just hearing a twisted version of the truth.; 9/16/12, 1:50 PM
Darrell said...: Pam Geller. And very true

Then why didn't you make that clear since the discussion was about you debating Steyn and Gellar. Oh, I know why. And as for Pam Gellar, give me a link where she denies the Jewish Holocaust or genocide? You mean she is skeptical about the Serbian genocide? My, how intellectually dishonest of you, not saying that. Serbia is what everyone thinks whne one says genocide, isn't it? But that's par for the course with you, it seems.

Now how about that standardized test with Steyn, Coulter, or Pam Gellar or all three. Have you conceded that outcome?; 9/16/12, 1:50 PM
Alex said...: So what's really going on here? Liberals are feeling triumphant based on the Gallup poll and thus don't feel compelled to actually debate the issues?; 9/16/12, 1:51 PM
Michael K said...: I don't think garage wants to talk about South Africa or Zimbabwe because that's his model of success for the left in the USA.; 9/16/12, 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael, I am certain that Al Quaeda operatives get far more recruits by playing on their Muslim sensibilities and sympathies, "See how they disrespect our Prophet, the dogs, the infidels, kill them!"

No one thinks this was simply over a stupid movie, Al Queda waits for someone or puts someone up to inciting the Muslim masses, then they take advantage of the perceived slight to their Prophet, and recruit Muslims to attack Embassies, etc.; 9/16/12, 1:58 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: AllieOop said:
Knee jerk accusations, with no real information or military intelligence behind them.

Really? What access do you have to military intelligence?

What clearances do you currently hold?

SI/TK-G?

Or just S?; 9/16/12, 2:04 PM
Darrell said...: Allie Ooops! knows that Neville Chamberlain has the best strategy of dealing with Hitler and the Nazis. Don't upset those fellows!

You know what created less Nazis? Killing as many of them as possible and sending their leaders to Hell. Old school is still the best way.; 9/16/12, 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: None of us here do, that's my point, Cedarford.; 9/16/12, 2:04 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: AllieOop said:
I am certain that Al Quaeda operatives get far more recruits by playing on their Muslim sensibilities and sympathies, "See how they disrespect our Prophet, the dogs, the infidels, kill them!"

Not saying you are wrong, but what are your military intelligence sources for this opinion?

Weren't you just complaining about people giving opinions not based on military intelligence?; 9/16/12, 2:05 PM
JSF said...: Shiloh,

Answer this:

Do you support a POTUS, knowing a date that is marked worldwide as an attack on the US allows Embassies not to be protected, their Ambassadors murdered and meanwhile, POTUS is fundraising in Las Vegas while this occurs?

If you don't like the questions, maybe you should ask yourself why these are being asked.

Stand up and answer.; 9/16/12, 2:06 PM
Michael K said...: Allie, do you think it might be useful for the administration to acknowledge that fact ?

Instead we get this sort of thing.

Mark Steyn was "prosecuted" by a Canadian human rights commission than bans all negative mention of Islam. Makes it a crime and has prosecuted a minister for statements made from his pulpit.

If you don't want to watch that video clip, I'll summarize it for you. Thomas Perez, a Deputy DoJ official who has a troubling history, was asked if he would assert that the DoJ would never criminalize any speech about religion. He refused.; 9/16/12, 2:06 PM
Cedarford said...: AllieOop said...
If Romney were President, the world and it's Islamic fanatics will love us and wouldn't dare storm any Embassies. Nopes.

9/16/12 10:16 AM
Darrell said...
How many embassies were stormed when Bush was President?

=====================
Great comeback.
The Egyptian, Sudan, and Tunisian embassies were overrun by Islamoids. The Libyan Consulate gutted and burned. An Al-Qaeda attack on the Embassy in Yemen was mounted by stopped by Yemeni forces and US Marines.

Last time our enemies thought we were this weak, Jimmy Carter was President and the Iranian Embassy was overrun.

And on the Muslims - there are no shortage of people that would love to attack and pillage diplomats of countries they hate. Even in the US, there are extremists that would love to invade the UN, burn things, smash and steal laptops and other equipment. Sack the Turkish Embassy, the Cuban Delegation.
The Chinese have some that would love to rush the Japanese Embassy.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REST OF THE WORLD AND THE MUSLIMS IS THAT WE ALL WILL NOT PUT UP WITH THAT SORT OF SHIT FROM ROGUE CITIZENS!!!; 9/16/12, 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Darrell, you assume too much, what makes you think that I give Islamists a free pass? They are extremists and dangerous and deserve to be killed if they attack, use drones, use whatever's needed to eradicate them, defeat them.; 9/16/12, 2:09 PM
Darrell said...: Know why 9/11 Two-Eight were uneventful? Of course you don't. Obama let the fuckers rebuild.; 9/16/12, 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Nathan Alexander I am basing my comments on a reasonable assumption and hearing what experts with knowledge of Al Queada have said.; 9/16/12, 2:12 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Paco Wové said...
Nothing about Muslims here. That was the very first Steyn article that came up.

I will concede that he deviates, very rarely, into focusing on hating Obama (probably thinks he is a Muslim). I did mispeak however, I only read the Corner blog, not the main NRO magazine, and obviously not for Mark Steyn's input. Here are the first ten posts of Steyn of the Corner. Not a man with a lot on his mind other than Muslims.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/321066/hearts-and-minds-mark-steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/321063/re-if-only-mitt-would-stop-preventing-us-doing-our-jobs-sequel-mark-steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/321055/media-if-only-mitt-would-stop-preventing-us-doing-our-jobs-mark-steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/321050/lying-state-mark-steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/321038/sleeping-laughingstock-mark-steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/321077/libyan-president-contradicts-administration-benghazi-attack-eliana-johnson
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316778/riotwatch-update-un-islamic-mustache-sighted-mark-steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316714/re-no-no-no-no-mark-steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316655/re-free-speech-free-speech-free-speech-mark-steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316617/tweeting-giant-mark-steyn; 9/16/12, 2:13 PM
Alex said...: Allie - it's a fact that the abassador tweeted an apology for the Youtube video as the Islamoids were storming the embassy! That's what Romney was talking about. The worst thing to have done was kept silent about it. But you don't like it when anything embarrassing happens for your St. Obama.; 9/16/12, 2:14 PM
Quaestor said...: Allie Oop wrote:
[Use] whatever's needed to eradicate them, defeat them.

Up to an including invading Iraq?; 9/16/12, 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Quaestor, there were no Al Queda in Iraq, UNTIL and after we invaded. You should know that.; 9/16/12, 2:16 PM
Alex said...: AReasonableMan - you are anything but reasonable to rush to the defense of Islamoids. Personally I'm glad we have a dedicate trooper like Steyn keeping the light of truth shined on them 24/7.; 9/16/12, 2:17 PM
Alex said...: AReasonableMan - you are anything but reasonable to rush to the defense of Islamoids. Personally I'm glad we have a dedicate trooper like Steyn keeping the light of truth shined on them 24/7.; 9/16/12, 2:17 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Quaestor, think about what he was left with when he took office, if you're able that is.

Think about the progressive policies from 2007-2008 that Obama voted for in the Senate that created the the situation he campaigned on being able to fix.

If you're able, that is.

1) Conservative policies didn't cause the collapse. Democrats (Dodd and Frank) blocked the GOP from fixing the housing bubble.

2) Obama voted for those policies. He had a significant hand in the mess he "inherited".

3) The President has a binary choice: sign the bills given him by Congress, or veto. Democrats won the election. It is kind of silly to blame Bush for letting Democrats enact the agenda they wanted.

4) Obama campaigned on being able to fix the problem. If he was unable to understand how bad the problem is, why do you want to re-elect someone who can't see how bad a problem is? Or if he correctly analyzed the problem but knew he couldn't fix it, he was lying in his campaign claims to be able to fix it...in which case, why support a liar?

The Democrat slogan: re-elect us because it isn't our fault we were able screw up the economy by getting everything we wanted enacted from 2007 to 2010.; 9/16/12, 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Al Qaeda.; 9/16/12, 2:17 PM
Alex said...: Allie preferred the day when the Hussein brothers were feeding people feet first into industrial shredders. Those were the days...; 9/16/12, 2:18 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Quaestor, there were no Al Queda in Iraq, UNTIL and after we invaded. You should know that.

That is absolutely wrong.

Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded. For you to pretend someone "should know" a lie is truly reprehensible.; 9/16/12, 2:18 PM
Cedarford said...: Bin Laden dead, GM is alive!!!
=========
Bruce Hayden points out the stupidity of the 2nd taunt. GM stock is still sliding down..despite the money given and steering government contracts to buy the Volt and other GM white elephants and not Ford products..because Ford is "less needy".

The company desperately needs an honest bankruptcy, which it didn't get last time around, and is one of the reasons that it is still sliding down the tube, despite maybe $40 billion in our money to prop up union pensions, benefits, and wages.

As for the bin Laden taunt....Yes, Panetta finally got Obama to agree after the CIA team that Bush&Co formed found him, and one of the trigger-puller Spec Ops teams formed under Reagan-BushI-Clinton was sent in.
What the problem is, is the twerp has pulled a Tyrone Owens, catching a pass in the end zone after the Line held and gave the QB all day to get a pass in....then we see a Tyrone prance and dance back to the 50 yard line when he spikes the ball on the Dallas Cowboy helmet insignia.

A few plays later, Tyrone gets levelled and goes off, not to play again that day, ranting about the Cowboys blindsiding him with a "dirty hit".

Obama, a Moms-jean twerp and narcissist, just couldn't resist spiking the ball, again and again...having no idea the enemy wanted to take it to him and America at the 1st opportunity.
Probably a lot of shit will be found one day in those PDB security sessions he didn't bother attending...(or Hillary, for that matter).; 9/16/12, 2:20 PM
Alex said...: Allie preferred the days when Iraqi troops would throw Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. Those were the days!; 9/16/12, 2:22 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Nathan Alexander I am basing my comments on a reasonable assumption and hearing what experts with knowledge of Al Queada have said.

You are spreading misinformation and criticizing others for sharing proven facts by claiming their opinions lack access to military intelligence.

Implying your opinion has such access.

Really: you are entitled to your opinion, but you are basing your opinion and analysis on untruths.

And then implying you have some information others lack.

I know, I know: as soon as I provide you a link to something that disproves your statement, you'll bring up the "what really is truth?" epistemology questions.

I really dislike your arguing methods. They are dishonest.

Okay, now its time for you to fall back to your most basic self-defense method and call me a dick.; 9/16/12, 2:23 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Alex said...
AReasonableMan - you are anything but reasonable to rush to the defense of Islamoids. Personally I'm glad we have a dedicate trooper like Steyn keeping the light of truth shined on them 24/7.

Alex, more than happy to rush in and acknowledge Mark Steyn's unhealthy obsession with Muslims.; 9/16/12, 2:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Nathan, cite from a reliable source where your idea that Al Qaeda was in Iraq, BEFORE we invaded, came from.; 9/16/12, 2:27 PM
Quaestor said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/16/12, 2:27 PM
Alex said...: Allie's sense of metrics are just stoopid. Who cares about where Al Queada is in the Middle East? The whole point of the Iraq War was to funnel them in and kill them in large quantities which is what Booosh did.; 9/16/12, 2:29 PM
Alex said...: Alex, more than happy to rush in and acknowledge Mark Steyn's unhealthy obsession with Muslims.

An Unreasonable Man is more then happy to have an unhealthy obsession with defending Islamoids.; 9/16/12, 2:29 PM
Darrell said...: Why is it that anyone calling themselves "reasonable" is anything but?

The Muslims are in the news, haven't you heard? Steyn has plenty of other columns--like on Sandra Fluke and Julia. You should read them. Now tell us your impact issue---Seamus? Better go back to Talking Points or where ever and see what you think.; 9/16/12, 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Nathan, how you spin and dangle! I never implied that I had military intelligence others here did not have, and if you want, I can call you a dick, no problem.; 9/16/12, 2:31 PM
Alex said...: The Middle East is on fire, Islamoids are raging and burning down embassies, killing people. This of course should not be talked about, instead we should discuss Mittens.; 9/16/12, 2:35 PM
Quaestor said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/16/12, 2:35 PM
garage mahal said...: Allie preferred the days when Iraqi troops would throw Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. Those were the days!

You crack me dude. really. One of my favorite commenters here.; 9/16/12, 2:35 PM
bruce said...: president bongo is a commie traitor just like his mother and her pimp,frank"the diddler"davis.his grand parents were commie traitors who pimped their daughter to every turd world commie they ever met.bongo the pickle smoker came from a screwed up family of hate american losers.this ass hole will start a war in the middle east in which the ragheads will attack israel who will nuke the human savages.; 9/16/12, 2:37 PM
Quaestor said...: Why is it that anyone calling themselves "reasonable" is anything but?

They must call themselves reasonable because no one with a working brain would do it for them.; 9/16/12, 2:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Sheesh Garage, I don't find that comment funny! Well maybe just a little.; 9/16/12, 2:39 PM
Anonymous said...: BUT it's NOT true.; 9/16/12, 2:39 PM
Christopher said...: Given Allie's stated comfort with the persecution of people practicing speech she doesn't like, are you people really shocked that she would not be particularly fond of posts critical of her positions.; 9/16/12, 2:39 PM
Quaestor said...: Allie Oop wrote:
[There] were no Al Queda in Iraq, UNTIL and after we invaded.

It did get them out in the open where they were eliminated in huge batches, in accordance with the Field Marshal Oop's dictum: Use whatever's needed to eradicate them, defeat them. (Or was that "use whatever means thought up by a Democrat to eradicate them, defeat them"?); 9/16/12, 2:40 PM
Darrell said...: From the El-Ekhlaas terrorist forum--now shut down.

Below is a partial translation of Al Qaeda document written by “Saif Al Adel”.

" We started the work and the contact with the leadership, and we began to support and help the leadership again, and this was our goal after we left Afghanistan. We began establishing the fighter groups. On one hand to return to Afghanistan and conduct planned operations there, and on the other hand we began to study the situation of the groups and bothers to find new places for them. After long discussions, brother Abou Mussab with his Palestinian and Jordanian companions decided to go to Iraq because of their dialects they can quickly mix and assimilate in the Iraqi society. Our analysis was that the Americans were going to make the mistake sooner or later to invade Iraq, that this invasion will lead to the fall of the regime, and that we should play an important role in the confrontation and resistance, and that this is our historical chance to establish the Islamic State who will have the biggest role in removing injustice and establish justice in this world allah willing. I was in agreement with brother Abou Mussab regarding this analysis. There were no relation between Al Qaeda and Saddam regime that is worth mentioning, as opposite to what the Americans are saying so they can create excuse and legal justifications according to their laws that they imposed on the world that is enslaved by the West, the Israelis and the Anglo-Saxons.

The plan was to have our brothers enter Iraq from the North, where the road is not controlled y the regime, and then go down South to the Sunni areas where we have some of our brothers. Also the brothers in “Ansar Al Islam” showed their willingness to give us any help to achieve this goal.

The Americans noticed that the Iranians were having a blind eye against our activities in Iran so they began a media attack against Iran accusing them of helping Al Qaeda and international terrorism. The steps taken by the Iranians had confused us and had caused 75% of our plans to fail. Many of our comrades were arrested. 80% of Abou Musaab Al Zarqawi group members were arrested. There should be a quick plan to arrange the escape of Zarqawi and the remaining of his group, the destination was Iraq and the route was the Northern borders between Iraq and Iran. The goal was to reach the Sunni areas in central Iraq and the beginning of the preparation to confront the US invasion and defeat it allah willing. The choice was not arbitrary but a studied one.

When he said goodbye to me leaving for Iraq, Abou Musaab has added a new dimension to his personality. This new dimension focused on punishing the Americans for the crimes that they committed in their bombing of Afghanistan and that he witnessed in his own eyes, the hate and hostility that Abou Mussab had for the Americans guaranteed to form new traits to Abou Musaab personality."

But why trust the terorists?; 9/16/12, 2:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Christopher, oh I'm sorry I should be grateful that commenters here "correct" me, I'm so contrite, like a good little woman. I guess you dear Christipher love being "corrected".; 9/16/12, 2:43 PM
garage mahal said...: Sheesh Garage, I don't find that comment funny! Well maybe just a little.

Taken literally, no, it isn't funny. But that isn't Alex's MO. He doesn't take himself too seriously, which is a refreshing change from all the self righteous indignation around here.; 9/16/12, 2:45 PM
damikesc said...: Just the person we should be listening to regarding the conduct of our foreign policy.

Our current policy seems to be "Let's suppress Constitutional freedoms so barbarians might not totally hate us", so yes, we should listen to him.

Or anybody else.

Other than maligning the US as a flailing, blundering superpower he didn't seem to have a point.

The US IS a flailing, blundering country. We knew that something was planned for those specific embassies on 9/11.

We did nothing.

That's failure.

Stop the presses, Obama does fundraisers.

...instead of doing the core parts of his ACTUAL job.

The excessive role of money raising in US polititcs is an abomination that directly undermines democracy and the function of government. This being said it is hardly news.

And WHO was the first candidate to eschew public financing and zero limits on fundraising?

Hint: The guy who was skipped most of the security briefings during his administration.

Where was Romney and what was he talking about while Clinton and Obama were at Andrews Air Force Base, meeting the bodies of the murdered Embassy staff?

You mean why wasn't he there when he wasn't permitted to be there?

Under Romney, they wouldn't have been being buried.

That was OBAMA policy right there.

Bagoh, I've stated here a few times that I didn't trust Obama, he is far from perfect, I didn't even know IF I would vote for him again, but the crazy shit that commenters here have been saying the past few days is just over the top.

So, even though you don't trust him --- MESSAGE BOARD COMMENTERS ARE TURNING YOUR VOTE?

Honestly?

You really would do the world a service if you did not vote.

Foreign mulsims are also very patriotic. The limits of blind patriotism being all too evident in this case.

I love that clowns like you are convinced a movie none of them has watched caused this --- and not Obama's constant and quite public spiking of the football involving OBL had any role.

While this is going on the serious minded Romney is off doing cheese ball interviews with the press and improbably claiming to prefer Snooki, the fat dwarf-like drunken slut, to some other no-name celebrity.

One of the two answered questions involving the embassies.

Care to guess which one?

And some people can't understand why the Republican party underperforms with women voters.

The women who need the government to serve as sugar daddy do.; 9/16/12, 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: OK, Garage, I'll give little 'ol Alex credit for that.; 9/16/12, 2:47 PM
Christopher said...: It may not be pleasant, but when a person corrects me I try not to throw a hissy fit over it.; 9/16/12, 2:48 PM
Anonymous said...: That's good Christopher, who is throwing a hissy fit?; 9/16/12, 2:51 PM
Alex said...: garage giving me credit for something? Is the sky falling?; 9/16/12, 3:00 PM
Alex said...: Mobs dragging our ambassador through the streets while Obama yucking it up with Beyonce.

Nice contrast.; 9/16/12, 3:02 PM
Alex said...: Wonderful optics there Mr. President!; 9/16/12, 3:02 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: damikesc said...
Our current policy seems to be "Let's suppress Constitutional freedoms so barbarians might not totally hate us", so yes, we should listen to him.

Could you expand on this a little or is it just hysterical blather. Maybe you could provide a link to the white house policy document where they state, "from now on the Obama adminsitration will oppose all Constitutional freedoms so barbarians might not totally hate us". I missed that one.; 9/16/12, 3:08 PM
Christopher said...: You're the one freaking out about people having a different opinion than yourself.

I mean honestly, your hysterical (in the non-funny usage) postings lambasting people for defending the filmmaker's first amendment rights was truly a sight to be seen.; 9/16/12, 3:09 PM
Christopher said...: sorry, should be "were" not "was"; 9/16/12, 3:11 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: damikesc said...
The US IS a flailing, blundering country.

Another traitor.; 9/16/12, 3:12 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: damikesc said...
...instead of doing the core parts of his ACTUAL job.

A core part of his job is winning the next election, a task made much harder by the Citizen's United decision. But, maybe you opposed that decision and hoped to limit the influence of money in politics, allowing politicians to focus on doing their actual job.; 9/16/12, 3:16 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: damikesc said...
The women who need the government to serve as sugar daddy do.

More paternalism from the Republican faithful.; 9/16/12, 3:17 PM
Chef Mojo said...: I love that clowns like you are convinced a movie none of them has watched caused this --- and not Obama's constant and quite public spiking of the football involving OBL had any role.

You think that's bad? Wait until Oscar winner Katherine Bigelow releases Zero Dark Thirty! Unlike The Innocence of Muslims, the Obama administration won't have the fig leaf of not having had anything to do with the making of that movie!

So, when the Muzzies flip out over that movie, will it be ok to blame Obama for it? Or do the goalposts get yanked another mile downfield?; 9/16/12, 3:18 PM
Michael K said...: "Could you expand on this a little or is it just hysterical blather. Maybe you could provide a link to the white house policy document where they state, "from now on the Obama adminsitration will oppose all Constitutional freedoms so barbarians might not totally hate us". I missed that one."

I guess I posted that link on another thread.

Here it is again. In case you aren't patient enough to watch the clip, the DoJ asst AG Perez is refusing to agree that the DoJ will not sponsor or support making speech concerning any religion illegal.

That requires you trust these guys who sent the sheriffs after the video producer. I'm sure you do trust them but I don't.; 9/16/12, 3:29 PM
Paco Wové said...: "A core part of his job is winning the next election"

*facepalm*; 9/16/12, 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Christopher, no one is freaking out here, it's called discussion. Do you think that you might be engaging in an attempt to diminish my capacity here by trying to imply I am havin a " hissy fit" or "freaking out"' Christopher , you will have to do better than that. Heh.

You are too transparent Chrissy.; 9/16/12, 3:38 PM
damikesc said...: Could you expand on this a little or is it just hysterical blather. Maybe you could provide a link to the white house policy document where they state, "from now on the Obama adminsitration will oppose all Constitutional freedoms so barbarians might not totally hate us". I missed that one.

Well, siccing the state on him for his thoughtcrime is evidence of that.

As for a policy document, likely, one does not exist. The Holocaust also had no policy documents involving it, so apparently, it didn't happen.

A core part of his job is winning the next election, a task made much harder by the Citizen's United decision.

His job is BEING THE PRESIDENT, you moron. Did you fucking FORGET that?

THAT is his job. He IS the President. He has shit to do and he, instead, sacrifices staffers and diplomats so he can go raise money.

But, maybe you opposed that decision and hoped to limit the influence of money in politics, allowing politicians to focus on doing their actual job.

OBAMA opened the floodgates himself in 2008.

Now, you're using his actions to justify him failing as President because he "needs" to raise more money.

But, again, it's nice to see you CONSISTENTLY speak out against free speech.

Another traitor.

You finding me traitorous is a badge I'll wear proudly.; 9/16/12, 3:40 PM
Whippet said...: Ann,
A constant commentary on this site is from liberals who seem to get their jollies by thinking that the world needs to hear their perceived intellectual opinions. Of course this intellect is just that...a perception, as their ability to reason was stripped away long ago. With that said, why don't you simply block them all? After all, they don't seem to have any problem with taking away the speech of those who disagree with them, so why not show them what it's like? All the moderate or conservative blogs should do the same. Then they can just comment away in their on little echo chambers and we won't be subjected to their inanities. They will be left without the fulfillment of attemplting to stop others free speech and may learn the basics of what it means. Call it a tutorial on what free speech means for everyone...or they can wait until after the election...because if Obama is re-elected they will learn it quickly. Because after all, tyranny is tyranny regardless of opinion.; 9/16/12, 3:46 PM
damikesc said...: I shouldn't be too hard on ARM. He isn't the only one who thinks Obama's core job is to be President.

Obama doesn't think it is that either. A President wouldn't be sleeping when an ambassador is missing.; 9/16/12, 3:52 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: A core part of his job is winning the next election, a task made much harder by the Citizen's United decision. But, maybe you opposed that decision and hoped to limit the influence of money in politics, allowing politicians to focus on doing their actual job.

That's the problem, isn't it? He sees his job as winning reelection, so that he can continue to hob nob with his Hollywood fans, have a 747 for his private jet, live in the big house, and play golf every couple of days.

Many of the rest of us think that his primary duty should be to protect this country. After all, his oath of office differs from everyone else's - his oath is to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", which is usually taken to include protecting America.

What you see as his duty to get reelected, we see as extreme case of narcissism, putting his own needs above that of the country that he has sworn to protect.; 9/16/12, 3:55 PM
Michael K said...: " With that said, why don't you simply block them all? After all, they don't seem to have any problem with taking away the speech of those who disagree with them, so why not show them what it's like?"

Interesting comment. I can't tell if it is sarcasm. I used to read and comment on Washington Monthly's blog when Kevin Drum was the blogger. After 2004, they began to delete my comments. I asked Kevin, whose e-mail address I had and he replied he had no control. He then moved on to Mother Jones, which is currently pushing a false story about Romney owning a medical waste company that disposed of aborted fetuses. It isn't true about Romney so I guess there isn't much chance of my trying to comment there these days.

I haven't run across a right wing site that blocks lefties. Maybe there is one.; 9/16/12, 4:04 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Are you guys seriously trying to argue that winning elections is not a large part of the job of every politician? This is so incredibly naive that I doubt it is sincere.

Bush/Cheney/Rove weren't trying to win elections? Romney is not trying to win an election? Rather all these public spirited individuals are or were engaging in a public discourse solely for purposes of our enlightenment. What bullshit.

I generally don’t like politicians and think pretty much anyone of them will tell you anything to get elected. Why I, and pretty everyone else in the sentient world, put up with this is because we understand that a large part of their job is to get elected. They cannot advance their agenda, the agenda of their party and that of their supporters if not elected.

Given how badly Romney is performing, maybe you feel it’s unsporting for Obama to try too hard to get elected, but if I was a Democrat, I would be pissed if my guy wasn’t busting his butt to get reelected.; 9/16/12, 4:08 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael K said...
I haven't run across a right wing site that blocks lefties. Maybe there is one.

The corner blocks independents. In fact they seem to inhibit pretty much any timely debate.; 9/16/12, 4:11 PM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: Leftie sites ban people with opposing points of view all the time. They don't like their positions questioned in any way.; 9/16/12, 4:18 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Bruce Hayden said...
That's the problem, isn't it? He sees his job as winning reelection,

I really hate this kind of fake bullshit just for the sake of attempting to score a debate point. As if the hapless Bush and the sainted Reagan didn't have their reelection uppermost in their minds during much of their first terms. Nobody is dumb enough to believe this. Only some people are dumb enough to to advance it as an argument.; 9/16/12, 4:19 PM
damikesc said...: Are you guys seriously trying to argue that winning elections is not a large part of the job of every politician? This is so incredibly naive that I doubt it is sincere.

His JOB IS TO BE PRESIDENT. Are you fucking insane? He is the only President we have. It is HIS job alone.

I don't care if he's trying to win the job again. He has the job right now and is not doing it.

Bush/Cheney/Rove weren't trying to win elections?

Bush was President MORE than he was a candidate. He attended 90% of security briefings. He didn't have sycophants excusing him failing to do core parts of his job because his REAL main job is to raise money.

I generally don’t like politicians and think pretty much anyone of them will tell you anything to get elected. Why I, and pretty everyone else in the sentient world, put up with this is because we understand that a large part of their job is to get elected. They cannot advance their agenda, the agenda of their party and that of their supporters if not elected.

When a politician won't do their job, especially when it's a kinda important job like BEING THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, then he shouldn't be President.

I really hate this kind of fake bullshit just for the sake of attempting to score a debate point. As if the hapless Bush and the sainted Reagan didn't have their reelection uppermost in their minds during much of their first terms. Nobody is dumb enough to believe this. Only some people are dumb enough to to advance it as an argument.

Care to name the major Presidential functions that either man missed? Obama is missing plenty.

If he can't do the job now --- why the fuck should he be re-hired?; 9/16/12, 4:38 PM
Michael K said...: AReasonableMan said...
"Michael K said...
I haven't run across a right wing site that blocks lefties. Maybe there is one.

The corner blocks independents. In fact they seem to inhibit pretty much any timely debate."

The Corner is so screwed up that they have changed to Discus for comments. I am a subscriber and now any comments I make have to be approved before they are posted. I am still unaware of any that are blocked. I do know they have an inventive screen for obscenity. Or did.

I doubt that comments from "Independents" are blocked. You are not very Independent but even your comments are unlikely to be blocked. That's one example you quote.; 9/16/12, 4:49 PM
Michael K said...: "I really hate this kind of fake bullshit just for the sake of attempting to score a debate point. As if the hapless Bush and the sainted Reagan didn't have their reelection uppermost in their minds during much of their first terms."

I would agree that they were concerned about re-election the last 6 months of each term but this president does nothing else.; 9/16/12, 4:51 PM
gk1 said...: I am enjoying the house liberals discomfort after having the proverbial shoe on the other foot now that terrorist attacks are happening on their president's watch. All of a sudden "we can't rush to judgement" or "Politics should stop at the waters edge". What a joke. I doubt you will learn anything from it. Your tribe must be protected at all cost even as the country is swirling down the drain.; 9/16/12, 4:55 PM
shiloh said...: "we can't rush to judgement"

Again, after Cheney/Bush were embarrassingly caught w/their pants down on 9/11, Bush's Gallup job approval went to (((90%))) Sept. 2001.

So much for rushing to judgment ...; 9/16/12, 5:12 PM
Alex said...: shiloh is panicking. Everything looked to be sown up on 9/10/12. Then the ME exploded. Iran is threatening Israel with annihilation and there will be war in a matter of weeks. This is the worst-case scenario for Obama.; 9/16/12, 5:13 PM
shiloh said...: And IIRC Tweety aka C Matthews said thank god Bush had all these White House veterans ie Cheney/Rummy as his advisors after 9/11. bwahaha!

Tweety was also quite impressed when George "mission accomplished" Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln w/his flight suit on, May 1, 2003. Indeed, he almost got a tingling sensation in his leg!; 9/16/12, 5:18 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael K said...
I would agree that they were concerned about re-election the last 6 months of each term but this president does nothing else.

I think you are being unrealistically generous to the republicans and unfairly harsh on the democrat. No one has written a tell all book with quotes, sourced or unsourced, complaining about Obama's lack of intellectual curiosity or lack of engagement at the cabinet level, which happened to Bush and Reagan respectively. By all reasonable accounts, Obama seems to very involved in all cabinet level decisions.; 9/16/12, 5:28 PM
Michael K said...: I don't respond to trolls but I am curious how 9/11 was Bush's fault. Clinton could have killed bin Laden after the US embassies were bombed in Africa. The Sudanese even offered him to us.

Bush's appointments were held up by the Democrat Senate until the summer of 2001 because of their rage about Gore losing. Rumsfeld's Defense Department did not have a full staff until August. Bush made a mistake in keeping the CIA head as well as so many Clinton folks on DoJ but it was considered expedient because of the trouble getting people confirmed.

The State Department was derelict in passing out visas but, again, that predated Bush.

In retrospect, trying to civilize Afghanistan was a mistake but they were after bin Laden. The Pakistanis sold us out but they didn't realize that until too late.; 9/16/12, 5:28 PM
Michael K said...: "No one has written a tell all book with quotes, sourced or unsourced,"

Everybody knows Woodward's method of praising those who leak to him. I certainly hope you are not touting Morris' hack job.; 9/16/12, 5:30 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Alex said...
Iran is threatening Israel with annihilation and there will be war in a matter of weeks. This is the worst-case scenario for Obama.

Yeah sure it is. The American public are desperate to go to war again. Let's forget about our failing manufacturing base, let's have feel good moment and f**k over some muslim country. That really worked out for us the last two times.; 9/16/12, 5:31 PM
Phil 314 said...: Lighten up Paco. Your man Romney will probably win this in the end. This isn't the movies. The poor mixed race kid doesn't get to beat the patrician rich kid in the end.

Well as I said at the beginning of another thread:

RACIST!; 9/16/12, 5:32 PM
Alex said...: ARM thinks Republicans get hard-ons for war. We literally masturbate as we are watching the Fox News reporting bombing strikes! That's how he sees us.; 9/16/12, 5:34 PM
Phil 314 said...: To Garage Allie.

As someone who supported and voted for Bush, I would agree that using the phrase "crusade" and landing on thhe Navy carrier with the banner "Mission Accomplished" looked bad and wasn't smart.

Why is it so hard for you to suggest the same about President Obama's trip to Las Vegas?; 9/16/12, 5:35 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Phil 3:14 said...
Well as I said at the beginning of another thread:

RACIST!

Phil 3:14:L adding new meaning to the term non sequitur.; 9/16/12, 5:35 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael K said...
In retrospect, trying to civilize Afghanistan was a mistake but they were after bin Laden. The Pakistanis sold us out but they didn't realize that until too late.

A blame the Paki stategy. Come on, they totally f**ked up. The whole thing was an embarrassment. Obama is not great military leader, I would happily concede that, but at least he understood the mission goal. What the f**k were Bush and Cheney doing for seven years.; 9/16/12, 5:41 PM
damikesc said...: I think you are being unrealistically generous to the republicans and unfairly harsh on the democrat. No one has written a tell all book with quotes, sourced or unsourced, complaining about Obama's lack of intellectual curiosity or lack of engagement at the cabinet level, which happened to Bush and Reagan respectively. By all reasonable accounts, Obama seems to very involved in all cabinet level decisions.

Except he skips security briefings routinely --- and given that security was the problem, it's the relevant one.

The Resident has spent more time fund-raising than anybody else. Perhaps he shouldn't have stopped the tradition of accepting public financing to limit spending. Oh well.; 9/16/12, 6:29 PM
Michael K said...: AReasonableMan said...

"Michael K said...
In retrospect, trying to civilize Afghanistan was a mistake but they were after bin Laden. The Pakistanis sold us out but they didn't realize that until too late.

A blame the Paki stategy. Come on, they totally f**ked up. The whole thing was an embarrassment. Obama is not great military leader, I would happily concede that, but at least he understood the mission goal. What the f**k were Bush and Cheney doing for seven years."

Are you paying attention ? Why is that Paki doctor in prison ? Why was bin Laden living in Pakistan in a military city ?

Bush and Cheney happen to be the guys who found bin Laden after the Paks let him get away in Tora Bora and sheltered him for ten years. I don't know if you are one of those who need a fainting couch at the thought of water boarding KSM who sawed off the head of an American named Daniel Pearl and filmed it.

That's how they found him. It took a while and I suspect they were suspicious but the Paks had him hidden well. Besides, we need the Paks as long as we are in Afghanistan. I think we should get out and, if they so much as blink, flatten them. But that's just me. I'm not the president who prosecutes the CIA agents who figured out where OBL was.; 9/16/12, 7:45 PM
shiloh said...: This thread can be summed up in a few words:

This is great news for John McCain!

And re: being scared of Romney and other such nonsense, brings back fond memories of libs supposedly being scared of mama grizzly.

As with most everything here, lather/rinse/repeat ...

btw, at least palin had a pulse and personality, something Willard will never attain!; 9/16/12, 8:18 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Nathan, how you spin and dangle! I never implied that I had military intelligence others here did not have, and if you want, I can call you a dick, no problem.

You said that it was a problem that people were making statements and opinions on what happened that were not based on military intelligence.

But you are making statements on what happened!

That implies your statements are the only ones based on military intelligence.

Or were you just trying out a creative way of saying "shut up because I can't defend my opinion"?

In any case, if you had access to military intelligence, you wouldn't need me to provide you the evidence of pre-2003 connections between Iraq and terror, and Iraq and al Qaeda.; 9/16/12, 8:24 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Now, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but we didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11.

And we didn't invade Iraq to stop al Qaeda, either.

But al Qaeda was present.

And only a fool would try to say that Iraq wasn't a state sponsor of terrorism prior to 9/11.

The problem is when liberals try to say that al Qaeda is all there is of Islamic Terrorism.

...not by a longshot.; 9/16/12, 8:29 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael K said...
Bush and Cheney happen to be the guys who found bin Laden

This is nonsense. Bush/Cheney were long gone when bin Laden was found. At the time of the mission into Pakistan the Seals did not know for certain they would find bin Laden. Obviously they hoped but they were not certain.

Michael K said...
I'm not the president who prosecutes the CIA agents who figured out where OBL was.

This is also nonsense. Provide some support for this statement.; 9/16/12, 8:42 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Nathan Alexander said...
Now, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but we didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11.

And we didn't invade Iraq to stop al Qaeda, either.

Which raises and obvious question, why the f**k did we invade Iraq?; 9/16/12, 8:43 PM
Michael K said...: "This is nonsense. Bush/Cheney were long gone when bin Laden was found. At the time of the mission into Pakistan the Seals did not know for certain they would find bin Laden. Obviously they hoped but they were not certain."

OK. They found the links in the chain that led to OBL. Reagan won the Cold War but Bush was president when the USSR collapsed.

"'m not the president who prosecutes the CIA agents who figured out where OBL was.

This is also nonsense. Provide some support for this statement."

You mean other than Obama's statements and the fact that DoJ dropped the investigation last Friday quietly ?; 9/16/12, 8:51 PM
Michael K said...: Oh, OK.

DoJ announces task force to investigate CIA gents.

After months of consideration, Attorney General Eric Holder plans to appoint a special prosecutor to examine allegations that terror suspects were abused at the hands of their CIA interrogators.

That was the investigation that was dropped last week.; 9/16/12, 9:00 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: damikesc said...
Except he skips security briefings routinely --- and given that security was the problem, it's the relevant one.

You are confusing two levels of security. Hopefully, national security briefings focus on securing Pakistan nukes, the rise of China's naval force and the threat to global stability of an Israeli attack on Iran.

I am pretty sure that details regarding the security arrangements of an Ambassador are not a primary focus of these meetings. The Ambassador most likely was the person primarily responsible for organizing his own security. He took a risk, I suspect because he was idealistic. It is surprising to learn that there are still some risk-taking idealists left in the world. This was really a tragedy. He was, by all reports, a really good man trying to do the best for both his country and the Libyans. Libya seems to represent a real opportunity for an American ally in this region and it is important not to screw up this opportunity, which is why Romney struck such a jarring note with his comments.; 9/16/12, 9:16 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael K said...
That was the investigation that was dropped last week.

Conspicuously missing here is any evidence that the torturers provided any useful evidence that led to the capture of bin Laden. There has been endless discussion on this topic. At best, this is strongly disputed.; 9/16/12, 9:31 PM
JSF said...: Shiloh,

Let go of the your Past hate against Bus/Cheney/Rove and understand that Romney is not in the WH.

Guess who is and needs to be held accountable Shiloh?

President Obama.

You still haven't answered my question earlier.; 9/16/12, 10:02 PM
shiloh said...: JSF, your obsession w/hate where none exists notwithstanding, you'd be surprised how many cons I ignore at this blog.

Again, it's a real time saver ...

take care; 9/16/12, 10:45 PM
JSF said...: Shiloh,

Your obsession with those out of power is funny too.

The fact that you refuse to up with cogent arguments to defend Obama (from what you would attack the last Administration for) shows that you are indeed an Obamabot and a hypocrite.

I tried to engage you as a person. My mistake.

Ambassadors can die, Free speech could be squelched, but let's remember folks, Shiloh wants Obama to win!; 9/16/12, 11:24 PM
Known Unknown said...: I just realized that going to Vegas was an extremely shrewd move on Obama's part.

Vegas is Sin City. It's like a reverse Mecca.

Going to Vegas was a big F-U to the Islamic Fundamentalists.

Bravo Obama!; 9/16/12, 11:35 PM
Known Unknown said...: Which raises and obvious question, why the f**k did we invade Iraq?

Regime change was the stated policy of the United States of America prior to 2003.

The cease-fire agreement of the First Gulf War (not a treaty) was not upheld on Hussein's end, as were countless the ignorance of several UN resolutions.

Mix in firing at planes in no-fly zones and an assassination attempt and ...

You will argue that these are mere technicalities that should not engender warfare, but even so, they are actual, internationally legitimate reasons to re-engage an recalcitrant enemy.

Bush had every right to re-engage, his arguably lame attempts at WMD-panic considered.; 9/16/12, 11:40 PM
Known Unknown said...: how many cons I ignore at this blog.

Likewise, although I'm probably not much of a 'con.'; 9/16/12, 11:41 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: This is great news for John McCain!

What is interesting to me is that the same thing that may have ended up losing the Presidency for McCain is the thing that many of us are talking about here. McCain suspended his campaign and rushed back to Washington, D.C. to try to do a deal on the financial meltdown. Obama kept on campaigning, and the MSM painted him as being the more shrewd.

But, what we now know is that the reality is that he "leads" from the rear, and is narccistic enough that he sees being President as more important than doing very much of the job. When it comes down to making a decision of doing something good for the country, or good for Obama, he almost invariably seems to pick himself over the country. And, this failure to seriously engage in the negotiations about confronting the financial crisis four years ago should have been strong evidence of the type of leader that he was going to be.

(For those who missed it, up in the first 100 or so comments, I suggested that McCain, a retired Naval Captain, and son and grandson of full Admirals, likely willingly sacrificed his campaign for what he saw was the good of the country, suspending his campaign and jumping into the financial meltdown negotiations, just as Bush (43) gave up golf and attended over 90% of his PDBs. Both lead from the front, putting the country first, while Obama does the opposite).; 9/17/12, 3:58 AM
damikesc said...: I am pretty sure that details regarding the security arrangements of an Ambassador are not a primary focus of these meetings.

Libya warned of the attacks three days before they happened.

Rest assured, that would've come up --- if he attended a briefing.

Which we know he did not.; 9/17/12, 7:33 AM
damikesc said...: JSF, your obsession w/hate where none exists notwithstanding, you'd be surprised how many cons I ignore at this blog.

Professor, this is engaging in discussion in good faith...how?; 9/17/12, 7:34 AM
Rocketeer said...: Are you guys seriously trying to argue that winning elections is not a large part of the job of every politician?

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Looking...looking...looking...nope. Nopthing about winning elections in there.

Funny thing is, if Obama just worked with a single-minded focus on fulfilling his oath, re-election would be pretty damned much a given. But he's not, and it's not, which is why we have all the Obama graveyard-whistlers and chest-beaters in here doing their best to hide their panic.; 9/17/12, 9:10 AM
shiloh said...: "Professor, this is engaging in discussion in good faith...how?"

Good faith aside, who has time to listen to "all" the con nonsense spewed daily at this blog.

One would need some of those "astute" political advisers Willard has on his payroll and refuses to fire for unmitigated malfeasance ...; 9/17/12, 9:25 AM