"But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel."
October 31, 2012
"[A]t least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down."
Says Newt Gingrich, reporting what he emphasizes is "a rumor."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
150 comments:
It would be nice, but i will wait until I see proof before believing it.
Even if true, the possibility exists that any info will be kept in he same secure, hidden bunker that the LATimes keep the Khalidi tape in.
If, and I do mean IF it's true, it will be the scandal of not the centruy but of the history of the Unitied States.
But will the Obama press release it? That is the real question. Said that the MSM has become the Pravada of the U.S.
Not that I don't trust Newt, I just don't trust Newt without a named source. If a Senator has such information, the Senator ought to release it. If not, he ought to shut the hell up.
Harry Reid set a poor example with Mitt Romney's tax returns.
We'll they you whatever you want to know next Wednesday.
That said, I do think it is fair to assume that the Administration is embarrassed by whatever it is that they did (or didn't do). If they thought it would help, God knows they would be shouting it from the highest mountain tops.
Rumor, but an incredibly juicey one. Sad thing is it's easy to believe.
If true, Obama, if re-elected will end up either impeached or by resigning in disgrace.
The horror? President Joe "Brain-dead" Biden.
Look at that cherubic face, that twinkling eye, that forked tongue! I ask you, honestly, would Newt Gingrich lie?
(you bet your sweet ass he would)
Somebody is lying about leaving Americans out to be killed when they could have done something.
Either Obama approves of these lies, or he is an incompetent figurehead, or both.
The two networks would be JWICS (Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System) a TS/SCI net used by the intel community. This is the net that the CRITIC Messages (e.g. emails) would have come in from Tripoli or Benghazi stations asking for immediate aid.
The other is the SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network), which is the Secret level operational net. This is the one most orders go out on to conventional forces. SOF orders might go on JWICS or SIPR.
"I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator".
At least we've got on in the senate.
Patrick said...
If a Senator has such information, the Senator ought to release it.
Ostensibly, Newt is pressuring two network news departments to do their jobs.
Even if the embargo works past election and Obama is reelected, if these are the facts Obama's likely
to have a crippled second term.
@Paul "it will be the scandal of not the centruy but of the history of the Unitied States."
Scandal? Maybe.
But, making the call to let people die has been done before (look at WW2 and the need to protect the knowledge that we broke encryption codes). This has happened before. What will make it different is the reason.
And if the reason is "I wanted to go to Vegas and not be bothered" or "I don't want to have a 'Carter' event on my hands" ......
Those of you who think Obama will be impeached and removed if re-elected are delusional. Not that he wouldn't deserve it, just that all he needs is one third of the Senate to stand by him, and you know they will.
Senators should not be sharing this information, even with Newt. No, especially not with Newt.
(This is of course, me assuming that the Senator is sharing privileged/private information, not the common knowledge that we get on the evening news.)
I fear Mickey Kaus is right - this won't amount to much. And the MSM will continue to softball it until American's infamous short attention span kicks in.
Which I'm sure was Obama's strategy to begin with...
That's right, Americans have no right to know what the news networks know, nor do we have any right to know who made the decisions regarding this affair.
Whenever the networks do the story, if indeed they have the emails, they will focus on the leak and not on the substance of the leak.
The only reason not to be forthcoming with an explanation is the election, specifically that the initial response, minutes in and not counting the prior months failures to secure, countered the AQ/terror is controlled angle. six more days Valerie and David..hang on.
There are actually worse explanations, i.e. involving arms shipments to Syrian rebels but thats hardly necessary
1) To me, this is hearsay until the emails are proven to exist
2) If the emails are real I think this is could be treason and an impeachable offence.
The people who died were CIVILIANS, 2 State Department employees and 2 retired military.
Two let US citizens die for political reasons is disgusting, appalling and anti-American and, I think, goes against American principles.
The simplest, most obvious fact is this: the president DID NOT ORDER A RESCUE/COUNTER-ATTACK MISSION.
He, may in fact, have ordered one not to take place. We may find this out later.
But for now, we can safely, reasonably, reliably conclude that he DID NOT ORDER A RESCUE/COUNTER-ATTACK MISSION.
That fact alone is shameful; it is compounded by the fact the president has made no reasonable effort whatsoever to explain why he failed to order a rescue/counter-attack mission to save the lives of an American Ambassador and three security personnel.
"Leading from behind" is not leading.
It is cowering.
Those of you who think Obama will be impeached and removed if re-elected are delusional. Not that he wouldn't deserve it, just that all he needs is one third of the Senate to stand by him, and you know they will."
Over lying about sex yeah. But something like this? Denying support for our Ambassador and other Americans in danger? That is something even democrats would be forced to get behind.
Listen...to everyone of you who keeps bringing up impeachment...it will never ever EVER happen. A D controlled senate will never impeach a D president that is black. Period dot end of sentence. The one group that keeps D's in the majority is the black vote. There is no bigger voting block than black's for D's. Which is incredible, because no one has done more to damage black people than the D's.
Charles Woods' interview on Hannity last night was an all time great interview. The morality issues, which are 100% military leadership issues, are so damning of Obama's Governing by Fraud style that Hollywood will be jealous again.
Truth is more interesting than fraud. That's why the Obama Show is closing down.
These emails Gingrich speaks of may or may not exist.
We may never know; if they do exist, we most likely won't know until after the election.
The clearer task at hand is to focus on two simple facts: the Administration left the consulate indefensible; once attacked, it failed to launch a rescue/counter-attack effort.
The existence, or lack thereof, of any emails do not change those facts.
Those facts are, on their faces, outrageous enough as is.
No one outraged by Obama's dereliction of duty needs any more information.
He failed to protect men in danger; once under attack, he failed to come to their defense.
How much more does anyone need to know?
. If a Senator has such information, the Senator ought to release it. If not, he ought to shut the hell up.
The two Dem senators (Warner-VA and Udall-CO) on last Fox News Sunday, both on the Senate Intel Commitee, were visibly uncomfortable when questioned directly whether the drones orbiting the besieged Benghazi compounds were armed. They know, and the answer isn't helpful to the White House.
"Listen...to everyone of you who keeps bringing up impeachment...it will never ever EVER happen. A D controlled senate will never impeach a D president that is black. Period dot end of sentence. The one group that keeps D's in the majority is the black vote. There is no bigger voting block than black's for D's. Which is incredible, because no one has done more to damage black people than the D's."
I still disagree. Should this rumor turn out to be true. Should it be proven that Obama abandoned those men to their deaths, I believe there will be such an outcry as to lead to impeachment. There will be little cover for such a grave act by an incredibly unpopular president (Barry's going to lose the popular vote even if he is relected by electors.) The tide is turning.
2) If the emails are real I think this is could be treason and an impeachable offence.
I don't think so. First, there is no chance enough Dems will convict no matter what the evidence. But, having this rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and especially treason takes it too far. It certainly could be military miscalculation, and shows horrible judgment. Those are mistakes for which political consequences exist. The US should not criminalize such things.
Pressure keeps building on this.
If Newt was blowing smoke, he did it for the purpose of blowing Barry's photo op in Jersey today.
If there's something to this, it's gonna come out. Loose lips sink ships.
Carnifex said...
Listen...to everyone of you who keeps bringing up impeachment...it will never ever EVER happen. A D controlled senate will never impeach a D president that is black.
Of course it won't happen. The Senate does not impeach. The House does.
And the House is R.
And we'll probably have an R Senate, regardless of who's elected.
If BenghaziGate truth comes out in televised hearings, then the Dems in the Senate like Reid will not be able to look the other way.
But if they do try that, then the military will look the other way when the Senate tries to find a national defense.
I've said it numerous times here already. Donilon is a useless, pusillanimous, sycophantic lobbyist/lawyer.
Mika would be a better NSA, and as somebody remarked the last time i made my Donilon/Mika rant, "she has better legs as well"
Obama got what he wanted and deserved when they tossed General Jones out. Unfortunmately, the country must deal with Donilon and he isn't impeachable.
Do I strongly believe that msgs went into the WH? absolutely, they had to. And they had to get up at least to Donilon. The Major, Comms officer would have carried that CRITIC directly to the POTUS. Only Donilon could take it out of his hand. But the WHCA logs show the incoming DTG, and the delivery DTG and who.
Do I know there's outgoing traffic? I have doubts. Donilon's a lawyer. He'd not want to do that in writing. Secure phone would be better, though the others on the line might insist on written orders.
Until its been verified, I don't care. Gingrich should not be spreading rumors about this.
"I don't think so. First, there is no chance enough Dems will convict no matter what the evidence. But, having this rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and especially treason takes it too far. It certainly could be military miscalculation, and shows horrible judgment. Those are mistakes for which political consequences exist. The US should not criminalize such things."
Misjudgement in the fog of war is one thing. The Commander in Chief making a political decision not to help them is another.
Again, we don't know that this happened, but damn if it doesn't look more and more like it every day.
"If a Senator has such information, the Senator ought to release it."
If it comes from classified commo or testimony during a closed session of the Senate Intel Commitee, they shouldn't.
The chances that OweBama gets impeached? None, as in zero.
Impeaching the first black president, er... excuse me, the second? Talk about a hi-tech lynching. Never happen. He would be crippled , but never impeached.
A lot of you liberals are going to be surprised on November 7 because Benghazi is really hurting Obama. The American people don't like that Obama didn't try to help our fellow Americans. That despite what he said, he really did leave them behind and they don't like the cover up by the Obama administration and the liberal media either. The liberal media has been exposed like never before thanks to the new media.
I hope all of this comes out after the election.
Obama is well on the way to a serious dubbing at the ballot box WITHOUT this or any other October surprise.
I want to see him soundly defeated on his poor performance and weak character alone.
Afterward I'd love to see him dragged further into disgrace and ignominy by the entire Benghazi debacle being exposed, and the White House as the ultimate source for the treasonous decisions being brought to light for the American people to see.
Furious, blogger ate my response, but I agree. The Intel committees try not to get caught leaking. It's a firing offense for them...
I have reservations about the accuracy of Gingrich rumors. However, Obama obviously is hiding something and probably lying.
This newest information suggests a reason for the spontaneous demonstration/video explanation. The White House that night decided it was not a terrorist attack and, therefore, decided not to send troops to the rescue. The initial deceptions were designed to support that decision (knowing it would someday come out) and to further make a record that even a week later the "best" intelligence information still was spontaneous/video. So it was reasonable to make the decision that night.
Is there any difference between this "rumor" and Harry Reid's completely unsubstantiated tax attacks on Romney?
Isn't the Daily Caller just a website of rumors? They did such a bang up job with the Kyle Wood fake beating story. Journamalism.
Obama will be destroyed over this, but not convicted by the Senate. Too many Dems
What Obama can't run from is the fact that a thousand soldiers now know part of the story. The DoD will continue to obey, but will lose its respect.
There are perhaps 10 General Officers who should resign/retire over this. They should have done it on the 11th. Expect them to happen. Dempsey and Panetta are toast by January, regardless of the election. Neither is fit to continue...
Is there any difference between this "rumor" and Harry Reid's completely unsubstantiated tax attacks on Romney?
There is a tremendous difference in the seriousness of the accusations.
One other thing to think about - impeachment of Zero would make the last 2 Demo POTUSes (POTI?) both impeached - a real black mark on the escutcheon of the oldest political party in the world.
And Daily caller is more often right than wrong, garage notwithstanding.
There is a tremendous difference in the seriousness of the accusations.
Only if Gingrich turns out to be right. In which case the entire ball of wax changes. I'm talking about right now.
Geoff,
"Until its been verified, I don't care. Gingrich should not be spreading rumors about this. "
Unfortunately, that needs to be done to put pressure on the media to do some research, and the White House to tell the truth.
Right now, Gingrich is doing nothing but grandstanding. He might be right; but there is a reason to demand sources for stories this big.
Daily Caller is reporting what Gingrich said, Garage. The fact that he said it is news, and it is correct that he said it. If the substance is wrong, it's on Gingrich, or the nameless Senator, who should be given a name under any circumstances, but especially if he was full of it.
And chances are high that he is full of it by virtue of the fact that he is a Senator.
” …we leave nobody behind … whenever an American is in need we stand together to make sure we’re providing the help that is necessary…”
Obama's Hurricane Sandy address. ..
Vote the Democrats to the unemployment line they grew so well. Every single one of them.
For Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods--if not for yourself.
Is there any difference between this "rumor" and Harry Reid's completely unsubstantiated tax attacks on Romney?
in one case, one man's fantasy.
in the other, leaks from around the world and finger pointing round Washington.
If there were no truth, why that carefully parsed CIA statement.
"Blogger The Drill SGT said...
I've said it numerous times here already. Donilon is a useless, pusillanimous, sycophantic lobbyist/lawyer..."
It can't be emphasized enough.
The National Security Advisor's main gov experience is at Fannie Mae.
What an apparatchik!
Agreed ScottM.
It is starting to tie together. On 9/11, the WH decided it was not a terrorist attack, but a spontaneous attack growing out of a demonstration against the video. Based on that decision, it did not send in troops. When that assessment of spontaenous demonstration turned out to be wrong, they had to keep the spontaneous demonstration assessment going in order to protect their incorrect decision on 9/11.
Can they stonewall things unti the election? Probably.
If Obama is re-elected, will he be impeached? Maybe (it just takes a house vote)
Will he be convicted and removed from office by the senate. No, not without a very damaging disclsoure of evidence.
But this will be the start of an awful second term.
Althouse is to Benghazi as Andrew Sullivan is to Palin's uterus.
Althouse is to Benghazi as Andrew Sullivan is to Palin's uterus.
Hardly. Aside from the lack of the manoflage beard, she's many levels below Sullivanesque hysterics.
AReasonableMan is to a Reasonable Man as an ant is to a neutron star.
Shouldn't you be out with Garage keying Obama into cars?
Leave it to a lefty to compare allegations that a woman is covering for her daughter by raising a child to monumental screw up of a military operation that leaves our ambassador dead and fails to provide assistance to soldiers in the field of battle.
They are exactly alike!!
Scott M:
compare Gingrich's statement to the CIA one:
"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
ask yourself again, what is implied in the CIA one.
1. It doesn't say that Bengahzi didn't ask for help.
2. it doesn't say "nobody refused help", it only says the CIA didnt
It points to the WH
Newt is playing lightning rod here. Whether what he said is true or not, if the Romster said it, the media would accuse him of "politicizing" the attacks.
If Newt says it, it just Newt being all newt, all the time.
But, true or not, it swings focus away from Sandy and back to Benghazi.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
Althouse is to Benghazi as Andrew Sullivan is to Palin's uterus.
4 men didn't die in Palin's uterus.
Is there any difference between this "rumor" and Harry Reid's completely unsubstantiated tax attacks on Romney?
Sure. Reid's a Senator. Gingrich is a private citizen. That's a huge difference right there.
The order that Obama says he gave about securing our embassies [consulatesnot included?] does not say quite what Bing West thinks it would have, if given.
It sound more like the order he gave FEMA and the Gov't in general to ignore red tape and just shovel out the aid for The Great Storm, which FEMA certainly is not going to do with Katrina fresh in mind.
(For those with short memories, FEMA first asked for documentation of LA residence and losses, etc., and the MSM rose up in wrath about the heartless stupidity and inefficiency, etc., so the Bush administration told FEMA to just pass out the money, which was good for almost a week, before the MSM did a 180, and it was all about waste, fraud, and mismanagement of FEMA passing out taxpayers money without requiring documentation!
FEMA is not going to fall for that again. Agency self defense has priority!]
Listen in via CNN on Romney in Fla.
I have news for you, Unreasonableman, no Americans here killed in Palin's uterus.
This has got to sting :)
Scott M said...
she's many levels below Sullivanesque hysterics.
No, it's about the same level of partisan hackery in both cases.
AllenS said...
I have news for you, Unreasonableman, no Americans here killed in Palin's uterus.
LOL, Ever :)
ask yourself again, what is implied in the CIA one.
My only point was coming forward without proof. In this, they appear to be the same. Do I think there's probably something to Gingrich's claim? Unfortunately yes. All the info I've got from active duty relatives in the area seem to confirm the worst suspicions of how this was all handled.
In any case, you know that after Romney is elected, the lefties (and especially garage mahal) are going to suddenly dscover how horrible Benghazi was as they claim that everything Romney does is just like/as bad as Benghazi, and so Romney needs to impeached and jailed.
The hypocrisy just comes naturally to them.
It's partisan hackery to find out why Americans were left to die? That's the policy of the left theses days? Good to know.
Althouse does not compare to Sullivan in any manner.
Here, she is asking questions that everyone should be interested in. We have a president who has bragged that the "minute I hear" ordered that we do whatever needed to be done to protecte the Americans being attacked. It is likely a lie. But regardless, we are entitled to know what Obama did that night while the battle raged on.
I heard "networks" the way The Drill SGT did: not news networks, intelligence networks.
"4 men didn't die in Palin's uterus."
Good on so many levels.
No, it's about the same level of partisan hackery in both cases.
Hardly. People died in the Benghazi attack. Nothing but Sullivan's credibility died over the Palin non-story. The fact that you could even begin to find an equivalency between the two speaks volumes about you, not Althouse nor Sullivan.
I think the MSM may actually pull of this blackout of the most important story in the campaign. Obama will still lose, which ironically will save their butts from being accused of blowing it, since they can then cover it.
Most of us have already lost complete faith in the media, and that should continue until it collapses financially and is replaced with the real thing.
Patrick said...
It's partisan hackery to find out why Americans were left to die?
What about the 2,977 that died on 9/11 and another 4,409 that died in Iraq? When did the irresponsible fuckers responsible for these deaths get this level of scrutiny from Althouse or anyone on the right.
"no Americans here killed in Palin's uterus"
Unlike many others.
bag's right.
Any victory the media wins for Zero will be Pyrrhic. Their credibility is totally shot and only the "low-information" types will ever listen to them again and even they're drifting away to the cybersphere.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
It's partisan hackery to find out why Americans were left to die?
What about the 2,977 that died on 9/11 and another 4,409 that died in Iraq? When did the irresponsible fuckers responsible for these deaths get this level of scrutiny from Althouse or anyone on the right.
I note the Troll leaves out the 2000 or so dead in A-stan, most of whom died on Zero's watch, but OK, does TRoll really want to get into who is most responsible for the 9/11 deaths or who gave aid and comfort to the enemy, encouraging him to kill Americans, in Iraq?
Troll really doesn't want to go there.
Now does he?
What about the 2,977 that died on 9/11 and another. . ."
Right out of the talking points!
Show me Bush's "Stand Down" order that would have prevented the 9/11 deaths or those in Iraq.
Obama didn't care and neither do the Althouse Lefties. Four died when most likely they could have been saved.
Remember, every Democrat voted down the Obama budgets. Their absolute top priority is their own asses. If impeachment is popular it will happen. I think that an expose of facts as bad as they could be would do that. Everybody, even the doves make sure to support the troops. This scandal is the exact opposite of supporting the troops. It's one of the few subjects that could get full bipartisan support.
What about the 2,977 that died on 9/11 and another 4,409 that died in Iraq? When did the irresponsible fuckers responsible for these deaths get this level of scrutiny from Althouse or anyone on the right.
You're partially correct. There has been a dramatic reduction in scrutiny in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 2009.
Remember the Afghanistan surge, and all of the criticism of the President?
Me neither.
"I have reservations about the accuracy of Gingrich rumors. However, Obama obviously is hiding something and probably lying."
Doesn't Gingrich know a lot of people in Washington, in the senate. I don't doubt him.
Remember the daily counts of soldiers dying? Remember the "tributes" on the network news, and in Doonesbury?
They had no reason to honor the soldiers if it didn't hurt a Republican president I guess.
Yeah, let's talk about scrutiny.
AReasonableMan said...
Patrick said...
What about the 2,977 that died on 9/11 and another 4,409 that died in Iraq? When did the irresponsible fuckers responsible for these deaths get this level of scrutiny from Althouse or anyone on the right.
There were about 500 deaths in A-stan over the 8 years of Booosh, and 1500 over the not quite 4 of Obama. a factor of 6 increase in the loss rate. we used to get full page color photos of the dead in the papers and evening news. pictures at Dover?
Those stopped. Why?
"AReasonableMan is to a Reasonable Man as an ant is to a neutron star."
Make that a piss ant.
"What about the 2,977 that died on 9/11--"
And proof you're not serious. There was an entire commission and endless investigations to figure out what went wrong.
If Mitt doesn't cut an ad showing Obama's "We don't leave anyone behind" speech from yesterday linked with the Benghazi stand down order, he's not trying hard enough.
edutcher said...
does TRoll really want to get into who is most responsible for the 9/11 deaths or who gave aid and comfort to the enemy, encouraging him to kill Americans, in Iraq?
More than happy to go there. Bush and the other losers that were elected by Republican voters were absolute and complete failures on both military and economic grounds. A completely indefensible record. Such a stunningly complete sweep of failure that the Bush presidency and the Republican house will unquestionably rank as the worst administration of all time once the dust settles.
You might want to pursue a different screen name.
Obama set the new standard for incompetency. No need for modesty.
The Drill SGT said...
There were about 500 deaths in A-stan over the 8 years of Booosh, and 1500 over the not quite 4 of Obama.
And, Obama completed the mission that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld so conspicuously failed to achieve.
Too distracted by their delusional fantasies in Iraq to do the job they were elected to do.
darrell,
better a pac do it. see my 'sting' link above
'
Darrell said...
Obama set the new standard for incompetency.
This is sadly delusional, to the point of a mental illness.
Bush's monumental incompetence is indefensible.
dreams said...
Doesn't Gingrich know a lot of people in Washington, in the senate. I don't doubt him.
I don't doubt all the shit he said about Romney either.
"And, Obama completed the mission that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld so conspicuously failed to achieve."
-- You mean by doing exactly what Bush had planned to do?
What if FDR had come out with a statement that he "intended to get to the bottom of this" and had ordered the Attorney General to launch a full invetigation after Pearl Harbor?
The Bush administration, however reluctantly, recognized that we had been attacked and in fact were in some sort of war.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- You mean by doing exactly what Bush had planned to do?
He had seven fucking years to do it in. What a complete fucking loser that clown was.
For people on this board to be comparing Obama negatively to Bush is really a testamount to how out of touch with reality it is possible to become due to obsessive partisanship.
So now AReasonableMan pretends he is qualified to tender a psychiatric diagnosis over the Web. Isn't that malpractice? Is there anything Lefties can't do? Or any fascist thought they can not embrace. What's next? Rounding us all up for "re-education camps?"
Just remember, we don't stand down quietly.
He had seven fucking years to do it in
Obama did it in less than four.
He is the quicker-fuck-er-up-ter.
Obama set the new standard for incompetency.
This is sadly delusional, to the point of a mental illness.
That must be why the President is touting his record so much rather than trashing Mitt Romney. Got it!
"He had seven fucking years to do it in. What a complete fucking loser that clown was."
-- And in those 7 years, he laid the groundwork for Obama's success.
You don't understand how campaigns or foreign policy works, do you?
ARM,
You may be happy to "go there", but all you do is reveal your ignorance.
You clearly don't rven know what W intended to accomplish in Iraq, if you think Obama accomplished it by screwing up negotiations to keep troops in iraq, pulling out and squandering everything we had gained there.
Reasonable Man: What would you like to compare Obama to Bush on? Hint: Don't choose unemployment, number of dead ambassadors, Afghanistan casualties or debt/deficit -- none of those are wins for Team O.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
There were about 500 deaths in A-stan over the 8 years of Booosh, and 1500 over the not quite 4 of Obama.
And, Obama completed the mission that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld so conspicuously failed to achieve.
He has?
Last I heard, things in A-stan were getting worse instead of better.
Of course, if Troll means Iraq, Dubya finished the campaign in Iraq, but Zero screwed up that one, too. They wanted us to stay the way the Afghans did, but Zero didn't want to negotiate, so people like Troll would feel better.
Note please, the adults at State have stepped in and aren't letting Choomie ace us out of A-stan, too.
He had seven fucking years to do it in. What a complete fucking loser that clown was.
Sure, by the time he left, both campaigns were under control.
For people on this board to be comparing Obama negatively to Bush is really a testamount to how out of touch with reality it is possible to become due to obsessive partisanship.
Last I looked Dubya never left anybody behind.
And Troll is the ne plus ultra of "obsessive partisanship".
BTW, the word is testament.
Or tantamount if one makes a comparison.
PS Notice how unreasonable and cranky "Reasonable" is sounding.
Obviously, he knows who's winning.
But hey, by your complaining about Bush, know what we're not talking about? Whether or not Obama left his own people to die in Libya. So, kudos for the effective squirreling of the thread.
Nathan Alexander said...
You clearly don't rven know what W intended to accomplish in Iraq, if you think Obama accomplished it by screwing up negotiations to keep troops in iraq, pulling out and squandering everything we had gained there.
This is just unhinged. What had we gained?
" Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Patrick said...
It's partisan hackery to find out why Americans were left to die?
What about the 2,977 that died on 9/11 and another 4,409 that died in Iraq? When did the irresponsible fuckers responsible for these deaths get this level of scrutiny from Althouse or anyone on the right.
"
Were you born yesterday ? Do you not recall the left's rage at Bush and the wild theories of the "inside job" nuts, like Rose O'Donnell who thinks fire won't melt steel ?
What an imbecile !
Last I looked Dubya never left anybody behind.
There are lot of gravesites that mourners had to leave behind because of Bush's incompetence.
Reasonable Man: Don't be an idiot.
Matthew Sablan said...
But hey, by your complaining about Bush, know what we're not talking about?
No. I am questioning the perspective of Althouse and the posters here, which is sadly and badly skewed.
There have been monumental fuck-ups in the last decade and a half, almost all of them occurred under Bush, both military and economic.
And Obama doubled down on both, with more spending and a war in Libya.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
You clearly don't rven know what W intended to accomplish in Iraq, if you think Obama accomplished it by screwing up negotiations to keep troops in iraq, pulling out and squandering everything we had gained there.
This is just unhinged. What had we gained?
Until Barry decided he was going to run the War on Terror with drones, Dubya used Iraq to gut Al Qaeda.
Now, thanks to Zero's usual malign neglect, it's reconstituting itself.
That was the purpose of Benghazi. It was their coming out party.
BTW, we also had Iran very effectively enveloped.
Last I looked Dubya never left anybody behind.
There are lot of gravesites that mourners had to leave behind because of Bush's incompetence.
They weren't abandoned.
But let's talk about the 2000 dead in A-stan.
Oh, I forgot. They don't count.
Do they?
But hey, anything to not talk about the possibility Obama lied to you about Libya.
I think what we are seeing here with ARM's nutty posts is a preview of the mental breakdown coming next week when Obama gets whipped badly. If you think hurricane Sandy was bad...
edutcher said...
Dubya used Iraq to gut Al Qaeda
Just completely delusional. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, no one disputes this.
Though not as serious as the warning to the east coast about the hurricane, we voters should be warned of the coming attack on us for being racist. The liberal media will accuse us of being racist, they will be openly angry at us for being so racist.
And the female trust fund babies employed as the producers and reporters on all the liberal networks will be literally, not figuratively, but literally crying after it becomes clear that Romney won.
No honeymoon for Romney for the liberal media are going to be speaking some righteous truth to power come January 20th.
Whether Gingrich has the inside dope or not, someone has written records for the stand-down orders.
Benghazi is not going away. It is even possible that something decisive will break before the election. In the meantime Benghazi will keep Obama ducking serious interviews and on the defensive for the last week of his campaign.
After the election, if Obama wins, he will be impeached. If not, there will still be some investigation but on the quick and painless side.
Impeachment is the formal accusation of wrongdoing and the process to resolve the charge. It does not necessarily mean that Obama will be removed from office. Clinton was impeached over Lewinsky but he served the rest of his term.
The House has the sole power to initiate impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment.
Barring backroom deals, House Republicans would and should impeach a reelected Obama. If the Senate remains under Democratic control, presumably they would not convict Obama, but they would have to go through the motions of a trial.
"There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, no one disputes this."
You and your friends who don't remember all those Al Qaeda who rushed in Iraq to their deaths are idiots.
"Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia are popular names for the Iraqi division of the international Salafi jihadi militant organization al-Qaeda. It is part of the Iraqi insurgency.
The group was founded in 2003 as a reaction to the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, and first led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in October 2004." ~ Wikipedia
Michael K said...
I think what we are seeing here with ARM's nutty posts is a preview of the mental breakdown coming next week when Obama gets whipped badly.
What is nutty here is the level of delusion regarding the relative competence of Bush and Obama. I understand that you guys don't like Obama but that is no excuse for the delusional nonsense that you post.
No serious person believes that Obama has been a less competent president than Bush. To fail to acknowledge this only highlights the complete intellectual bankruptcy that passes for thought on this board.
Until you show some seriousness on this issue why should anyone extend any credibility to your complaints about Obama's performance? Obama is not perfect, but compared to the previous occupant of his office he has been competent. You could argue that this is setting the bar too low, but you can't argue the facts regarding their relative levels of competence.
"Barring backroom deals, House Republicans would and should impeach a reelected Obama."
-- No, they should not. Issuing a bad order that abandons your people is terrible leadership. Lying about it shows a lack of character. None of it is a crime though.
AReasonableMan said...
Dubya used Iraq to gut Al Qaeda
Just completely delusional. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, no one disputes this.
Oh, that's right.
The NYT made a laughingstock of itself calling it Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
The last time anybody else called it Mesopotamia, Lawrence rode through it on his way to Mecca.
Troll needs to get the memo that the "there's no AQ in Iraq" died with Zarqawi.
Competence: Pushing a policy insisting that unemployment will not go higher if implemented. After implementation, unemployment almost breaks double digits.
We have odd, differing definitions of competence, I think.
Is there any difference between this "rumor" and Harry Reid's completely unsubstantiated tax attacks on Romney?
Why, yes there is -- the Praetorian Media tripped over their shoestrings flogging and perpetuating the Sr. Senator from NV's remarks.
Just completely delusional. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, no one disputes this.
Wrong.
Anyone with clearance and a need to know can see the proof that al Qaeda was in Iraq.
But aside from al Qaeda, saddam Hussein supported and sponsored terror.
Iraq is n longer a state sponsor of terror. Iran is.
Iraq could have helped put pressure on Iran to end their sponsorship of terror.
Instead, due to obama's fecklessness, Iraq ,iChat end up back on a path to be a terrorist safe haven again.
You are clearly completely ignorant about international terrorism and national security.
Blinded by your ideology?
Or just misinformed by your talking point sources?
Issuing a bad order that abandons your people is terrible leadership. Lying about it shows a lack of character. None of it is a crime though.
So you may say -- how do you know?
One of the President's primary responsibilities is to defend American lives. If through bad judgment or negligence, he does not, he is still responsible and legally liable. It's for a court, in this case, the Senate to decide.
Clinton was impeached for perjury and abuse of power. It's not a crime to receive oral sex from a consensual partner, but it becomes different when you're the President and the partner is a subordinate, thus it became an impeachable offense.
No serious person believes that Obama has been a less competent president than Bush.
$1T+ deficits vs. $0.4T.
Budget voted down 0-97.*
No budget in 1,300 days (2010, 2011, 2012)*
No appropriations bill (2010, 2012)*
Stimulus #FAIL.
Fast&Furious.
Solyndra, et al.
Benghazi.
*Democrat-controlled Senate.
The flypaper strategy was working.
Capturing terrorists and interrogating them was working.
We are less safe under Obama's policies.
As unsafe as we were under Clinton's, if not more so.
I think I discovered "why Bush went to war in Iraq" when Jack Murtha came up with his idea of "withdrawing and keeping troops over the horizon," and I looked at the map to see what might be "over the horizon" from Iraq, such as Turkey, Iran, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria.
Iraq was in the middle of the trouble, and we already had the U.N. resolutions, etc., from the Gulf War, none of which Saddam Hussein had complied with.
We conquered Hussein's forces in three weeks, or so, then had a couple of years of years of instability and civil war to settle, and since then we have been fighting an undeclared war with Iran, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think the Bush administration recognized that, though unwilling to admit it publicly. The Obama administration still refuses to recognize it.
The war with the medievalist Islamists is additional, funded by the nation state of Iran, and probably could not be sustained by that movement (or those movements) without that funding and material support.
Newt has either...
1>seen the emails (source an R-senator on the Intel commitee), is asking a question to which the answer is known, and is putting the pressure on both the media to pursue the line or questionng and the Administration to respond to those questions or...
2>is pulling it out of his *ss, and will be shown to all for doing so. So what's new? What price did Harry Reid pay over Romney's taxes (hint -- none).
Ask yourself which carries the larger downside.
...and I looked at the map...
Aghanistan sits between Pakistan and Iran, and Iraq between Iran and Syria.
Back to topic, Obama must be fired next Tuesday. Plenty of opportunity for him to dissemble later on talk shows and in his memoirs.
ARM,
You need a new dictionary.
Your use of words like serious, delusional, reasonable is diametrically opposite of the way most people use them.
The Obama administration will not succeed in pissing away all that the Bushies won. There will remain:
"Hey Ahmed! How come American women can fly attack helicopters and I can't get a lousy driver's license! Tell me that, Ahmed!"
شات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
جات عراقنا
It should also be noted that Pakistan, not yet a nation, but a country, where recently a 14 year old girl was shot for advocating women's education, is also where Benazir Bhutto, an Oxford graduate, was twice elected to the office of Prime Minister.
The world is not as simple as some people would like it to be!
As far as I can see the posters here have completely failed to make the case that Obama is more incompetent than Bush. Since they all voted for Bush more than once, doesn't this call into question any complaint regarding Obama's competence.
You beclowned yourself, AReasonableMan. Just quit while you're behind. You haven't derailed the thread yet, either.
@AReasonableMan "... make the case that Obama is more incompetent than Bush."
Premise: "You are competent if and only if you pass Calculus"
Premise: "Bush passed Calculus"
Premise: "Obama didn't pass Calculus"
Conclusion: "Bush is competent and Obama is incompetent"
Really I don't see how anyone with a college degree could have not taken at least calculus and statistics. I know he got a BA in polysci at Columbia. Which means he most likely took crap for any math/science (hey look ... Physics for Poets?!).
Be nice to see his transcript. People always go on about him being smart. Always been curious about his academic transcript and vita.
Darrell said...
You beclowned yourself, AReasonableMan. Just quit while you're behind.
You seem to be one of the more contentless posters. Why don't you advance a compelling case that Obama is less competent than Bush?
I don't think I ever voted for G.W. Bush. I did vote for his dad. I have usually voted Libertarian in the last few elections. However, he was not a bad president or bad man. He did not veto the boondoggles that he should have vetoed, other than that he was a decent president. He was slimmed and slandered by many merely because he was Republican and from Texas. He is not a stupid man.
Obama OTOH is the worst president in my life time. I remember back to Truman. Previous to Obama, Carter was the worst. Obama is not stupid either, but he knows too much stuff that ain’t so. He is harming the country.
ken in sc said...
Obama OTOH is the worst president in my life time.
A simple assertion isn't an argument.
You do not provide any argument that Bush was not a spectacular failure both in defending the country from attack and in the governance of its economy.
By the standards of Bush, Obama is not incompetent. Again, this is a very low standard, but the economy is in notably better shape than it was at the end of Bush's presidency (even unemployment is lower). Obama's relatively good performance is especially notable given the appalling starting point relative to where Bush started. From a defense perspective he has avoided any spectacular catastrophes equivalent either to 9/11 or Iraq.
For the reality based community this is a pretty clear cut case. If you cannot concede this or make a compelling argument to the contrary you are just a hack spouting empty propaganda.
Do you have any relevant thing to say about the topic--the Obama fuckup in Benghazi, particularly the Gingrich contribution?
Of course not. You come here to deflect and re-direct. I know you do it for free, too, unlike some others. That's because nobody will pay you for your low quality of work.
Darrell said...
Do you have any relevant thing to say about the topic--the Obama fuckup in Benghazi, particularly the Gingrich contribution?
What I am saying is especially relevant. If you apply reasonable standards rather than ridiculous standards, which you clearly would not apply to a Republican president, then the overall arc of Obama's presidency has been relatively succesful.
He avoided a depression, which seemed quite likely at the time. He rescued the auto industry, which Romney now claims he would also have done. He has severely degraded al Qaeda. Under his leadership both bin Laden and Qaddafi were eliminated. He oversaw a transition to almost universal healthcare? Unemployment is lower now than it was when he took office. IMF-predicted US growth for next year is higher than for any other developed country.
If you compare this to the spectacular fuck-up that was the Bush presidency, which you do not disavow, I don't think it is reasonable to claim that Obama is incompetent.
I guess you must be intellectually challenged.
Incompetent, Irrelevant and Immaterial.
Try harder.
A simple assertion isn't an argument.
You do not provide any argument that Bush was not a spectacular failure both in defending the country from attack and in the governance of its economy.
I wish you would take your own first sentence to heart.
You have failed to provide any argument that Bush was incompetent at all.
Your complete ignorance on issues of national security doesn't constitute an argument, either.
You just keep calling people delusional who don't agree with your unsupported assertion that Bush failed and/or was incompetent.
Obama made us less safe.
Obama made the US reputation in the world worse.
Bush did far better with the recession he inherited than Obama did with his.
Moreover, Obama voted for the policies that created the recession he idiotically claims to have inherited.
The only thing Bush did to contribute to the current economic problems was NOT veto Democrat policies.
It is time you faced up to the truth.
You were never in any reality-based community at all.
Nathan Alexander said...
Bush did far better with the recession he inherited than Obama did with his.
This is just stupid. There is no comparison between the severity of the two economic situations.
Post a Comment