How's this new turn in foriegn policy working out?

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Here's a video of the Ambassador being "helped" to the hospital by Libyans.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/16/BREAKING-Video-Purports-To-Show-Ambassador-In-Libya

"Libyans"

Protesters?
Al Qaeda assassins?
Members of the revolutionary group that overthrew Qadafi with our ambassador's help?

Who are we talking about here?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

"Libyans"

Protesters?
Al Qaeda assassins?
Members of the revolutionary group that overthrew Qadafi with our ambassador's help?

Who are we talking about here?

Those tan-to-brown skinned people with the funny-sounding names in another country that Vette don't like. All uf dem.

 

[mercury14]

The translation of the text below the video reads: "Moment directed the U.S. ambassador before his death" and the headline translates to: “U.S. Ambassador and the people of Benghazi rescue attempt before his death.”

The victim in the video appears to be wearing the same pants, belt and t-shirt seen in this photo of Amb. Stevens.

The validity of the video and the accuracy of the description of the events it depicts are still under investigation, but through Twitter and Facebook the video has already taken a life of its own.

Who knows, they don't show his face or anything. But the guy who posted the video (and took it possibly) said it was a rescue attempt. Who knows what happened because the investigation is still underway, but aren't we thinking that the ambassador was assassinated during the rescue attempt by another group?

 

[mercury14]

Those tan-to-brown skinned people with the funny-sounding names in another country that Vette don't like. All uf dem.

And this is exactly right. Millions demonstrated during the Arab Spring. A few thousand protesters protested our embassies and it somehow invalidated millions of people? 99.999% of the Arab Springers had nothing to do with these protests, much less the assassinations. How come folks here (almost always conservatives) insist on just lumping everyone together based on skin color?

 

[eyer]

Who knows what happened because the investigation is still underway, but aren't we thinking that the ambassador was assassinated during the rescue attempt by another group?

"we" would be who...

...besides ignorant bozos such as yourself?

You're going back on ignore, doofus...

...for your own good.

 

[phrodeau]

And this is exactly right. Millions demonstrated during the Arab Spring. A few thousand protesters protested our embassies and it somehow invalidated millions of people? 99.999% of the Arab Springers had nothing to do with these protests, much less the assassinations. How come folks here (almost always conservatives) insist on just lumping everyone together based on skin color?

What are these assassinations to which you refer? I'm really curious what evidence there is that any of the attacks were targeted at specific people?

 

[mercury14]

"we" would be who...

...besides ignorant bozos such as yourself?

You're going back on ignore, doofus...

...for your own good.

Going off preliminary information released across several news networks. I don't have access to the places that KNOW like you do.

 

[koalabear]

Not so well it seems.

Ishmael

No, no! There are now 21 rebuilding embassy jobs shovel ready!

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Damn. Eyer just cut off Merc.

Just don't know...h-h-how...he'll ever get by without his sage widsom and input, now...

...damn...

*snif*

http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff459/shipsgifs/MrTcries.gif

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

As if. America is restrained by the Geneva Conventions and Laws of War.

Even with these "restraints" we manage to regularly kill innocent civvies.

So, unless you want to become a Nazi and start genocide, that's the way war works.

The Geneva conventions have squat to do with it....render aid and don't fire on targets once you push the line of advancement past them. They don't say shit about "no collateral damage" which is what dumb shit civilians who go running around in a fire fight are.... Darwin award winning CD.

War announces it's coming to town? what would you do?

That's right....pick up a gun and fight, batten down the hatches or if you're not a total idiot you and the fam GTFO. Stupid has a very low survival rate in war zones, who would have thought there was a silver lining in such an ugly thing .

Again, neutralized by asymmetrical warfare

AWG was formed in Vietnam in an attempt to wage a politically correct war...and it failed horridly....and again in Afghanistan...it was pseudo successful in Iraq at best.

You want to unequivocally win?

Anything short of complete submission/total elimination of threat is failure...

If you aren't willing to go as far or further to win that submission/elimination of threat than your enemy is then stay home because you have already lost.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If it's that easy to find online, why wasn't it thrown up like all the other countless cut and paste serves derped up on here daily?

Garby doesn't do those, but you could shut up Rob easily by doing so. It's not like you're scared to do it, so...

I'm glad you asked that because yesterday, as soon as I said that, I went out and entered Feinstein leaks into google and within a second had the ABC link to the story and then, as I was posting it, Safari crashed on me and I took that as a great opportunity to get up and get some work done, but hey, here goes:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...al-security-leaks-emerge-as-campaign-issue-3/

Feinstein Comments on National Security Leaks Emerge as Campaign Issue

In remarks at the World Affairs Council, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed concern Monday about leaks of national security information, saying, “The White House has to understand that some of this is coming from its ranks. I don’t know specifically where, but I think they have to begin to understand that and do something about it.”

Then as busybody stated, she got Bookered, the same way Clinton did when he priased Bain; not the only Democrat to do so.

Democrats only want one reality.

The closeness of mainstream journalists to President Obama has debauched their integrity. Some of them give the White House veto authority over their stories. Others look to be rewarded with plum jobs or stimulus-funded ads. This abasement before power presages a return to a time when political writers, among them Swift and Defoe, were the professed protégés of statesmen and relied on Whig or Tory patronage for their bread; it also leaves the country vulnerable to the distortions of ostensibly neutral journalists who are too fervently committed to the leader to tell the truth about him.

Obama worship, once the quaint foible of Grub Street liberalism, has become its opium, perhaps its bath salts. The unhinged quality of its analysis was painfully evident during the interval of bounce-talk that followed Charlotte. When, after days of media cheerleading, Obama rose modestly in the polls, the acolytes instantly sounded the death knell for Romney. The election was all but over, the princes of palaver declared. Time’s Mark Halperin spoke of the Romney campaign’s “death stench,” and MSNBC’s Steve Benan said that the president was now “exactly where he wants to be.”

Would a less prejudiced observer claim that the president was exactly where he wanted to be in early September, with a credit downgrade looming, a miserable jobs report on the wires, and a strike by Chicago schoolteachers trash-talking the generous, even lavish deal they had been offered, the kind of deluxe package that induced liberal Wisconsin to rise in revolt against public-sector irresponsibility?

Then came Cairo and, still more terribly, Benghazi. The “Gang of 500,” as Halperin styles the bigwigs with whom he shares the liberal soapbox, was duly outraged . . . by Mitt Romney. The Republican nominee had the lèse-majesté to criticize Obama’s foreign policy.

The president’s own statement on Benghazi, which he delivered in the Rose Garden before departing for a campaign event in Las Vegas, went largely unscrutinized by the media gang: “Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.”

The president’s air of certainty contrasted sharply with the reticence of his underlings. The State Department has consistently said it does not know what happened to Ambassador Stevens that night, and grim photographs cast doubt on the notion that he had been innocently conveyed from the bloody scene.

The Beltway clerisy failed to ask the obvious question: Was the president’s version of his emissary’s death a self-serving attempt to salvage a failing foreign policy? Three years ago Obama went to Cairo “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.” Should we learn that the men in the Benghazi photographs were not good Samaritans generously carrying an American to safety but thugs snapping trophy pictures of a Yankee infidel, Obama’s “new beginning,” if it came at all, will not have made much of a difference. The “new” Middle East in which American diplomats are abused and murdered and black flags fly over American embassies may prove to look a lot like the Old Middle East.

Which raises another question: If the administration’s Islamic policy has failed to pacify Islam and “make us safer,” why didn’t the president act forcefully in the months preceding the tragedy to protect American diplomats? Yet other than the British Independent and Matt Drudge, no big journalistic enterprise pressed for an explanation. Rather than probe the most devastating assault on the diplomatic corps since 1979, the media-political complex blithely turned its collective attention to happier matters, among them the president’s rising poll numbers in the swing states.

Like the decadents of France’s ancien régime, the liberal literati of mainstream journalism are convinced that the party will go on forever. Islamic zealots can be talked out of making nuclear bombs; stagnant growth and high unemployment can be counteracted with a Caesarian policy of bread and shows, free food and even free cell phones; a moribund economy can be propped up with the saline drip of Ben Bernanke’s liquidity transfusions.

As detached from reality as Marie Antoinette milking cows with Sèvres buckets, liberal journalists fail to grapple in any serious way with the“crisis of liberalism” at home and abroad, preferring instead to compose billets-doux to Barack praising his basketball prowess and panegyrics on Michelle’s dexterity as a horticulturalist.

In the unreal city of progressive punditry, a charismatic leader uncommonly gifted in the preaching of sermons really can build a brave new world in which benevolent planners use other people’s money to mold a better life for the masses. If the same Comtean model bankrupted Europe, that’s because European regulators failed to master the esoteric arts of “quantitative easing,” which magically does away with the need for intelligently invested private capital.

Having been corrupted into a semi-official state press, America’s mainstream media is now transforming the most important election in a generation into the political equivalent of an episode of The Bachelor. Liberalism’s scribal class is actually pleased that the contest has become a referendum not on the president’s record or his plans but on his charisma and popularity. In the kingdom of vapor, substance has no place.

This is how republics die, in thrall to the inane, the frivolous, and the inconsequential. A liberalism incapable of persuading the public to embrace its policies has been converted by its media tribunes into a publicity stunt. As a result, the nation that gave the world the Federalist Papers and the Lincoln–Douglas debates may very well reelect a flawed chief executive for no other reason than that he has been continuously portrayed as a super-nice guy by the media lackeys who tend the Obama cult.

Michael Know Beran, NRO

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I understand that America has decayed from a land of laws to a land of legalisms but the position that no one at State can say a word about Benghazi because there’s now an FBI investigation, and so it’s a sub judice police matter, and Sergeant Friday has flown out with an extra long roll of yellow “DO NOT CROSS” tape and strung it round the smoking ruins of the U.S. consulate and the “safe house” is stark staring nuts.

This is a security fiasco and a strategic debacle for the foreign policy of the United States, not a liquor store hold-up. What is wrong even with the bland, compliant, desiccated, over-credentialed, pansified, groupthink poodles of the press corps that they don’t hoot and jeer at Victoria Nuland? I know why she’s doing it; I know why Hillary Clinton is desperately trying to suggest that some movie trailer on YouTube is the reason that a mob in Benghazi knows the location of the U.S. ambassador’s safe house. But why would anybody else even pretend to take this stuff seriously? Elderly Soviet propagandists must be wondering why they wasted their time jamming radio transmitters and smashing printing presses when they could just have sent everyone to Columbia Journalism School.

Mark Steyn, The Corner, NRO

 

[miles]

Brilliant piece.

This is just another routine coverup by the Obama regime, and the media will let him get away with it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Brilliant piece.

This is just another routine coverup by the Obama regime, and the media will let him get away with it.

Not only that, but they will tell us the Emperor is wearing a brilliant new thinking cap...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A Personal Account of Arab Violence
Richard B. Jones

In an unrecorded incident, an American teacher at a Saudi royal military academy was assaulted by his students, held against the classroom wall by a few so the rest could smuggle a vital exam paper out of the room.

The teacher immediately alerted the Arab military administration that the paper had been stolen and that he had been assaulted, whereupon the Saudi officer asked the American teacher, "Why did you allow this?"

The American, thinking the Saudi officer did not understand, repeated that he had been physically held against the wall by a crowd of young men while others rushed the exam paper out of the room, that he could not be expected to overpower a group of young Arab men.

The Saudi officer responded, "I know exactly what I'm saying; I have lived in your country several years and speak English accurately. I am asking, how could you allow your students to think you were weak enough to allow such a thing? It is part of your responsibility to establish discipline in the classroom -- you have not been doing your job."

The American was incensed. His job was to teach; it was the job of resident Saudi military personnel to provide discipline. He had been very successful in California community colleges, adapting pedagogic technique to Asian and Latin cultures -- why couldn't these brutal Arabs understand?

Asked to remain in the administrative office while military personnel retrieved the exam, the American reviewed his financial status and took a deep breath. Perhaps he needed to learn something of Arab culture.

That afternoon, another Saudi military officer, a very congenial man who also spoke near-native English but looked like an Arab Yosemite Sam, told the American teacher, "Sir, you are a very nice man."

"Thank you," said the American.

"This is not a compliment" said the Arab. "In America, it is good to be a very nice man, but here, with these young men, when you are very nice, you are not a man. They want to respect their teacher, but if their teacher is not strong, they will push him out of the way and find someone who is.

"What you call the Old Testament says that the people 'loved and feared' their God, yes? This is not a misinterpretation.

"If your students think you are not a man, your reputation will spread through the Academy, and soon no students will respect you or listen to you, and your time here in Arabia will be wasted."

"What should I do?" asked the American.

The Saudi officer stuck out his right foot and said, "You must find the biggest troublemaker in your class and squash him," twisting his foot back and forth on the floor, "like a bug."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/a_personal_account_of_arab_violence.html

 

[Ishmael]

The Saudi officer stuck out his right foot and said, "You must find the biggest troublemaker in your class and squash him," twisting his foot back and forth on the floor, "like a bug."

A technique that would probably work just as well in American classrooms.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A technique that would probably work just as well in American classrooms.

Ishmael

The libs here are in panic meltdown mode. They didn't get this frantic when alGore and John Kerry were winning.

Do they know something that we do not?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

PS - That was always my MO when bouncing and confronted by a group.


Pop the mouthy guy in the mouth hard and fast...



When he is silent, so are his buddies.

 

[mercury14]

The libs here are in panic meltdown mode. They didn't get this frantic when alGore and John Kerry were winning.

Do they know something that we do not?

I'm melting down. Really, I am. Seriously. Total meltdown here.

I'm serious.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

lol @ both of ya

 

[mercury14]

lol @ both of ya

Where are you?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The libs here are in panic meltdown mode.

You're projecting again, Chief.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

Where are you?

i'm in Connecticut.