U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[Carolina Hustler]

So Carolina Hustler, since you have posted so much in this thread, and since you are so critical of Obama over this issue, I would like to know the following: 1. What do you think actually happened? Please be specific, and if possible give your reasons for your conclusions. 2. If you were in charge of Congress and/or our judicial system, how would you handle this situation? Would you impeach Obama, remove him from office, and charge him with a crime over this? What would you do? tia

1. In what regard? They were there not for diplomacy but for an attempt to intercept and gain intelligence on weapons transfers. Specifically SA-7 rockets (I believe they are called).. This was a calibration between the CIA and the State Department obviously because both CIA and state department folks were on the ground in Benghazi.. From what I understand, the CIA had captured and were holding prisoner 2 Libyan militants, for what I'm not clear on.. I believe this triggered the attack on the consulate and annex. I think assistance was denied or put on hold in an attempt to do one of 2 things. Either they were hoping the troops, both American and Libyan would collaborate and ward off the attack, and they could avoid making this a US rescue operation, where after making this a political issue in the US public, or they wanted this issue to erupt where they would gain American public favor they would contort into some other need to be involved, or not involved, or turn it into some blame the opponent game and use it politically.. And it backfired There were obviously some agents that did not stand down, and as a result Americans were saved, but I think if they had not been held back and were able to leave sooner, all could have been saved Obviously more could have been done, and there is a lot of evidence that leads to a coverup attempt.. 2. I would continue the investigation, and punish all who I could prove had a hand in the wrongdoing or deception. If I found the president was discarding American lives for political gain, I'd impeach. Most likely these are issues that can be understood but not proven. So, the best you could probably hope to gain at that point is for the administration to get there priorities straight for the rest of his term in fear of having his butt impeached if he's caught goofing up.. Aggravation drives my posting in this thread. I'm not asking for any punishment myself. I distrust most politicians in both of those parties. And we have little recourse when we are mistreated or deceived. The reality is we're all just cattle, and they only really care about us or our opinions when it means something is in it for them.. Otherwise, get back to mooing..

 

[glock]

So Carolina Hustler, since you have posted so much in this thread, and since you are so critical of Obama over this issue, I would like to know the following: 1. What do you think actually happened? Please be specific, and if possible give your reasons for your conclusions. 2. If you were in charge of Congress and/or our judicial system, how would you handle this situation? Would you impeach Obama, remove him from office, and charge him with a crime over this? What would you do? tia

1. In what regard? They were there not for diplomacy but for an attempt to intercept and gain intelligence on weapons transfers. Specifically SA-7 rockets (I believe they are called).. This was a calibration between the CIA and the State Department obviously because both CIA and state department folks were on the ground in Benghazi.. From what I understand, the CIA had captured and were holding prisoner 2 Libyan militants, for what I'm not clear on.. I believe this triggered the attack on the consulate and annex. I think assistance was denied or put on hold in an attempt to do one of 2 things. Either they were hoping the troops, both American and Libyan would collaborate and ward off the attack, and they could avoid making this a US rescue operation, where after making this a political issue in the US public, or they wanted this issue to erupt where they would gain American public favor they would contort into some other need to be involved, or not involved, or turn it into some blame the opponent game and use it politically.. And it backfired There were obviously some agents that did not stand down, and as a result Americans were saved, but I think if they had not been held back and were able to leave sooner, all could have been saved Obviously more could have been done, and there is a lot of evidence that leads to a coverup attempt.. 2. I would continue the investigation, and punish all who I could prove had a hand in the wrongdoing or deception. If I found the president was discarding American lives for political gain, I'd impeach. Most likely these are issues that can be understood but not proven. So, the best you could probably hope to gain at that point is for the administration to get there priorities straight for the rest of his term in fear of having his butt impeached if he's caught goofing up.. Aggravation drives my posting in this thread. I'm not asking for any punishment myself. I distrust most politicians in both of those parties. And we have little recourse when we are mistreated or deceived. The reality is we're all just cattle, and they only really care about us or our opinions when it means something is in it for them.. Otherwise, get back to mooing..

</mooing> Please.

 

[sporthenry]

60 pages in, and we are finally starting to get somewhere. Once we get past the stupid talking points, the stand down orders, etc. and find out what we were doing there and why security was lagging is when we'll find some answers.

I don't know if we were selling or buying stinger missiles or if we were recruiting jihadists but I'm sure we were doing something classified.

I don't believe it was from the directive of Hillary and think it was mostly a CIA initiative hence why they had the Annex there and had more personnel there. The State Department had Stephens and Smith with 5 security officers and their presence in the area for the months leading up to the attack seemed very transitory

I'm not sure if Stephens was there to set up a permanent consulate there but that makes some sense since the end of FY is September for the federal government.

The one guy who might be behind the whole thing is Brennan. But then this is going to get into a question of what we should have done in Libya? Declare war and help the rebels? Not do anything? Help arm the rebels? It seems that every time we arm someone the weapons end up in the wrong hands but there must be a reason we keep doing it. It is above my pay grade to speculate as to why, but if you want a conspiracy theory, that is at lease a believable one.

 

[Novice2]

Tough to do from an iPad Benghazi suspects identified, but not yet arrested

WASHINGTON — The U.S. has identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, and has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists, officials say. But there isn't enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and holding them at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It's all about the optics. He could grab them now as enemy combatants, but doesn't.

it was a long long time ago and what does it matter now? Plus we have to get permission from the UN and Libya!

 

[timschochet]

60 pages in, and we are finally starting to get somewhere. Once we get past the stupid talking points, the stand down orders, etc. and find out what we were doing there and why security was lagging is when we'll find some answers.

I don't know if we were selling or buying stinger missiles or if we were recruiting jihadists but I'm sure we were doing something classified.

I don't believe it was from the directive of Hillary and think it was mostly a CIA initiative hence why they had the Annex there and had more personnel there. The State Department had Stephens and Smith with 5 security officers and their presence in the area for the months leading up to the attack seemed very transitory

I'm not sure if Stephens was there to set up a permanent consulate there but that makes some sense since the end of FY is September for the federal government.

The one guy who might be behind the whole thing is Brennan. But then this is going to get into a question of what we should have done in Libya? Declare war and help the rebels? Not do anything? Help arm the rebels? It seems that every time we arm someone the weapons end up in the wrong hands but there must be a reason we keep doing it. It is above my pay grade to speculate as to why, but if you want a conspiracy theory, that is at lease a believable one.

My honest opinion is that most conservatives don't care about any of the issues you're discussing here.They are only focused on this issue to the extent that it embarrasses Obama and/or Hillary directly.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

60 pages in, and we are finally starting to get somewhere. Once we get past the stupid talking points, the stand down orders, etc. and find out what we were doing there and why security was lagging is when we'll find some answers.

I don't know if we were selling or buying stinger missiles or if we were recruiting jihadists but I'm sure we were doing something classified.

I don't believe it was from the directive of Hillary and think it was mostly a CIA initiative hence why they had the Annex there and had more personnel there. The State Department had Stephens and Smith with 5 security officers and their presence in the area for the months leading up to the attack seemed very transitory

I'm not sure if Stephens was there to set up a permanent consulate there but that makes some sense since the end of FY is September for the federal government.

The one guy who might be behind the whole thing is Brennan. But then this is going to get into a question of what we should have done in Libya? Declare war and help the rebels? Not do anything? Help arm the rebels? It seems that every time we arm someone the weapons end up in the wrong hands but there must be a reason we keep doing it. It is above my pay grade to speculate as to why, but if you want a conspiracy theory, that is at lease a believable one.

My honest opinion is that most conservatives don't care about any of the issues you're discussing here.They are only focused on this issue to the extent that it embarrasses Obama and/or Hillary directly.

 

[pittstownkiller]

60 pages in, and we are finally starting to get somewhere. Once we get past the stupid talking points, the stand down orders, etc. and find out what we were doing there and why security was lagging is when we'll find some answers. I don't know if we were selling or buying stinger missiles or if we were recruiting jihadists but I'm sure we were doing something classified. I don't believe it was from the directive of Hillary and think it was mostly a CIA initiative hence why they had the Annex there and had more personnel there. The State Department had Stephens and Smith with 5 security officers and their presence in the area for the months leading up to the attack seemed very transitory I'm not sure if Stephens was there to set up a permanent consulate there but that makes some sense since the end of FY is September for the federal government. The one guy who might be behind the whole thing is Brennan. But then this is going to get into a question of what we should have done in Libya? Declare war and help the rebels? Not do anything? Help arm the rebels? It seems that every time we arm someone the weapons end up in the wrong hands but there must be a reason we keep doing it. It is above my pay grade to speculate as to why, but if you want a conspiracy theory, that is at lease a believable one.

My honest opinion is that most conservatives don't care about any of the issues you're discussing here.They are only focused on this issue to the extent that it embarrasses Obama and/or Hillary directly.

What the hell would you know about how a conservative thinks?

 

[Novice2]

60 pages in, and we are finally starting to get somewhere. Once we get past the stupid talking points, the stand down orders, etc. and find out what we were doing there and why security was lagging is when we'll find some answers. I don't know if we were selling or buying stinger missiles or if we were recruiting jihadists but I'm sure we were doing something classified. I don't believe it was from the directive of Hillary and think it was mostly a CIA initiative hence why they had the Annex there and had more personnel there. The State Department had Stephens and Smith with 5 security officers and their presence in the area for the months leading up to the attack seemed very transitory I'm not sure if Stephens was there to set up a permanent consulate there but that makes some sense since the end of FY is September for the federal government. The one guy who might be behind the whole thing is Brennan. But then this is going to get into a question of what we should have done in Libya? Declare war and help the rebels? Not do anything? Help arm the rebels? It seems that every time we arm someone the weapons end up in the wrong hands but there must be a reason we keep doing it. It is above my pay grade to speculate as to why, but if you want a conspiracy theory, that is at lease a believable one.

My honest opinion is that most conservatives don't care about any of the issues you're discussing here.They are only focused on this issue to the extent that it embarrasses Obama and/or Hillary directly.

What the hell would you know about how a conservative thinks?

didn't you read the expert thread? Conservative thinking is one of the things Tims an expert on.

 

[pittstownkiller]

60 pages in, and we are finally starting to get somewhere. Once we get past the stupid talking points, the stand down orders, etc. and find out what we were doing there and why security was lagging is when we'll find some answers. I don't know if we were selling or buying stinger missiles or if we were recruiting jihadists but I'm sure we were doing something classified. I don't believe it was from the directive of Hillary and think it was mostly a CIA initiative hence why they had the Annex there and had more personnel there. The State Department had Stephens and Smith with 5 security officers and their presence in the area for the months leading up to the attack seemed very transitory I'm not sure if Stephens was there to set up a permanent consulate there but that makes some sense since the end of FY is September for the federal government. The one guy who might be behind the whole thing is Brennan. But then this is going to get into a question of what we should have done in Libya? Declare war and help the rebels? Not do anything? Help arm the rebels? It seems that every time we arm someone the weapons end up in the wrong hands but there must be a reason we keep doing it. It is above my pay grade to speculate as to why, but if you want a conspiracy theory, that is at lease a believable one.

My honest opinion is that most conservatives don't care about any of the issues you're discussing here.They are only focused on this issue to the extent that it embarrasses Obama and/or Hillary directly.

What the hell would you know about how a conservative thinks?

didn't you read the expert thread? Conservative thinking is one of the things Tims an expert on.

:facepalm:

 

[pantherclub]

60 pages in, and we are finally starting to get somewhere. Once we get past the stupid talking points, the stand down orders, etc. and find out what we were doing there and why security was lagging is when we'll find some answers. I don't know if we were selling or buying stinger missiles or if we were recruiting jihadists but I'm sure we were doing something classified. I don't believe it was from the directive of Hillary and think it was mostly a CIA initiative hence why they had the Annex there and had more personnel there. The State Department had Stephens and Smith with 5 security officers and their presence in the area for the months leading up to the attack seemed very transitory I'm not sure if Stephens was there to set up a permanent consulate there but that makes some sense since the end of FY is September for the federal government. The one guy who might be behind the whole thing is Brennan. But then this is going to get into a question of what we should have done in Libya? Declare war and help the rebels? Not do anything? Help arm the rebels? It seems that every time we arm someone the weapons end up in the wrong hands but there must be a reason we keep doing it. It is above my pay grade to speculate as to why, but if you want a conspiracy theory, that is at lease a believable one.

My honest opinion is that most conservatives don't care about any of the issues you're discussing here.They are only focused on this issue to the extent that it embarrasses Obama and/or Hillary directly.

What the hell would you know about how a conservative thinks?

how hard can it be to get inside of a mouth breathers head?

 

[pittstownkiller]

60 pages in, and we are finally starting to get somewhere. Once we get past the stupid talking points, the stand down orders, etc. and find out what we were doing there and why security was lagging is when we'll find some answers. I don't know if we were selling or buying stinger missiles or if we were recruiting jihadists but I'm sure we were doing something classified. I don't believe it was from the directive of Hillary and think it was mostly a CIA initiative hence why they had the Annex there and had more personnel there. The State Department had Stephens and Smith with 5 security officers and their presence in the area for the months leading up to the attack seemed very transitory I'm not sure if Stephens was there to set up a permanent consulate there but that makes some sense since the end of FY is September for the federal government. The one guy who might be behind the whole thing is Brennan. But then this is going to get into a question of what we should have done in Libya? Declare war and help the rebels? Not do anything? Help arm the rebels? It seems that every time we arm someone the weapons end up in the wrong hands but there must be a reason we keep doing it. It is above my pay grade to speculate as to why, but if you want a conspiracy theory, that is at lease a believable one.

My honest opinion is that most conservatives don't care about any of the issues you're discussing here.They are only focused on this issue to the extent that it embarrasses Obama and/or Hillary directly.

What the hell would you know about how a conservative thinks?

how hard can it be to get inside of a mouth breathers head?

I guess you should ask the people that deal with you.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

 

[Carolina Hustler]

60 pages in, and we are finally starting to get somewhere. Once we get past the stupid talking points, the stand down orders, etc. and find out what we were doing there and why security was lagging is when we'll find some answers.

I don't know if we were selling or buying stinger missiles or if we were recruiting jihadists but I'm sure we were doing something classified.

I don't believe it was from the directive of Hillary and think it was mostly a CIA initiative hence why they had the Annex there and had more personnel there. The State Department had Stephens and Smith with 5 security officers and their presence in the area for the months leading up to the attack seemed very transitory

I'm not sure if Stephens was there to set up a permanent consulate there but that makes some sense since the end of FY is September for the federal government.

The one guy who might be behind the whole thing is Brennan. But then this is going to get into a question of what we should have done in Libya? Declare war and help the rebels? Not do anything? Help arm the rebels? It seems that every time we arm someone the weapons end up in the wrong hands but there must be a reason we keep doing it. It is above my pay grade to speculate as to why, but if you want a conspiracy theory, that is at lease a believable one.

My honest opinion is that most conservatives don't care about any of the issues you're discussing here.They are only focused on this issue to the extent that it embarrasses Obama and/or Hillary directly.

Hilary being at the helm of the state department would have been a participant here..

 

[drummer]

I'm waiting for pitts-olina's outrage over this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/anne-smedinghoff-funeral-_n_3100151.html

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'm waiting for pitts-olina's outrage over this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/anne-smedinghoff-funeral-_n_3100151.html

My aggravation is with our interventionist government. We shouldn't be there. If it wasn't for our intervention in the ME, There would be far less angst aimed at Americans..

 

[timschochet]

I'm waiting for pitts-olina's outrage over this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/anne-smedinghoff-funeral-_n_3100151.html

My aggravation is with our interventionist government. We shouldn't be there. If it wasn't for our intervention in the ME, There would be far less angst aimed at Americans..

I am so sick and tired of hearing this Ron Paul crap. It's incredibly simplistic and just plain dumb.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I'm waiting for pitts-olina's outrage over this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/anne-smedinghoff-funeral-_n_3100151.html

???You are a strange dude Drummer.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'm waiting for pitts-olina's outrage over this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/anne-smedinghoff-funeral-_n_3100151.html

My aggravation is with our interventionist government. We shouldn't be there. If it wasn't for our intervention in the ME, There would be far less angst aimed at Americans..

I am so sick and tired of hearing this Ron Paul crap. It's incredibly simplistic and just plain dumb.

When your way proves to be working as designed, I'll concede that we need to be over there.. Don't hold your breath..

 

[timschochet]

I don't need you to concede it. And again, there's no "my way". That's as simplistic as everything else you've written. Each action or inaction that the United States takes in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) should stand or fall on its on merits. There are no overall encompassing rules here.

For example, as I have stated on numerous occasions, I hold that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a terrible mistake. But his father's decision to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait was absolutely the right decision. Obama's decision in his first term to maximize efforts in Afghanistan is probably ill-advised. But his decision to aid Libyan rebels fighting Quaddafi was the right one. The isolationist bullcrap that you and Ron Paul espouse is just as dangerous to our interests as John McCain's desire to go gung ho on everything.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't need you to concede it. And again, there's no "my way". That's as simplistic as everything else you've written. Each action or inaction that the United States takes in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) should stand or fall on its on merits. There are no overall encompassing rules here.

For example, as I have stated on numerous occasions, I hold that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a terrible mistake. But his father's decision to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait was absolutely the right decision. Obama's decision in his first term to maximize efforts in Afghanistan is probably ill-advised. But his decision to aid Libyan rebels fighting Quaddafi was the right one. The isolationist bullcrap that you and Ron Paul espouse is just as dangerous to our interests as John McCain's desire to go gung ho on everything.

Dangerous to who?

I know this, if we were not so involved in the ME, far less Americans will have died the last 30 years..

Whats the trade off? American soldiers and civilians die so that politicians can make a name for themselves, and probably a nice profit in the peripheral, and guys who are already millionaires can secure their stakes in the middle east..

And the public is sold on all these humanitarian claims..

Evil exists in this world. To us, the enemy is evil, to them, we are evil... There is no tangible entity that can be concurred and rid the world of evil. Evil is an idea, and in most cases an idea used to manipulate..

This fighting is powered by big buisness, politicians, and millionaires. The facade is religion, good and evil, humanitarianism, etc...

 

[Novice2]

I'm waiting for pitts-olina's outrage over this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/anne-smedinghoff-funeral-_n_3100151.html

did they blame that one on a YouTube video as well?

 

[sporthenry]

I don't need you to concede it. And again, there's no "my way". That's as simplistic as everything else you've written. Each action or inaction that the United States takes in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) should stand or fall on its on merits. There are no overall encompassing rules here.

For example, as I have stated on numerous occasions, I hold that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a terrible mistake. But his father's decision to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait was absolutely the right decision. Obama's decision in his first term to maximize efforts in Afghanistan is probably ill-advised. But his decision to aid Libyan rebels fighting Quaddafi was the right one. The isolationist bullcrap that you and Ron Paul espouse is just as dangerous to our interests as John McCain's desire to go gung ho on everything.

Dangerous to who?

I know this, if we were not so involved in the ME, far less Americans will have died the last 30 years..

Whats the trade off? American soldiers and civilians die so that politicians can make a name for themselves, and probably a nice profit in the peripheral, and guys who are already millionaires can secure their stakes in the middle east..

And the public is sold on all these humanitarian claims..

Evil exists in this world. To us, the enemy is evil, to them, we are evil... There is no tangible entity that can be concurred and rid the world of evil. Evil is an idea, and in most cases an idea used to manipulate..

This fighting is powered by big buisness, politicians, and millionaires. The facade is religion, good and evil, humanitarianism, etc...

So from talking points to intervention in the Middle East.

As for all of ME intervention, you pretty much have to go back to the World Wars and probably beyond to see where it started and I'm not quite sure how it could be that different. Sure there were mistakes made but I don't think isolationist would have worked or made us any safer or better off.

As for recent intervention, what do you suppose? Should we not have gone to Afghanistan? Should we have no presence in the ME? What would the appropriate response have been after 9/11?

As for our intervention in Libya or Syria, it is pretty limited. I don't think anyone wants to put boots on the ground but are you suggesting we don't offer any assistance?

The basic facade for this is humanitarian and to a certain point, that is a legit point. I'm not a huge fan of America being the world police but I don't think we can dismiss crimes against humanity. But beyond that, I think the fighting is powered by America's interests. The ME is obviously unstable and is it not in our best interest to try to stabilize it or at least have some allies in the area?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So from talking points to intervention in the Middle East.

As for all of ME intervention, you pretty much have to go back to the World Wars and probably beyond to see where it started and I'm not quite sure how it could be that different. Sure there were mistakes made but I don't think isolationist would have worked or made us any safer or better off.

As for recent intervention, what do you suppose? Should we not have gone to Afghanistan? Should we have no presence in the ME? What would the appropriate response have been after 9/11?

As for our intervention in Libya or Syria, it is pretty limited. I don't think anyone wants to put boots on the ground but are you suggesting we don't offer any assistance?

The basic facade for this is humanitarian and to a certain point, that is a legit point. I'm not a huge fan of America being the world police but I don't think we can dismiss crimes against humanity. But beyond that, I think the fighting is powered by America's interests. The ME is obviously unstable and is it not in our best interest to try to stabilize it or at least have some allies in the area?

Ok, so let me get this straight.. If I want to let other countries govern themselves, and not interfere with their customs, politics, economy, and everyday life, I'm an "isolationist"..

And in order to avoid being an isolationist, I need to overthrow governments in countries that I don't live in, send my countrymen there to kill and die, and force my idea of government in place of that I destroyed, manipulate their politics and economy, be hated by their people and call the ones over there who don't like my presence, who are willing to do something about it, terrorists..

I think if those are your definitions, then I'm an isolationist..

We can have a political and economic relationship with countries in the middle east without getting involved militarily and/or imposing our economic and political ideals on them..

As far as "crimes against humanity" go, who defines the occasion? Many would call our military intervention and many of our countries history of war tactics "crimes against humanity"..

I think we need to help in a limited way when unavoidable.. But their fights are not our buisness..

 

[sporthenry]

So from talking points to intervention in the Middle East. As for all of ME intervention, you pretty much have to go back to the World Wars and probably beyond to see where it started and I'm not quite sure how it could be that different. Sure there were mistakes made but I don't think isolationist would have worked or made us any safer or better off.As for recent intervention, what do you suppose? Should we not have gone to Afghanistan? Should we have no presence in the ME? What would the appropriate response have been after 9/11? As for our intervention in Libya or Syria, it is pretty limited. I don't think anyone wants to put boots on the ground but are you suggesting we don't offer any assistance? The basic facade for this is humanitarian and to a certain point, that is a legit point. I'm not a huge fan of America being the world police but I don't think we can dismiss crimes against humanity. But beyond that, I think the fighting is powered by America's interests. The ME is obviously unstable and is it not in our best interest to try to stabilize it or at least have some allies in the area?

Ok, so let me get this straight.. If I want to let other countries govern themselves, and not interfere with their customs, politics, economy, and everyday life, I'm an "isolationist"..And in order to avoid being an isolationist, I need to overthrow governments in countries that I don't live in, send my countrymen there to kill and die, and force my idea of government in place of that I destroyed, manipulate their politics and economy, be hated by their people and call the ones over there who don't like my presence, who are willing to do something about it, terrorists..I think if those are your definitions, then I'm an isolationist..We can have a political and economic relationship with countries in the middle east without getting involved militarily and/or imposing our economic and political ideals on them..As far as "crimes against humanity" go, who defines the occasion? Many would call our military intervention and many of our countries history of war tactics "crimes against humanity".. I think we need to help in a limited way when unavoidable.. But their fights are not our buisness..

Solid straw man. I didn't say they were extremes but you did say this

I know this, if we were not so involved in the ME, far less Americans will have died the last 30 years..

So forgive me for assuming you were a strict isolationist.As for crimes against humanity, I'd say the UN probably sets a pretty good standard.As for letting them fight their own battles. This ignores the fact that the US is very much affected by the power in the ME. Do you think that guys like Ahmadinejad or others don't pose a threat to the US?Beyond that, as long as we're dependent on oil, we need the ME.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm waiting for pitts-olina's outrage over this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/anne-smedinghoff-funeral-_n_3100151.html

My aggravation is with our interventionist government. We shouldn't be there. If it wasn't for our intervention in the ME, There would be far less angst aimed at Americans..

I am so sick and tired of hearing this Ron Paul crap. It's incredibly simplistic and just plain dumb.

Much like the Republican economic policy you so willingly support.

I'll never understand why many thoughtful folks acknowledge the current craziness of the Republican platform yet for some reason are convinced that they are economic geniuses. Here's a thought - if you're crazy enough to ignore science, believe that gay people don't deserve equal rights, and have an AMURICA #### YEAH! neocon foreign policy worldview, I don't want you anywhere near the budget/economic table either.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'm waiting for pitts-olina's outrage over this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/anne-smedinghoff-funeral-_n_3100151.html

did they blame that one on a YouTube video as well?

Even if it would have been, initially, it wouldn't change anything.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So from talking points to intervention in the Middle East.As for all of ME intervention, you pretty much have to go back to the World Wars and probably beyond to see where it started and I'm not quite sure how it could be that different. Sure there were mistakes made but I don't think isolationist would have worked or made us any safer or better off.As for recent intervention, what do you suppose? Should we not have gone to Afghanistan? Should we have no presence in the ME? What would the appropriate response have been after 9/11?As for our intervention in Libya or Syria, it is pretty limited. I don't think anyone wants to put boots on the ground but are you suggesting we don't offer any assistance?The basic facade for this is humanitarian and to a certain point, that is a legit point. I'm not a huge fan of America being the world police but I don't think we can dismiss crimes against humanity. But beyond that, I think the fighting is powered by America's interests. The ME is obviously unstable and is it not in our best interest to try to stabilize it or at least have some allies in the area?

Ok, so let me get this straight.. If I want to let other countries govern themselves, and not interfere with their customs, politics, economy, and everyday life, I'm an "isolationist"..And in order to avoid being an isolationist, I need to overthrow governments in countries that I don't live in, send my countrymen there to kill and die, and force my idea of government in place of that I destroyed, manipulate their politics and economy, be hated by their people and call the ones over there who don't like my presence, who are willing to do something about it, terrorists..I think if those are your definitions, then I'm an isolationist..We can have a political and economic relationship with countries in the middle east without getting involved militarily and/or imposing our economic and political ideals on them..As far as "crimes against humanity" go, who defines the occasion? Many would call our military intervention and many of our countries history of war tactics "crimes against humanity"..I think we need to help in a limited way when unavoidable.. But their fights are not our buisness..

Solid straw man. I didn't say they were extremes but you did say this

>I know this, if we were not so involved in the ME, far less Americans will have died the last 30 years..

So forgive me for assuming you were a strict isolationist.As for crimes against humanity, I'd say the UN probably sets a pretty good standard.As for letting them fight their own battles. This ignores the fact that the US is very much affected by the power in the ME. Do you think that guys like Ahmadinejad or others don't pose a threat to the US?Beyond that, as long as we're dependent on oil, we need the ME.

Seems inappropriate to me that if we have a need, and another country can fill that need, we overthrow the current government and place one of our own.. Pretty self serving diplomacy if you ask me..

 

[tommyboy]

Arming Al - Qaeda in Libya was the right choice? Hmm...

 

[Novice2]

Arming Al - Qaeda in Libya was the right choice? Hmm...

Yes like we should arm AlQaeda to overthrow that dictator Assad!

 

[drummer]

Arming Al - Qaeda in Libya was the right choice? Hmm...

tommy needs new baby shoes!

 

[timschochet]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor.

Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

 

[squistion]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor.

Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

I love it. Obama is rattling their cage.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor.

Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

I love it. Obama is rattling their cage.

Me too. He's feeding the Republican base the red meat it thrives on. And they keep taking the bait.

 

[jamny]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor.

Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

I love it. Obama is rattling their cage.

Me too. He's feeding the Republican base the red meat it thrives on. And they keep taking the bait.

Really? Maybe Rush and Hannity are livid (IDK, I don't listen or watch them) but who gives a #### about them. I haven't heard much complaining about it here. Not very good bait, imo.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Yet many/most of those same conservatives undoubtedly cheered Condoleezza Rice's promotion to Sec of State after she served as NSA during the Iraq debacle, and want her to run for president.

But repeating talking points that were cleared by all the intelligence agencies is apparently a tragic offense. LOFL.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Really?

:headinsand:

 

[tommyGunZ]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor.

Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

I love it. Obama is rattling their cage.

Me too. He's feeding the Republican base the red meat it thrives on. And they keep taking the bait.

Really? Maybe Rush and Hannity are livid (IDK, I don't listen or watch them) but who gives a #### about them. I haven't heard much complaining about it here. Not very good bait, imo.

Who gives a #### about Rush and Hannity? Are you serious?

 

[jamny]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor.

Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

I love it. Obama is rattling their cage.

Me too. He's feeding the Republican base the red meat it thrives on. And they keep taking the bait.

Really? Maybe Rush and Hannity are livid (IDK, I don't listen or watch them) but who gives a #### about them. I haven't heard much complaining about it here. Not very good bait, imo.

Who gives a #### about Rush and Hannity? Are you serious?

I'm sure even among their listeners/viewers that only a small percentage care about Susan Rice's promotion. Just because they're probably screaming about it and are taking calls from livid fans doesn't mean it resonates much with the average conservative.

 

[drummer]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor.

Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

I love it. Obama is rattling their cage.

Me too. He's feeding the Republican base the red meat it thrives on. And they keep taking the bait.

Really? Maybe Rush and Hannity are livid (IDK, I don't listen or watch them) but who gives a #### about them. I haven't heard much complaining about it here. Not very good bait, imo.

Who gives a #### about Rush and Hannity? Are you serious?

I'm sure even among their listeners/viewers that only a small percentage care about Susan Rice's promotion. Just because they're probably screaming about it and are taking calls from livid fans doesn't mean it resonates much with the average conservative.

If I had a conservative/liberal talk show, baiting listeners with rhetoric is what I should be doing.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor.

Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

I love it. Obama is rattling their cage.

Me too. He's feeding the Republican base the red meat it thrives on. And they keep taking the bait.

Really? Maybe Rush and Hannity are livid (IDK, I don't listen or watch them) but who gives a #### about them. I haven't heard much complaining about it here. Not very good bait, imo.

Who gives a #### about Rush and Hannity? Are you serious?

Well, young, persuadable voters who had nothing but terrible things to say about the Republican Party identified Rush, Bill O' and Mr. Beck as the leaders of the Republican Party. So apparently someone is listening.

 

[RBM]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor. Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

And liberals continue to dance on the graves of the deceased Americans.

 

[jamny]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor. Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

And liberals continue to dance on the graves of the deceased Americans.

Is payback anything new in government?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor. Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

And liberals continue to dance on the graves of the deceased Americans.

Liberals, moderates, and sane Republicans.

 

[squistion]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor. Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

And liberals continue to dance on the graves of the deceased Americans.

Nope, we are dancing on the grave of this non-scandal. There is no there there (to quote what Gertrude Stein said about Oakland).

 

[Carolina Hustler]

If I had a conservative/liberal talk show, baiting listeners with rhetoric is what I should be doing.

And that's most of what they do...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor.

Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

I love it. Obama is rattling their cage.

Me too. He's feeding the Republican base the red meat it thrives on. And they keep taking the bait.

Really? Maybe Rush and Hannity are livid (IDK, I don't listen or watch them) but who gives a #### about them. I haven't heard much complaining about it here. Not very good bait, imo.

Who gives a #### about Rush and Hannity? Are you serious?

Well, young, persuadable voters who had nothing but terrible things to say about the Republican Party identified Rush, Bill O' and Mr. Beck as the leaders of the Republican Party. So apparently someone is listening.

There are "young, persuadable voters" on both sides, that are feed rhetoric by their party and who despise the rhetoric of the opposing party.. Whats your point?

 

[jonessed]

Susan Rice was just named as Obama's new National Security Advisor. Conservatives on talk radio are totally freaking out...

I love it. Obama is rattling their cage.

Me too. He's feeding the Republican base the red meat it thrives on. And they keep taking the bait.

Really? Maybe Rush and Hannity are livid (IDK, I don't listen or watch them) but who gives a #### about them. I haven't heard much complaining about it here. Not very good bait, imo.

Who gives a #### about Rush and Hannity? Are you serious?

I'm sure even among their listeners/viewers that only a small percentage care about Susan Rice's promotion. Just because they're probably screaming about it and are taking calls from livid fans doesn't mean it resonates much with the average conservative.

Appointing friends to political posts is nothing new. I find it detestable, but it's fairly common practice.

 

[drummer]

If I had a conservative/liberal talk show, baiting listeners with rhetoric is what I should be doing.

And that's most of what they do...

You can't exist in broadcasting without ratings. Unfortunately, most go after the lowest common denominator for them.

 

[Widbil83]

Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack

CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack. Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret. CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking.

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress. It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career. In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."

Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation." "Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer. In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.

"If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it's called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they're looking for something, or they're on a fishing expedition. But it's absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly," said Baer.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/

 

[pantagrapher]

Dear god, there were CIA agents in Libya ... allegedly?!