Muslim Fall?

With US embassies attack in Egypt and Libya, has the Arab Spring entered a new phase?

Advertisements

Comments

  1. (Reuters) – The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on their car, a Libyan official said, as they were rushed from a consular building stormed by militants denouncing a U.S.-made film insulting the Prophet Mohammad.

    Gunmen had attacked and burned the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, a center of last year’s uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, late on Tuesday evening, killing one U.S. consular official. The building was evacuated.

    The Libyan official said the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was being driven from the consulate building to a safer location when gunmen opened fire.

    “The American ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them,” the official in Benghazi told Reuters.

    There was no immediate comment from the State Department in Washington. U.S. ambassadors in such volatile countries are accompanied by tight security, usually travelling in well-protected convoys. Security officials will be considering whether the two attacks were coordinated.

    Libyan deputy prime minister Mustafa Abu Shagour condemned the killing of the U.S. diplomats as a cowardly act.

    The consular official had died after clashes between Libyan security forces and Islamist militants around the consulate building. Looters raided the empty compound and some onlookers took pictures after calm returned.

    In neighboring Egypt, demonstrators had torn down an American flag and burned it during the protest. Some tried to raise a black flag with the words “There is no God but God, and Mohammad is his messenger”, a Reuters witness said.

    PORTRAYAL OF PROPHET

    U.S. pastor Terry Jones, who had inflamed anger in the Muslim world in 2010 with plans to burn the Koran, said he had promoted “Innocence of Muslims”, which U.S. media said was produced by an Israeli-American property developer; but clips of another film called “Mohammad, Prophet of Muslims”, had been circulating for weeks before the protest.

    That film portrayed Mohammad as a fool, a philanderer and a religious fake. In one clip posted on YouTube Mohammad was shown in a sexual act with a woman.

    Jones, a pastor in Florida whose latest stunt fell on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, triggered riots in Afghanistan in 2010 with his threat to burn the Koran.

    Many Muslims consider any depiction of the Prophet offensive and any depiction of him can cause outbursts of anger in the Islamic world and among Muslims in Europe.

    Libya’s interim government has struggled to impose its authority on a myriad of armed groups that have refused to lay down their weapons and often take the law into their own hands.

    It was clearly overwhelmed by Tuesday night’s attack on the consulate that preceded the assault on the ambassador.

  2. Todd says:
    September 12, 2012 at 1:45 am

    I think this will back-fire for Romney, as the Fox News article leaves out some important facts…

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/11/romney-calls-obama-administration-early-response-to-attacks-disgrace/#ixzz26Dvwl700

    (brought forward from Romney better Leader)
    -sigh- Kinda agree with Todd (I hate when that happens). I think this will hurt Romney some, but not much. I think the focus will and should be on Obama/Clinton. If our ambassador should not have been issuing such statements, where was the guidance from his superiors? You can’t lead from behind, or while out campaigning.

    • Yes, it will, among the brain dead. To equate what happened to any type of American domestic activity done by an American citizen is the equivalent of promoting censorship. Every day, in thousands and thousands of places here at home, people are insulting God, ethnic groups, religious beliefs, food choices, sexual choices and just about everything else. Generally, we here, do not kill over that nor do we excuse the rare killing when it does happen.

      It was a huge mistake for the department of State, (Now I understand why JFK hated it so much) to make any allusion at all to the alleged complaint of the murderers. Screw ’em. They do not need an excuse to show their true colors.

      So much for the “Arab Spring”. This turkey in the White House has much more in common with Woodrow Wilson than I ever thought. In addition to his own reverse racism, he too will “make the world safe for democracy”. BS then, BS now. These folks that he and Hillary have indulged with “peace and freedom” would not be able to understand either concept in another thousand years. They are stuck in a time warp.

      • charlieopera says:

        Let us please remember it was GWB who encouraged democracy in the middle east and brought an arab terrorist association to power in Palestine.

        How about we stay the fock out of everybody else’s business? That includes all the wars Bush started and Obama hasn’t ended and the ones Romney seems to anxious to start … while his 5 boys rest comfortably in their car (with the poor dog on the roof) …:)

        • Charlie, I agree with you, let’s get out of everyone’s business! 🙂 At least they didn’t eat the dog! 🙂

        • Did I defend Bush somewhere? If so, please let me know. Jeez, every time I drove with my dad’s dog in the car, 70 miles an hour or twenty-five, he had his head out the window. Loved it. But then again, he was 90 lbs, no little pouff ball.

        • Agreed charlie, and we should include the ones Obama messed around in, like Libya and Syria. Its not all getting started on the right and just perpetuated by the left, its just that the left doesnt advertise the ones they start. Heck, while we are at it, lets roll back to the ones Clinton started and Bush Sr. and Reagan. We have been screwing with the middle east since I have been alive, and we wonder why theres so many problems….

  3. Bringing this forward from this morning. There is much more to be learned from the Russians in dealing with Muslims not colored by wishful thinking.

    September 12, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Interesting program on C-Span over the weekend on Russian Orthodoxy. There were three guests, all Russians and all speaking regarding the resurgence of the religion. Made some excellent points about Russia seeking its “identity” and possibly finding it. It is 21 years now since Communism fell and despite most US politicians still managing to call the place the Soviet Union on a regular basis, most Russians under 30 have no experience with the Soviet State.

    These three men, all I would say in their 50′s or 60′s see an interesting future for “mother Russia”. All agree that Europe is dead, doesn’t even believe in itself anymore and that the US is running a close second. All are “compromised” by their secularism and their unwillingness to even define the difference between right and wrong. All see the growth of the Russian Church and the coming alliance with Poland (!) as being the only future the West has.

    If I were to sum it all up, I would say it goes something like this, “You can’t fight an enemy who operates on a belief system based on religious faith, no matter how wrong, with a system that believes in nothing”. Last time around, a thousand years ago, it was the Western Empire that was supposed to save the Byzantine but didn’t. This time around, it may be the East trying. An interesting premise to say the least.

    From a purely psychological standpoint, it fits in with that concept that repression/hard times tend to make people a lot stronger. The Russian people, an educated people, had seventy years, almost four generations of repression. Wonder what will bloom?

  4. Statements by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as released Wednesday by the White House:

    ___

    OBAMA:

    I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

    I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

    On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

    The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.

    ___

    CLINTON:

    It is with profound sadness that I share the news of the death of four American personnel in Benghazi, Libya, yesterday. Among them were United States Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals. Our hearts go out to all their families and colleagues.

    A 21-year veteran of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Stevens died last night from injuries he sustained in the attack on our office in Benghazi.

    I had the privilege of swearing in Chris for his post in Libya only a few months ago. He spoke eloquently about his passion for service, for diplomacy and for the Libyan people. This assignment was only the latest in his more than two decades of dedication to advancing closer ties with the people of the Middle East and North Africa, which began as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco. As the conflict in Libya unfolded, Chris was one of the first Americans on the ground in Benghazi. He risked his own life to lend the Libyan people a helping hand to build the foundation for a new, free nation. He spent every day since helping to finish the work that he started. Chris was committed to advancing America’s values and interests, even when that meant putting himself in danger.

    Sean Smith was a husband and a father of two, who joined the Department ten years ago. Like Chris, Sean was one of our best. Prior to arriving in Benghazi, he served in Baghdad, Pretoria, Montreal and most recently The Hague.

    All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

    America’s diplomats and development experts stand on the front lines every day for our country. We are honored by the service of each and every one of them.

    ——————–

    “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others”

    That’s the embassy of Cairo (who can’t be bothered to use periods at the end of their sentences). I’m not sure if that was before or after the attack, but I’ll assume it was before since is says nothing at all about the attacks. Feel free to show me otherwise.

    ——

    “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” she said. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

    That’s Clinton again.

    ———————————————————————

    What part of that is “sympathizing” with the attackers? Or am I missing something?

    • Matt,

      Both embassies were warned about the expected violence, the one in Egypt was evacuated. If they had time to evacuate, why did Obama/Clinton not have time to instruct their ambassadors on how to respond and what actions to take? Simple,it’s a lack of leadership!

    • Mathius,

      Well, let’s follow-the-dots:

      * Tuesday, right-wing pundits claim Romney not getting tough enough with Obama
      * Tuesday night – Romney “gets tough with Obama”
      * Wednesday morning – Romney doubles down with lies/false information

      Maybe the right-wing pundits will show him some love today…

      • I don’t agree it is lies /false information. He has a right to express his opinion. Does not make him right or wrong. “* Tuesday, right-wing pundits claim Romney not getting tough enough with Obama” I’ve been seeing some of that…

        Mr. Romney, Time to Show us The Money
        Rob Cunningham

        Mr. Romney, the time for bold truth is now. Americans are adults and we crave truth. Voters deserve your respect and our current dire conditions demand your candor. Without use of vile invectives, hateful tones or childish insults, you must take the gloves off and speak truth to grossly corrupted power.

        Our Constitution is being trashed, disrespected and ignored.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/mr_romney_time_to_show_us_the_money.html#ixzz26GomzlO0

        • “The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached, protesters were inside the grounds,” said Romney at his press conference Wednesday morning.

          Completely false. This was documented last night – the statement came out before the violence.

      • Maybe the right-wing pundits will show him some love today…

        I guess not…imagine that…

    • You are missing a lot…I am reminded of Monty Python’s Holy Grail….

      “Leave here you stupid pig dog Englishman or I shall taunt you a second time”.

      The man has absolutely no leadership nor insight…..SHIT….it was 9-11…..how stupid does one have to be to know that something will happen on 9-11. Damn it all…..We should have closed our Embassies a long time ago….there is NO dealing with these people at all unless you deal with their terms.

      One thing to remember…..Embassy grounds are sovereign territory THE WORLD OVER. I warned about this over a year ago and here it is……Clinton has absolutely NO CLUE how to handle this….Obama is worse.

      …………………………and the lame ass may win the election because we, as a people, have forgotten what leadership is all about. All we seem to care about is out own little utopia. Sad.

    • There is no excuse, there is no reason to give even an iota of understanding and couch it in “we condemn misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims, blah, blah, blah”. Really?, Really? Where is that respect when misguided individuals attack Catholics, Catholic teaching, The Pope, Fundamentalist Baptists, Mormons, Jews? When is the US Government going to shut down “the Book of Mormon” on Broadway?

      Osama and the gang won on 9/11. He convinced the Conservatives, not the libertarian kind, that we are in constantly deadly danger and need protection against the 3 Al Queda guys left alive . He convinced the left that they must, out of fear, self loathing, or a misguided sense of fairness censor any mention of Islam.

      So, basically, we are toast.

      Kudos though today to Krauthamer whom I often disagree with. He basically said, “Tell them to go to hell”.

  5. charlieopera says:

    Imagine having a terrorist seeking terrorist sympathizer in the white house … for 4 more years!

  6. Well I’m not exactly sure what’s going on in the world, but Bill Nye is my new hero. I think the guy finally hit his bullsh*t limit – he’s taken all he can take and he can’t take no more.

    http://thedailycurrant.tumblr.com/post/30549605519/because-your-ass-is-gonna-fucking-need-it-when

    http://dailycurrant.com/2012/09/02/todd-akin-agrees-debate-monkey-lover-bill-nye/

  7. Romney campaign links embassy attacks to Obama’s failed Middle East policies
    Posted By Josh Rogin Wednesday, September 12, 2012 – 7:47 AM Share

    President Barack Obama’s flawed approach to the Middle East and his failure to assert American leadership throughout the Arab Spring resulted in reduced American influence in the region and set the stage for Tuesday’s assaults on U.S. diplomatic posts led by Islamic extremists, Romney senior foreign policy advisor Rich Williamson told The Cable Tuesday night.[SHARE]

    The attacks Tuesday on two U.S. diplomatic posts were directly related to “the loss of American leadership and prestige throughout the Middle East because of the Obama administration’s failed policies in that region,” Williamson said in an extensive interview late Tuesday evening.

    The interview took place before it was known that four Americans died in the armed assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. President Barack Obama issued a statement this morning confirming reports of Stevens’ death and condemning the attacks.

    “Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives,” Obama said in the statement. “I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe.”

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a seperate statement Wednesday morning that foreign service officer Sean Smith was also killed. The names of the other two U.S. citizens killed have not yet beeen released, pending notification of their families.

    Tuesday night, while the attacks were still ongoing, Williamson said that the governments in Egypt and Libya as well as the Obama administration bear responsibility for the deteriorating security environment that led to the attacks.

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/12/romney_campaign_links_embassy_attacks_to_obama_s_failed_middle_east_policies

    (long article, I do think Obama screwed the pooch on the Arab Spring. I also think Romney/his advisor are playing a Newt like game, whatever Obama does, they can take a position why it’s wrong and second guess his every action.)

  8. 9-12-2012…………..President Obama orders heightened security for all embassies.

    Ya think?

    • Symbolic.

      You think security at embassies was lax before? You think all those marines standing around are just for decoration?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Yes, for the most part they are.

      • Yes, Mathius….I have been to many embassies….there is only a small staff of Marines there….usually. I have been to Embassies where there were no Marines at all except a 5 man contingent.

        If the Marines were there, there would have been a pile of bodies…there were none.

        • CBS: Libyan security team fingered US ambassador to be killed; Update: Libyan president issues apology
          posted at 9:21 am on September 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

          In the confusion surrounding the murders of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya yesterday, the Libyan government — which exists due to the military intervention of the US and NATO — initially left the impression that loyalists to dead dictator Moammar Qaddafi conducted the assassinations. CBS, however, now reports that the Libyan government has changed its tune. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the other diplomatic personnel got moved to another building by Libyan security forces when the consulate was attacked, and then betrayed by them to the attackers:

          Military officials told CBS News an anti-terrorism team of U.S. Marines was being deployed to Libya to help secure U.S. interests in the country following the attack. The State Department said, however, that no Americans were remaining at the facility in Benghazi. State officials would not confirm how many Americans were evacuated, or to where.

          Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

          He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building, deemed safer, after the initial wave of protests at the consulate. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.

          Stevens, 52, was the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979.

          The dispatch of more Marines to Libya comes a little late, writes Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart, who wonders why the US didn’t have more Marines stationed at this mission in the first place. Or did they have any?

          Security at the consulate was apparently provided by Libyan nationals hired by the United States. While security for American embassies is typically provided by our own Marines, the two Marines reported killed in yesterday’s attacks appear not to have been stationed at the embassy, but were sent there from another unknown location as the violence erupted. There is also no indication if these two Marines were the only American military personnel on site at the time of Ambassador Stevens’s death.

          All reports indicate that the security forces at the consulate were overwhelmed by the size of the militant crowds and offered no resistance as they stormed the building, looted it, and killed the four Americans.

          As the facts surrounding the destruction of the American consulate and death of Ambassador Stevens become known, investigators will focus on these question: Did the State Department provide adequate security for our embassy staff there? If not, why not?

          And finally, the most important question of all: Where were the Marines?

          We’d better get those answers quickly … perhaps as quickly as tomorrow. The Muslim Brotherhood, which now controls Egypt, has called for a “peaceful protest” on Friday throughout all the country — and wants “all national forces” to participate in it:

          Egypt’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood on Wednesday called for nationwide protests Friday after a film deemed offensive to Islam sparked a deadly attack in Libya and furious protests in Cairo.

          The Brotherhood calls “for peaceful protests on Friday outside all the main mosques in all of Egypt’s provinces to denounce offenses to religion and to the Prophet,” the Muslim Brotherhood’s Secretary General Mahmud Hussein said in a statement.

          He also urged all “national forces to join the protests.”

          The Muslim Brotherhood, from which President Mohammed Morsi emerged, is the largest and most organized political force in the country.

          We’d better figure out our security in Cairo ASAP, or get our people out of there. This is going downhill fast, and the weak-sauce responses from the Obama administration is very clearly not dissuading radicals from their purpose.

          Update: Libya’s interim president, Mohammed el-Megarif, issued an explicit apology for the murders of Stevens and the three other Americans:

          Mohammed el-Megarif described the attack as “cowardly” and offered his condolences on the death of Ambassador Chris Stevensand the three other Americans. Speaking to reporters, he vowed to bring the culprits to justice and maintain his country’s close relations with the United States. He said the three Americans were security guards. ….

          “We extend our apology to America, the American people and the whole world,” el-Megarif said.

          Contrast that with the silence coming from Egypt’s leadership after the attack on the US embassy.

          http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/12/cbs-libyan-security-team-fingered-us-ambassador-to-be-killed/

          • VH….the film had no influence and, as Clinton stated otherwise, this was not the work of a “small group of militant protestors”…….the hypocrisy is suffocating. A small group of disgruntled protestors do not have heavy weapons and RPG’s.

            • I agree, I posted the article based on the info. about supposed Security.

            • My buddy, who still sets off metal detectors at airports with frag he carries around from 1969 once said that unless you can figure a way to counter the RPG, don’t bother going to war. I sometimes think, based on film footage that just about everyone in the Mideast and SW Asia above the age of 12 has an RPG, above the age of six for a Kalashnikov.

              But, you are right, I had completely forgotten that it was 9/11. A well planned event to celebrate. Since it was not everywhere, and could theoretically be random,plausible deniability works.

              Shame on me, I advocate that all read T.E. Lawrence’s “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” about the Arab revolt and I forget just how good the Arabs are at misdirection.

        • And, sir, as a precaution to 9-11 in a Muslim area, I would have staffed each Embassy with 30 man Marine Heavy Weapons Amphib Force, two Cobra or Apache gunships (small enough to fit an Embassy), and have a mobile Marine force within three hours flight. That would have been a precaution.

          BUT, even prior to that, I would have closed the Embassy and moved out.

          • Colonel,

            And, sir, as a precaution to 9-11 in a Muslim area, I would have staffed each Embassy with 30 man Marine Heavy Weapons Amphib Force, two Cobra or Apache gunships (small enough to fit an Embassy), and have a mobile Marine force within three hours flight. That would have been a precaution.

            I guess when the only tool you have is a gun, everything is a target…I guess it doesn’t really surprise me that your options are limited to military force…

            BUT, even prior to that, I would have closed the Embassy and moved out.

            Oh wait a minute – after all that blustering and strutting around, you’re really just going to run away with your tail between your legs?

            The funny thing, is that doesn’t surprise me either.

            So Colonel, your “foreign policy” is to bring everyone home anytime you precise any kind of threat? That sounds like working from a point of weakness, not strength.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              It seems to me you haven’t been paying attention to his posts for the past year.

              They have consistently said……….bring everyone home and stop sticking our nose in others business.

              If attacked then annihilate the SOB’s.

              So, if he were in charge then there would have been no embassy.

              But if there were embassies and he were charged with their protection, then you bring in the forces needed IN ADVANCE.

              • @ Todd….good morning, sir. As a military person, if I were in charge of Embassy protection (we are only talking protections here) any first grader knows that the 9-11anniversary is coming and that will be a red letter day and perfect opportunity to make headlines. So, to protect my Embassy, I will take the steps necessary. Bringing in protection is not a prelude to war nor does it signal aggression….No one goes out of the Embassy grounds and no one makes policy. It is the protection of sovereign United States territory. You DO NOT trust local authorities to protect your Embassy. Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc are ALL hotbeds for Islamic militants (which control everything),,,,common sense dictates, that if our CIVILIAN elected politicians deem it necessary to have an Embassy and the military is to guard it…..then guard it.

                Now, if I were in charge of our government and we had an Embassy in any country that became hostile to US interests and did not want is there…..I would simply close up shop, remove all monetary and military support and leave. I would not want to be where we are not wanted.

                In addition, If I were in charge of the policy concerning Embassies, and that country started a civil war…..it is their business. We have NO involvement in it on EITHER side. It is their war and I would not submit the United States to being a world policeman.

                @ JAC…..thanks. I feel that I have been consistent.

              • Sorry, but you’re both wrong about “bring everyone home and stop sticking our nose in others business.”

                If we do that, we lose the battle and the war. Others will take our place on the world stage, and it will not be to our advantage.

                We do need to revamp our foreign policy – less military bullying, less “annihilate the SOB’s”.

                More real diplomacy, real efforts to work with local people to improve the world. That is what makes us great, and that was Ambassador Christopher Stevens passion.

                Anything less is not living up to American values.

  9. Seriously, we’ve got Americans considering this insanity-WE are supposed to give up our free speech rights here so we won’t upset the crazies.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/09/12/mike-barnicle-suggests-prosecuting-pastor-terry-jones-american-amb

  10. Matt..here’s the press release where Romney was referring to an apology. He said in his press conference this morning that although Obama did not apologize..his administration did..sooo..guilt by association.

    U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement

    September 11, 2012

    The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

    • And this statement was issued not by Obama, but by the Cairo Embassy, at the very early stages of the entire incident in an attempt to try to calm the situation.

      Romney’s statement was premature and foolish. Further, this morning, he made a complete fool of himself by doubling down on his criticism of Obama for the Embassy’s statement and outright lying about the timing of the statement vs the attacks.

      • How so? He’s saying we should have a clear foreign policy..no apologies are needed.. we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. It shouldn’t be an issue to apologize about . Romney was man enough to take the questions and not apologize for his position. How about jump on the folks responsible for the deaths. How about jump on Obama for a lame speech today..no questions allowed. What is Obama’s plan now? He’s the one who cheered the Arab spring. What did that get him? He turned his back and walked out. Is that a leader?

        • Romney was man enough to take the questions and not apologize for his position.

          Do we really want a President who is ‘man enough to…not apologize for his position’ even where he is wrong? Obama’s statement was the necessary and proper statement to be made in the wake of the attacks prior to having all the facts. That being said, I completely agree with you that we need more from him. Let’s see how this plays out in the coming hours and days.

          • But that’s the thing – Romney’s position wasn’t wrong. Heck, even the WH eventually walked back the Embassy’s embarrassing statements. Would they have if Romney hadn’t pointed out how misguided their words were? Probably not.

        • we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. It shouldn’t be an issue to apologize about .

          What nonsense.

          I have the right to free speech. Does that mean I shouldn’t have to apologize when I use it in a stupid/hurtful/nasty/malicious way?

          Free speech means you CAN bash Muslims with stupid amateur videos showing Muhammad having sex, but that doesn’t mean you SHOULD. And, as the official position (rightfully so) of the United States is to respect Muslims, it is right that our embassies should reach out and apologize for the things which are being done by our citizens which are objectively reprehensible.

          • Nonsense back at you.

            Do you really think this is about bashing Muslims? On 9/11? Do we set their embassy on fire or kill their diplomats on our soil when Christians end up dead over there? I have no problem with no apology going out. We have dead people and you want to apologize…not over a dead American body..which was dragged through the street no less. A guy who has nothing to do with their problems. You keep apologizing, we’re going to keep ending up dead.

            • Yes I want to apologize.

              YES, damnit, we owe the world a lot of apologies.

              We have been arrogant and selfish and acted with a blinding self-interested narcissism for generations. We strut about the world stage as if we are the saviors of all mankind, ignoring our own evils while sending others to the Hague for theirs. As if toppling the Nazis 60 years ago were an act of charity to the world and they should all bow before our feet even unto the seventh generation.

              We browbeat the entire planet into joining us in a war (“CRUSADE”!) against people who didn’t attack us, while bankrolling and militarily supplying a hegemonic power – one which militarily occupies foreign territory and builds illegal settlements – in the heart of the geographical and geopolitical region, and we shrug our shoulders in wonder at why they might hate us?

              We enable the people who occupy some of the holiest sites in all of Islam, a power which is overtly (far more, even, than the US) hostile to Islam, yet we wonder why Muslims are mad at us?

              Are you kidding me? We’re the schoolyard bully and have been since before you were eating solid food. We have terrorized these people, manipulated them, assassinated them, maligned them, tortured them, abused them, stolen from them, and done so not just with impunity, but with a sense of entitlement and unawareness that baffles the imagination.

              You think they’re the bad guys? You think they “hate us for our freedoms”? They hate us because we’ve been toppling their governments, keeping them down, hate-mongering against them, supporting dictators, and much, much more. They hate us because we’re meddling with their lives like self-appointed gods, indifferent their their own wishes.

              They strap a bomb to their chests and blow themselves up, and they’re terrorists. We fly a drone over their towns and drop bombs on them, but we’re just defending ourselves. How can you possibly not see the double standard you insist on applying?

              You think we do all this and then, unbelievably, think that we shouldn’t have to apologize for any of it?

              Incredible.

          • @ Mathius……look up, my friend……see that little flag fluttering to the ground…..yes..that one…the BS flag.

            There is nothing we need to apologize about. Satire in any form……is perfectly ok. To run scared because a bunch of idiots want to run around burning things and killing people because their god has been demonized or the subject of satire……..is ludicrous.

            Perhaps some Christians need to burn things and go and kill Michael Moore because of his satire on Jesus Christ. Under your guidelines…..that should be understandable.

            Sorry….religion does not run the world and no one should fear retribution and no apologies are necessary for satire.

            I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me, you protect the rights of people to demonize and run down the Christian religion and draw caricatures of Jesus Christ in a variety of offensive manners….but we owe an apology to the caricatures of mohammed or who the hell else it is…
            I don’t think so….and I still wear my T shirt that says proud to be infidel…..I do not run scared and I owe no apology for it. If someone gets offended by my t shirt…they need to get a life.

            So does that part of the world.

            • @ Mathius a little further…..sorry, I posted before I saw your answer. I will agree with you in one area and one area only…….we need to stay the hell out of their business over there. That is the only place I will agree with you on….staying out of their business means no military intervention in their world.

              I have no problem at all being the biggest kid on the block. I despise sitting in the circle around the campfire holding Kumbaya meetings. I despise the United Nations and I despise NATO. We do not need the world at all. We are independent and if we wish to stay that way……we owe the world NOTHING……NOTHING at all….and no apologies.

              Yes, we have toppled governments….both democrats and repubs alike have done this….but that is not even relevant, sir. We need to mind our own business and change our own ways and let the world do what it wants. We need to protect our own….and that DOES mean having the biggest and baddest military. It is how one wields that power…….that decides bully or not.

              But, unfortunately, we have no leadership in this country anymore….on either side…..THAT is the hypocrisy and the saddest part of it.

            • You can use your BS flag for cannon wadding, 13, because it sure as hell was thrown in error.

              Perhaps some Christians need to burn things and go and kill Michael Moore because of his satire on Jesus Christ. Under your guidelines…..that should be understandable.

              I realize that a deep vein of stupid and crazy seems to have crept into SUFA lately, but you are smarter than this. I shouldn’t have to dignify this with a response, but I will anyway.

              Nobody – NOBODY – is saying that it’s ok to respond to satire* with violence. What they’re saying is that we own an apology for our wrongful actions. “They did it too!” is not an excuse. If you do something offensive, you apologize. Ask your mother to explain this to you if you find it confusing.

              *I have not heard anyone else make the claim that this is satire. Can you back that up? Though it’s still irrelevant.

              religion does not run the world and no one should fear retribution and no apologies are necessary for satire.

              Religion sure as hell runs most of the world. And don’t for a second think the US is immune. If the US is secular, I’m Glen Beck.

              Again, you claim this is satire, and even if that were true, it wouldn’t mean all the other stuff we do here is. You cannot possibly have missed all the anti-Muslim sentiment and actions going on here. Just a month ago, I posted here a list of a dozen or hate-crimes against Muslims in America… just in the first half of August.

              And, of course, that’s to say nothing of what Israel does or what we do for Israel. Israel exists because of us – yet you hold us blameless for their actions?

              you protect the rights of people to demonize and run down the Christian religion and draw caricatures of Jesus Christ in a variety of offensive manners….but we owe an apology to the caricatures of mohammed or who the hell else it is…

              I protect the rights of everyone to demonize anyone. Muhammad and Jesus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster included. But that doesn’t mean we SHOULD. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the US shouldn’t have to apologize on behalf of it’s citizens for actions/positions which are contrary to the officially tolerant stance of this government. Especially when that action threatens the stability of foreign relations.

              I still wear my T shirt that says proud to be infidel

              It’s your right to be obnoxious.

              I owe no apology for it.

              You do. But if you refuse, I will happily apologize on your behalf.

              Yes, we have toppled governments….both democrats and repubs alike have done this….but that is not even relevant, sir

              Right.. irrelevant. Because you wouldn’t hold a grudge if some foreign power came in, toppled your government, and imposed it’s own puppet government in it’s place. You’d just let it go, move on with your life, and be perfectly friendly when they established an embassy in your neighborhood.

              We need to protect our own….and that DOES mean having the biggest and baddest military.

              I see the point, though I think it’s unnecessary to have a military larger than the next ten countries combined… but regardless, having a giant defensive army is very different from using a giant offensive army.

              It is how one wields that power…….that decides bully or not.

              And what do you call it when we set up puppet governments in countries which haven’t attacked us?

              • Mathius…..have you not been following me? I do NOT like nor want nor support Embassies in any country anywhere. When our CIVILIAN elected government decides to do this..then do it.

                It is wrong…..WRONG….WRONG……for the United States to topple governments in the name of our own democracy….IT IS WRONG to do that and I have consistently said this for decades. It is WRONG>>>WRONG>>>WRONG…..to install puppet governments….ANYWHERE.

                But it is equally wrong to kowtow and go on an apology tour for the actions of the United States. Simply change the policy. Obama is no different. I am totally convinced of his agenda. If his agenda was to truly behave in the best interest of the United States, then he should NOT take sides in Libya or Egypt or Yemen….simply withdraw the embassies and all military and come home. THAT..in itself, is an apology.

                This satirical movie has been on the internet for six months…and it is now used as an excuse? Even you can see the hypocrisy of this.

                Let me ask you a serious question. If I wear a T shirt that says “proud to be infadel”…what is wrong with that? I am proud to be one. I do not care about the feelings of Muslims here. They can wear t shirts that say “proud to be Muslim”…I would not give a rat’s ass. To apologize for me wearing my t shirt might make you feel better but it is my right to wear it….and the world should not care. THAT is what freedom is. ME, wearing that t shirt, does not affect foreign relations…..I do not give a hoot and holler what they think overseas. If ANYONE wishes to make a satirical or even mocking movie of something…there is no apology necessary……anywhere. The greatest test of freedom is being able to express INDIVIDUAL thought….without government interference.

                I, personally feel, that Michael Moore is a traitor and a coward…..but I do not expect anybody to apologize for him…there is no need. He has a right to make any movie he wants or say anything he wants….even if he wishes to call Mohammed the devil. He has that right and there should be no argument…and YOU sit owe no apology for it.

                If you wish to go on an apology tour for people who do not see things your way….do so. That is also your right. If you wish to label people as bigots because of their beliefs (and you have)..that is also your right to believe that. If I disagree with you, I might want to apologize for people like you (which is what you feel you need to do for me and my t shirt)…if I do…then I have the same freedom of speech to do that,

                Under your guidelines, if a Texas Aggie wears a Tshirt that shows a Texas Longhorn with its horns sawed off…and that T shirt says “proud to be an Aggie”…..you would view it as a school rivalry….but I assert there is no difference in saying proud to be infadel than saying proud to be an Aggie. Both shirts depict a feeling…and a universal right to freedom of expression without remorse or without apology.

                But make not mistake about one thing, sir,,,,,,and you know this….I am not nor have ever been for installing puppet government and regimes anywhere. AND that is exactly what your boy is doing. The minute he took sides in Libya…..he became what you despise. The minute he chose sides in Egypt, he became what you despise…..the minute he took sides in Yeman, he became what you despise. Where is your anger in this?

      • Just heard a couple of really good points. How exactly did we instantaneously determine all this was the result of the video? Were the crowds really shouting “We are all Osama’s, Obama!” How does it play to Muslim sensibilities to always be bragging about how “GM is alive and Osama is dead”?

        How about doing something in the affirmative for a change such as:

        “In the United States we have an unwavering commitment to freedom of speech, even speech which is hateful or hurtful. It is our belief that this Freedom, exercised without government consent or control, provides the type of forum where the hateful and hurtful will,under the scrutiny of a free people, condemn themselves to irrelevancy”.

        You can tell Hill and Barack, it’s free, I won’t charge for it.

      • @ Buck,,,as more comes out……check the timing again….it has changed yet again. Sheesh….this is ridiculous.

      • Isn’t the State Department part of this Adm? As such, the WH is responsible for what comes from them. Did their first statement and subsequent doubling down via Tweets pass through the WH? Perhaps not, but again, still part of the Adm. so they are ultimately responsible for it.

        Romney’s action on both last night’s statement and today’s presser were what we should hope for in a leader (wasn’t that a recent post?). First condemning the apology instead of standing up for free speech (even if it hurts someone’s feelings) and today, first offering condolences but then again, standing up for the principles of free speech and not pander to those that might not like what that speech entails.

        Then (gasp!!!) he took questions from the O-loving media! Can’t even imagine O doing this!

        • Romney’s remarks were what we want in a leader!? Maybe you do, but I certainly don’t. Pretty much everyone with any foreign policy experience (Republicans and Democrats alike) have pounced on his comments. Fact is Romney shows himself again and again at being completely incompetent in the area of foreign policy.

          • Unfortunately, you are correct Buck……both Obama and Romney have no clue to foreign policy. None at all….neither do their advisers. It is sad…sad…sad. This whole thing has been mishandled from the beginning.,,,,,

            And, just so you know, I do not give Romney a pass….he needs to shut up and let the administration handle it. This administration has already blown it….but it is theirs to f*** up….

            NOTE TO REPUBS: SHUT THE HELL UP!!!

          • Buck,
            I think this is a run-on-sentence:

            Fact is Romney shows himself again and again at being completely incompetent in the area of foreign policy.

            It should be:

            Fact is Romney shows himself again and again at being completely incompetent. in the area of foreign policy.

            Yup, I think that makes more sense…

            • Ah, I don’t know what I was thinking. Thanks for the correction!

            • While it’s fun to mock Romney (R-Money) for incompetence, I don’t honestly think it’s fair.

              I think it’s hard to get around the fact that he’s smart, capable, and driven. His campaign may be incompetent, but he, himself, is not.

              And, to be fair, 90% of the reason he appears incompetent is that he’s being forced to pander to the lunatics on the far right so extensively (while trying to grab a piece of the independents in the swing states) that he can’t hold together a coherent message. If he could (as I’m sure he’d like) run as the center-right pragmatist that he is, his campaign would be far more disciplined, on message, coherent, and competent.

              With that point made, please feel free to continue mocking him.

              • Fair enough — Romney has proven himself incompetent in campaigning for President in this election cycle and this political climate. Better?

              • Buck, I feel like “Mom” has ruined all our fun. 😦

              • If he could (as I’m sure he’d like) run as the center-right pragmatist that he is, his campaign would be far more disciplined, on message, coherent, and competent.

                I agree – I posted something similar to this last night on the “Romney” page.

                But it’s his campaign. He’s leading it – or at least he should be. If he’s elected, will he be able to govern as the center-right pragmatist that he is, or would he still be forced to pander to the lunatics on the far right so extensively?

                I’d prefer to not find out! 😉

              • charlieopera says:

                Maybe if he grew a pair of balls and told the extreme right to go fuck a duck … MAYBE he’d have a shot at losing somewhat closer than he’s going to lose … but I think you’re giving him way too much credit. How does one tell whether or not he’s successful? Money alone won’t measure it. A lot of morons made money over the last 30 years. He had an incredibly huge advantage (this is not to say he didn’t work hard or that he is an idiot or a moron, but how do WE know it was his judgment that made the right calls?). The way he’s flip-flopped on so many issues (albeit for political reasons) kind of suggests he’s FRIGGIN’ NUTS to try and run in the GOP … with those psychos? Suggests to me he’s not all that bright, quite frankly.

  11. OFF topic

    High speed chase in LA right now. Suspects are throwing cash..lottsa cash out the window. People are running for cash big time!! 🙂

  12. September 12, 2012
    Report: Obama skipped intel briefings in the week leading up to Cairo and Benghazi attacks
    Thomas Lifson

    In an exclusive report, Wynton Hall writes in Big Peace that there is no record of President Obama attending his daily intelligence briefing, known as the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB). Readers may check for themselves the official record:

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/report_obama_skipped_intel_briefings_in_the_week_leading_up_to_cairo_and_benghazi_attacks.html#ixzz26HVlmR7w

    (Mr. Obama, after reviewing this information I think we need your resignation now, no need to wait until Nov.)

    • Right, because if he doesn’t sit in a specific room at a specific time, no one will tell him what he needs to know. It’s not like, you know, he’s given a write up that he can read as is convenient around his busy schedule, is it?

      Oh wait..

      “The President is among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote in an e-mail. “He receives and reads his [Presidential Daily Brief] every day, and most days when he’s at the White House receives a briefing in person. When necessary he probes the arguments, requests more information or seeks alternate analysis. Sometimes that’s via a written assessment and other times it’s in person.”

      Link.

      What is it with you people lately? If you want to throw around stupid half-assed attacks against the President (and anyone else on the left), go do it on Red State or Breitbart. Don’t waste precious SUFA space with idiocy like this. Seriously, this makes me wonder why I still bother. This place is going to hell without USW around.

      • Whoa! Finally starting to see what an inept adm. you’ve been supporting? Anger and frustration is the first step to recognizing the error of your ways.

        Too funny. Matt complaining about idiocy……….

        • I know reading comprehension was probably not a required course when you were home-schooled, but try rereading, very slowly, what I wrote. Please let me know if you need help sounding out any of the big words.

      • Flashback: Media Amazed by Obama’s ‘Deft’ Libya Policy

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2012/09/12/flashback-media-amazed-obamas-deft-libya-policy#ixzz26HcqnCsk

        Matt, remember we were told Obama would bring peace to the ME (at least as concerns the US) during his apology tour. I still think & maintain his use of military force in Libya was illegal, he did not inform congress and did not get their approval after 60 days.

        • 1. There was no apology tour.
          2. I wish he HAD apologized.
          3. His use of military force in Libya may have been illegal.. I’m not sure, but at least this is a legitimate criticism.
          4. When did Obama ever promise to bring peace to the middle east. Direct and full quote, please.

          • Further on Libya — you are correct, legitimate legal question here.

            But assuming for the moment that our intervention in Libya was constitutional, how would you rank it in terms of success/failure? This question is not just for Mathius, LOI.

            • Buck…good question……having been involved in some of these…..there is no winner. It is a failure for simply intervening. The US needs to be out of the democracy business in other countries. What I reported the other day on here to BF….you should see the other countries we are meddling now in since BO took office. It is ridiculous and not being reported very much or buried somewhere. The Libya situation is nothing more than a civil war…..let them fight it.

              • Not really an answer to the question, but point well taken. Now, forgetting as to whether or not we should have intervened, intervene we did. How do you grade the intervention from a military standpoint? Failure? Successful? Somewhere in the middle?

                And why?

              • Ok, from a purely military standpoint. It is not a success…..and it is not a total failure…..the problem is we now have “boots” on the ground supporting rebels. In my experience, anytime we support one side, it is good at the time and then turns bad….hence the diatribe by Mathius about intervening and all that. This is how it starts.

                Remember Afghanistan….we armed the rebels that beat the Russians and we are now fighting those same rebels. So, as an officer with ground experience, while the military support may be successful…..the outcome will be a failure for in the future, we will be fighting the same people…..for the very reasons Mathius went on his triple red bull binge.

                Vietnam was no different. I remember very well supplying arms and support to the Montgnards. I remember distinctly my counter part telling me….as soon as we beat the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese….we will turn on the South Vietnamese. I see no difference in supporting one side against the other……in the name of democracy.

                So, success in militarily supplying the rebels….failure in the foreign policy realm. Verdad?

          • “4. When did Obama ever promise to bring peace to the middle east. Direct and full quote, please.”

            I can’t.
            “So you are lying or just making things up Mr. Illusion?”
            No, it’s a bulldooky question your Honor.
            I said, “we were told Obama would bring peace to the ME”
            Matt,( bless his poor eyes, works hard reading all those squiggly numbers) took that as me stating “Obama promised us peace in the ME”. The we in “we were told” refers to the media, as the link associated with my post references. (need to cut Matt some slack, you Honor, them drugs he uses makes him see and hear things)
            DRUGS! I DON’T USE DRUGS! THAT IS A BOLDFACE
            See Your Honer, that RedBull a’talking….

            @Buck,
            intervention in Libya, how would you rank it in terms of success/failure?
            Failure. Not Obama’s fault. If two guys are fighting that hate you, helping one beat the other doesn’t mean he’s gonna start liking you. From France and the UK’s perspective it may be a win. Or Russia, “tnks USA, we’ll take it from here!”

            • Matt,( bless his poor eyes, works hard reading all those squiggly numbers) took that as me stating “Obama promised us peace in the ME”. The we in “we were told” refers to the media, as the link associated with my post references.

              So you’re going to beat Obama up for things that “people in the media” said that he would do?

              I guess, technically, SUFA is a blog, ergo “media.”

              So if I say “Obama will give us all jet packs before the end of his first term,” we should hold that against him if he doesn’t?

              • I best be receiving my jet pack!! He doesn’t have much more time to come through with this promise of his…

              • I heard they’re “in the mail!”

              • “Matt,( bless his poor eyes, works hard reading all those squiggly numbers)”
                Had that coming, didn’t you?
                “reading comprehension was probably not a required course when you were home-schooled, let me know if you need help sounding out any of the big words.”

                “What is it with you people lately? If you want to throw around stupid half-assed attacks
                (half-assed? My attacks have been whole-assed and accurate!)
                against the President (and anyone else on the left), go do it on Red State or Breitbart. Don’t waste precious SUFA space with idiocy like this. Seriously, this makes me wonder why I still bother. This place is going to hell without USW around.”
                (maybe it’s you Matt, how much Bull have you chugged today?)

                “So you’re going to beat Obama up for things that “people in the media” said that he would do?”
                Maybe….In my view his foreign policy in the ME and nearly everywhere has been awful. Egypt, Libia, he stuck his d*ck in a hornets nest and thought it would work out well. Big mistake. Iraq, Afghanistan, could be the same thing and lay that off on Bush, pretty rare to kick someone’s @ss and them like you for it after….But the current crisis, he owns. And it is “Grounds for war”. International law regards an embassy as sovereign ground, so attacking them is exactly the same as an attack on mainstreet USA, if we choose to take it that way.

                Please consider also that my “attacks” hit the media as well. They sold the public on an image. Reality is showing us it’s true face even as they try to spin it to suit their bias.
                (note, this goes for both sides, FOX, Rush, ABC, etc)

        • September 12, 2012
          To the Shores of Tripoli
          Bruce Johnson

          Benghazi isn’t quite Tripoli, but the shores are the same.

          We now have boots on the ground in Libya as Marines are being deployed. Rightfully so. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on that county’s soil. So, on 9/11/2012, eleven years past the NYC attacks, we are sending Marines to Libya.

          And if the metrics for sending Marines holds true, Marines might very well be sent to Egypt to defend our embassy there. Historically, these are very troublesome actions.

          The murder of our ambassador certainly pushed the Egyptian activities off the front page.

          What it should also do is place Obama’s foreign policy shortfalls on that same front page. Where indeed are the Foreign policy achievements of the Obama administration?

          One might ask, How is that Arab Spring going? Tunisia, Algeria, et al are feeling the breeze.

          The disregard for the War Powers Act in the Libyan affair is still bothersome. The mere ” notification” of Congressional leaders by Obama as opposed to the required “consultation” with Congressional leaders, prior to deploying US military forces in situations where there is no immediate threat to the country, still echoes within this entire episode.

          Secretary of State Clinton said that wherever our diplomats moved about Libya, they were heralded and warmly received. This seems to be a glaring contrast to the realities of the past few days. You mean they didn’t yell “Monica, Monica” per your Egypt visit?

          Nature abhors a vacuum and the one created in Libya will be filled. By whom seems to be the question. Will it be with the adoring crowds Hillary reports, or the bad guys with the AK 47s?

          As for Egypt, we are in a box, one constructed by the Camp David accord. For we are bound to send money to both Egypt and Israel under that agreement. Perhaps there should have been an escape clause. For now that the Muslim Brotherhood controls roughly 40% of the Egyptian government, we find ourselves funding those of a different ilk than a Sadat or Mubarak. This is bothersome for some, but a delight for one of Obama’s acolytes, Van Jones. One wonders how it registers with Barack. Tough to imagine they are of different opinions.

          It is remarkable that Obama scurried over to Cairo to deliver a speech in June of 09. He insisted on the Muslim Brotherhood being invited. They have some visited the White House. And now we are sending them money. Remarkable indeed.

          Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/to_the_shores_of_tripoli.html#ixzz26HmLxx3T

  13. One point, just because Obama is wrong, that in no way makes Mitt right. Romney can say anything he wants and it doesn’t matter. He holds no office and has no authority. He can talk as tough as George Patton and in means nothing. If/when he’s elected, the situation will have changed and then we will see if his actions match his words.

    • It’s worth noting that anything he says now, if he were elected, would set the tone for that foreign relationship. So, while he’s saber rattling with Russia as if we were still in the middle of the cold war with the USSR, it’s worth remembering, that the slate doesn’t get magically wiped the second you’re sworn in. Russia will remember the way he talked about them.

      He’s in something of a grey zone between private citizen and US official.

  14. charlieopera says:

    I usually go out to my car and read during lunch; sometimes walk and read, sometimes sit in the car and read. When I’m in the car and lunch is almost over, I drive to find a better parking spot (closer to the exit) … Okay, so today I do so and the radio is on and it’s Rush Limbaugh calling the attack in Egypt an act of war.

    And I think to myself: Are these fucking people serious, stupid or as batshit crazy as they sound?

    Neihter of the three is particularly encouraging.

    Is the right now SERIOUSLY looking for the response to an act of war? I know Mr. Romney was comfortable doing “church work” in France during Vietnam … and that his 5 patriotic sons didn’t feel a need to engage in defense of “freedom and liberty” … so I ask, will his grandchildren get involved with a war on Egypt?

    Honestly … what the fuck already?

    • I don’t know, Charlie.. I just don’t know anymore..

    • Careful folks…….Embassies are sovereign territory and the world over understands that any attack on any Embassy in any country for any reason is, by definition and accepted, an act of war.

      That said: NOTE TO RUSH: YOU NEED TO SHUT UP AS WELL.

    • Now, now, now, facts please. He repeated a question asked of the President by a reporter. It was, “Is this an act of war Mr. President?” The president chose to ignore it, Rush just repeated it with no follow up other than to question why the president did not answer it.

  15. Will anyone agree with me that the Marines that are now going to Libya to “protect the Embassy” are not going there to “protect the embassy?”…..watch.

    • I will agree. I’ll even go further, you send a message by beating the crap out of the little guy where everyone can watch. The message is, mess with me and you’ll get the same. Libya is also where US lives were lost, so it fits. The thing is, we are the 800 Lb. ape. We don’t need to send messages. We need to decide what is in our best interest and act.

  16. The US Government blocking U tube because of this inflammatory film…….ummmmmmm….where are you guys on the left? Because it pisses off the Muslims it is ok ?

    • Got a link?

      I seriously doubt anyone on the left (especially those on SUFA) supports any action of the US government in censoring websites. I certainly don’t.

      • No link….just out on the news….Egypt is doing the same thing.

        • Oh..and thank you for being consistent.

          • You’re welcome. And thank you for your honest assessment of our intevervention in Libya.

            Civility prevails on SUFA!

            • You know Buck…..it is really educational to see the different levels of emotion on here….but even with Charlie…..the common denominator is the same. On SUFA, I have not found one person that believes in installing puppet governments, on the right or the left. I have not found a single person, right or left, that believes either side is competent….we are simply disagreeing on the level of incompetence in the Federal Government……

  17. An off-camera journalist loudly attacked, “Governor, some people have said that you jumped the gun a little in putting that statement out last night and that you should have waited until more details were available. Um, do you regret having that statement come out so early before we learned about all of the things that were happening?”

    [Note: all reporters were off-camera and unidentified.]

    The Washington Post described the original document put out by the U.S. embassy in Egypt:

    During the protest in Cairo but hours before the attacks in Libya, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement saying that it condemns “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

    Romney refused to back down, insisting, “It’s their administration. Their administration spoke. The President takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth, but also the words that come from his ambassadors.”

    Still, the same question came again: “If you had known last night that the ambassador died, and, obviously, I’m gathering you did not know- If you had known that the ambassador had died, would you have issued such a strongly issued statement?”

    Romney defended his condemnation of the President’s handling, asserting that “having that embassy effectively apologizing for the right of free speech is not the right course of an administration.”

    A transcript of the questions from Romney’s September 12 press conference, which aired live on MSNBC:

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/09/12/journalists-freak-out-romney-condemns-obamas-handling-libya#ixzz26HyhkGFX

    • The Right Scoop has posted video with an open microphone that shows the Romney press corps “coordinating questions to ask Romney,” with CBS reporter Jan Crawford saying, “no matter who he calls on, we’re covered on the one question.” They wanted to make Romney take credit or walk back his statement condemning Obama weakness after the embassy attacks: “Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?” NPR’s Ari Shapiro – the one who won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance – is one of the reporters planning their agenda on the clip.

      As one who worked in the White House, it should be said that reporters do sometimes coordinate to get a sense of what they want out of a press conference. But when has the public gotten a sense these journalists have done this to hold Obama accountable? (He didn’t take questions this morning, so there could be no plotting today.)

      Off camera, you can hear CBS’s Crawford strategizing:

      JAN CRAWFORD: That’s the question….Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

      ARI SHAPIRO, NPR: Your question? Your statement?

      CRAWFORD: I mean your statement. Not even your tone, because then he can go off on –

      SHAPIRO: And then if he does, I think we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound’ –

      Then the feed is cut off. Crawford later added, “No matter who he calls on, we’re covered on the one question.” A man who is not Shapiro states, “Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?”

      There’s nothing undemocratic or “corrupt” about journalists working together to decide what a story line is. But that story line can turn out to be a very biased line – as in expressing disbelief that Romney is “doubling down” on his Obama critique. Reporters sometimes mock the idea of a media “conspiracy,” but chats like these are certainly collaboration.

      People often expect that reporters are competitive in gaining a scoop — but time in the press corps can convince you that reporters seem more nervous about straying from the journalism of the pack. They may be competitive in booking guests, but they’re often not competitive in establishing the theme of the day. They tend to unite on that.

      What matters is the end product — were the reporters fair in their choice of questions?

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/09/12/video-cbs-and-npr-reporter-plot-insure-romneys-asked-if-he-regrets-obama#ixzz26HzXJwgE

      • I am shocked, do you hear me, shocked to find such things go on!

          • A group of singers, some of whom have performed on Broadway, produced an original musical set to the tune of “One Day More” from the “Les Miserables” to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

            “Les Miserables” is based on the Victor Hugo novel about the unsuccessful anti-monarchist 1832 insurrection in Paris, France. (The title translates literally to “the miserable,” which is maybe not the best message to send to other musically inclined Obama supporters.)

            Watch:

            In an open letter rife with grammatical errors, the creator of the musical “One Term More,” Don DeMesquita, writes that he was inspired to pen the musical not only by Hugo, but by the Rosa Parks of the early aughts, Sandra Fluke:

            [Rosa Parks’] decision to remain seated in December ’55 moved me to stand up in 2012. Like so many over the intervening years, I’ve taken inspiration from an unflinching American icon who said, “Memories of our lives, of our works and our deeds will continue in others.”

            For me that seminal Moment occurred when Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke was viciously and repeatedly attacked on the air by a podium-pounding predator whose venomous remarks disgusted pretty much everyone within the sound of his voice.

            With Fluke’s inspiration, “One Day More” was born.

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/sandra-fluke-inspired-pro-obama-musical-set-to-les-mis-video/#ixzz26IGdMgQh

          • LOLOL……great clip…and a great movie.

  18. There’s at least one person who agrees with Romney…but this might not be the praise he was hoping for…

    Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs. In Cairo, they scaled the walls of our embassy, destroyed our flag, and replaced it with a black Islamic banner. In Benghazi, the armed gunmen set fire to our consulate and killed an American staff member. The Islamic radicals claim that these attacks are in protest to some film criticizing Islam. In response to this, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement that was so outrageous many of us thought it must be a satire. The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” (Funny, the current administration has no problem hurting the “religious feelings” of Catholics.)
    But where is the president’s statement about this? These countries represent his much touted “Arab Spring.” How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our “friends” in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?

    It’s about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists. I realize there must be a lot on his mind these days – what with our economy’s abysmal jobless numbers and Moody’s new warning about yet another downgrade to our nation’s credit rating due to the current administration’s failure to come up with a credible deficit reduction plan. And, of course, he has a busy schedule – with all those rounds of golf, softball interviews with the “Pimp with the Limp,” and fundraising dinners with his corporate cronies. But our nation’s security should be of utmost importance to our Commander-in-chief. America can’t afford any more “leading from behind” in such a dangerous world. We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.

    • NOTE TO Sara: YOU NEED TO SHUT UP AS WELL.
      “Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house.”
      That was/is funny!! But still, she needs to shut up and go fish or something…

  19. A little change of subject. Some have complained on arguing with Flag you can never win even when you prove your point. As I see this, his silence is admission on D13 winning the debate. Flag was wrong by how Flag measures war and D13 proved his point with logic and numbers!!!!

    gmanfortruth says:
    September 9, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    Good article. While I don’t believe that voting will change anything, I’ll debate the subject of Romney / Obama. Obam, IMHO, is the worst President ever, at least in my lifetime of 47 years. It matters not where the Dems point the fingers anymore, they own what we have NOW! I am in full agreement with Rani, Obama is not a leader. So far, Obama greatest accomplishment is to embarrass the citizens of this country. He’s pathetic and a compulsive liar.

    Thanks Rani for at least trying, I have in the past, with no positive results.
    Reply

    V.H. says:
    September 9, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    So, you would rather have “the worst President ever, at least in my lifetime of 47 years” re-elected than help Vote him out of office.
    Reply
    Black Flag® says:
    September 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    V.H.

    How many wars did Obama start?

    …he is hardly the worse, but that is a reverse beauty contest and not worth much.
    Reply
    plainlyspoken says:
    September 9, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Even in keeping the war going he isn’t the worst. I don’t believe history will show him to be the worst either.
    Reply
    d13thecolonel says:
    September 9, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    3 wars
    Reply
    Black Flag® says:
    September 9, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    Which ones?
    Reply
    d13thecolonel says:
    September 10, 2012 at 8:40 am

    (1) Widened the war in Afghanistan by 66,000 troops. (2) Extended the War to Pakistan by boots on the ground troops (1,300) and air raids and drone strikes (3) We now have Special Forces ground troops in Syria for the last 16 months (Over 800), (4) We now have ground and command troops in Somalia (over 1800), (5) We now have Special Forces and ground troops in Libya since 2010 (over 800) in the form of advisers and command and control and air assets. (6) We now have ground troops in Ethiopia ( amount unknown) since 2009. (7) There has been a reintroduction of American ground troops in the Philippines (900) that are actively fighting right this minute.

    My definition of war is the same as yours…..if bullets are flying and troops are intervening…..it is war.

  20. It’s pathetic the excuses everyone here is making for Romney. Not unexpected – just pathetic.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/foreign-policy-hands-voice-disbelief-at-romney-cai

  21. Sorry Todd, we have to agree to disagree. The statement by the Cairo embassy was absurd. The President and Hill, well, by even mentioning the issue gave it new life in the Mideast. It appears to the unwashed and uneducated that it was the US Government who is apologizing for making the film. As I said above, we prize our freedoms and should have indicated that as well as pointing out that the very freedom almost guarantees that the haters will destroy themselves with their own words.

    We, the United States, do not need to apologize for anything our citizens, as private citizens say. Now if a particular religious congregation wants to apologize for what their pastor is doing, fine. I am sure that my congressman, Steve Rothman, had nothing to do with the film nor my Senators Lautenberg or Menendez.

    Correct me if I am wrong but has the president or the sec. of state or the US legate to the Vatican ever apologized for the hateful/ hurtful things some Americans have said about Roman Catholicism? Or, is the Muslim religion something special?

    • It appears to the unwashed and uneducated that it was the US Government who is apologizing for making the film

      Nonsense.

      “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

      By INDIVIDUALS.

      We, the United States, do not need to apologize for anything our citizens, as private citizens say.

      Nonsense.

      Individuals can harm international relations by their words and actions.

      Have you ever been out with a friend who did something offense and refused to apologize, so you apologized on his behalf?

      Or do you think that individuals should be able to destroy international relations by deliberately pissing off foreign citizens and the government shouldn’t say anything about it? The government should allow itself to be painted by the (highly visible) actions of a few individuals? How could it ever conduct foreign policy like that?

      Correct me if I am wrong but has the president or the sec. of state or the US legate to the Vatican ever apologized for the hateful/ hurtful things some Americans have said about Roman Catholicism

      November 15, 1993: The U.S. House passes U.S. Public Law 103-150: “To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 [sic] of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.”

      Best I can do on short notice.

      Or, is the Muslim religion something special?

      Well a lot of them sure do seem awfully touchy on the subject.

      But, let me ask you a question: when your wife is – er – extra moody (let’s say once a month), and you do something that offends her, do you do not go out of your way to be extra apologetic?

      • Sometimes I’d really like to great bodily harm to you for saying God Damn. Why is that ok for you to say but you get your panties in a wad over this stuff?

        • I said “damnit,” not Goddamn. I don’t feel the need to offend your religion by taking the lord’s name in vain.

          • You have said it plenty around here.

            • Show me, and I’ll apologize.

              • Are you kidding? I wouldn’t put that out there like that just to be annoying. I recall twice and you said it with an ‘in your face attitude’. If i did do a search I bet there would be more than two times. I’ll find an example one day, and believe me I’ll post it. I’ll be nice and shush right here because I see you’re very emotional about the topic today, so I won’t add any more fuel to the fire. But I stand by my previous comment.

      • You are guilty of the worst kind of ethnocentrism, the foolish thought that everybody is the same. Uneducated and unwashed, be they in Selma Alabama or on the streets of Cairo, they will follow any fool with a cause and any convenient lie. They think the same as you, that everybody is like them. In their country something like that video cannot happen without government acquiesce so therefore the US Government backs it. The US, even acknowledging it, makes it look like they were responsible and are administering another slap in the face. Be serious, you know their history, you know what I say is not only possible but probable.

        The US Government did do the Hawaiian deal, Joe Doakes did not. had Joe done it I would not expect the US to apologize. Very poor analogy.

        I rarely apologize for something I have not done, not even in domestic situations. What I may do, is to suggest that perhaps we both were in error. Eventually the wife “got” it.

        I have apologized for boorish behavior on the part of a friend but that is different from the US Government. As I said, if a church or a spouse or a friend wants to apologize for something these guys did that’s fine. The US Government though, this sends entirely the wrong message.

        After a day of this nonsense it is increasingly obvious that the video played a minor role at best. I don’t know what I was thinking but there are 365 days in a year and 366 days in this, a leap year. That these events should have transpired on 9.11 is just a bit suspicious. Just a bit mind you. For those responsible for security, who knew something was up (hence the apology) not to have put two and two together is amazing and just another example of what’s wrong with our intelligence services. Same dufi (plural of dufus I think) running it apparently who ran it on 9.10.01.

    • Since we understand that some of the population in the ME will destroy and kill over random words from an individual-coming out an apologizing, in my mind tells them they are right to be angry-that it is our fault-and they can feel all righteous in their craziness. It’s like we are making their actions OK and begging them to forgive us.

      • Owning up to your mistakes is always the right thing to do. Apologizing for rudeness does not justify the violence which was done as a response.

        Imagine that I offended you. You get so angry that you stab me in the liver. While I’m recovering from my injuries, I call you up from the hospital bed and say “V., I’m sorry for what I said – it was rude and thoughtless of me.” Does that then make you feel like you were justified in reacting the way you did? Do you think I should have refused to apologize – would that make things better between us? Or is the right response to go out, buy a gun, and attack you with escalating levels of violence?

        • You are talking about “manners”. Manners are great but this is dealing with people with different views and values. Our manners can look like weakness or confessions of guilt. I have no problem with owning up to what we do wrong-but words have to be put in the right way.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Good manners are a means of people who are CIVILIZED to deal with awkward or unwanted “personal” situations.

          It is how Civilized people react to other Civilized people.

          • And, when one party is being uncivilized, does that excuse you from the need to be civilized yourself?

    • Stephen,

      by even mentioning the issue gave it new life in the Mideast.

      And did it occur to you that Romney’s statement gave it even more life?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        Not even close.

        It might have given life to MSNBC, CNN the DNC and Obama Campaign, but is pretty much irrelevant over seas.

      • The cat is out of the bag. What do Romney’s comments have to do with that? An explanation may be good, an apology is not. Try explaining what I said above. First we have freedom of speech, what people say becomes part of the record, if their views are absurd, they tend to destroy themselves.

        Now today it’s Yemen, any guesses about tomorrow? This mess truly has become Obama’s
        Iranian hostage crisis. He bought it , he owns it. The Russians were right, these places are too unstable to even think about introducing democracy. The Russians did a much better job of learning lessons in Afghanistan than we are doing. Probably why they cut most of the ‘stans loose too.

        Until these places are capable of freeing themselves or are able to transition out of authoritarianism as Latin America, Spain and Greece did, it is a hopeless cause. If there was only one reason to get off foreign oil, this certainly is it.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    This is important enough I copied the entire thing. What jihadists want us to think about Libya.

    It captures a thought I had this morning about who did what and why. As it turns out ALL the politicians speaking out have it wrong and should have just asked for calm while “we investigate” further. One thing does come out, however. The Administration should have been better prepared given the call for attacks by Al Queda.

    “Editor’s note: Noman Benotman is president of Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism group in London. He is a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist organization that fought against Muammar Qaddafi’s regime in the 1990s. After resigning from L.I.F.G. in 2002, he became a prominent critic of jihadist and Islamist violence.

    (CNN) — The Obama administration may very well be right that the attack in Benghazi which claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. officials was part of a pre-planned terrorist operation. It would have happened sooner or later, regardless of any protests against an obscure anti-Islam film made in America.

    The attack apparently occurred because in recent days, the al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri posted a video online calling on Libyans to avenge the killing of al-Qaeda’s second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi.

    According to our own sources at Quilliam Foundation, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault. It is rare, for example, that an RPG7 — an anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launcher — would be present at a civilian protest. The attack against the consulate had two waves. The first attack led to U.S. officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against U.S. officials after they were kept at a secure location.

    News: How the Benghazi attack unfolded
    Noman Benotman
    Noman Benotman

    Jihadists will want the world to believe that the attack is just a part of the protests against an amateur film produced in the U.S., which includes crude insults regarding the Prophet Mohammed. They will want the world to think that their actions represent a popular Libyan and wider Muslim reaction; thus, reversing the perception of jihadists being outcasts from their own societies. Since there were similar protests in Egypt against the film, it is possible that more protests may erupt in Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    The jihadists may also feel that by killing U.S. citizens, they will win the support of local populations. They are wrong.

    This attack was committed by a small group of extremists who do not represent the Libyan population. They seek to destroy any reconstruction attempts in my mother country. As often is the case, extremists try to take advantage of the absence of security in a country that has just gotten out of a civil war. They try so hard to destabilize the peace that the majority of the population have fought so hard to establish.
    Clinton blames ‘small, savage group’

    Ambassador Stevens himself was well known for advocating peace and stability in Libya. The recent election results in the country are testament to his conviction that Libya can achieve progress. That Libyans did not vote the radicals into office in the elections proves that Libya is not a nation of extremists. The extremists’ response to their electoral defeat comes in a language they relish: Violence.

    The attack on the U.S. consulate is a truly tragic event. Libya has lost one of the few foreign figures that really sought to invest time and energy into our country and believed in its future. Ambassador Stevens was one of a select number of international public figures based in Libya, who had refused to give up on Libya and its deteriorating security situation in recent months. He was an extremely successful envoy, who traveled the country to meet with all groups of Libyan society, and did not confine himself to international circles in the capital. No village or town was too far, and he was always keen to understand local customs. His death is a loss not just for Americans, but for many Libyans.

    I hope that the Libyan government will take this time to reflect on the security vacuum in the country, in particular around Benghazi, and rebuild the defense and security sectors in an accountable, professional and responsible manner. I also hope that the Libyan authorities will look to reverse their policy of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR).

    Opinion: Libya killings show U.S. at risk in Arab world

    We have welcomed the international community into our country, and I know that we want to continue our collaboration with the NATO community and member states, including, and especially, with the United States. These countries helped free us from the tyrannical rule of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who was in power for 42 years. Many Libyans are forever grateful to America for its support in freeing our country from dictatorship.

    This attack does not reflect the attitude of the Libyan population. For the international community, withdrawal of support from Libya will only play directly into the hands of jihadists, and that is the opposite of what we should do.”

    Here is the important thing to remember in the future. Those crying this is an act of war are correct, in international parlance. But the real question is “what do we do about it” and then “to whom do we do it”?

    The initial reactions assumed the larger crowds were the real issue. It looks like fomenting the larger demonstrations was just the diversion. Or in other ways, they were the stooges as the Jihadists did not just want to avenge a death, but DAMAGE American Support for the general populations.

    Don’t be to quick to assume the obvious. All is not as it seems in the world of international intrigue. Hell, its not all its seems right here at home.

  23. 😐

  24. D13,

    It is wrong…..WRONG….WRONG……for the United States to topple governments in the name of our own democracy….IT IS WRONG to do that and I have consistently said this for decades. It is WRONG>>>WRONG>>>WRONG…..to install puppet governments….ANYWHERE.

    So far so good.

    But it is equally wrong to kowtow and go on an apology tour for the actions of the United States.

    So it’s “WRONG>>>WRONG>>>WRONG,” but we shouldn’t apologize?

    And it’s EQUALLY wrong to invade a foreign country, topple their government, and install our own puppet government as it is apologize for doing so? That’s like saying it’s just as bad to murder someone as it is to apologize after the fact.

    Simply change the policy.

    That’s a first step.

    Obama is no different. I am totally convinced of his agenda. If his agenda was to truly behave in the best interest of the United States, then he should NOT take sides in Libya or Egypt or Yemen….

    What, then, is his agenda?

    simply withdraw the embassies and all military and come home. THAT..in itself, is an apology.

    I was stabbing this hobo in a alley last night, but then I started to feel bad about it. So I stopped and walked away.. THAT .. in itself, is an apology.

    This satirical movie has been on the internet for six months…and it is now used as an excuse? Even you can see the hypocrisy of this.

    Again, can you support the assertion that it’s satire?

    And, regardless, whether it’s this movie or any of the anti-Muslim statements made in the press or by politicians, or by the numerous hate-crimes against Muslims in the US, or because we’ve been manipulating their internal politics for generations, or funding Israel.. there are a lot of very good reason for them to hate us. (note that “hating us” does not justify violence, but it sure does explain it a lot better than “they hate us for our freedoms”)

    Adding, a movie or anything else can sit out there on the internet for months or even years until it’s noticed by the right person or picked up on a slow news cycle. It’s not about when it was made, but when it was noticed. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case, but its certainly a possibility.

    Let me ask you a serious question. If I wear a T shirt that says “proud to be infadel”…what is wrong with that? I am proud to be one. I do not care about the feelings of Muslims here.

    That – right there – is the problem. You don’t care about their feelings. Muslims are, despite popular opinion, human beings. They don’t enjoy having their religion mocked. The fact that you “do not care about [their] feelings” is one of the reason so many of them hate us. We should be the grown ups in the room, not petty children making cheap punchlines out of their faith.

    They can wear t shirts that say “proud to be Muslim”…I would not give a rat’s ass.

    Proud to be a Muslim is not mocking anyone. You know this.

    but it is my right to wear it….

    Of course it’s your right to wear it.

    To apologize for me wearing my t shirt might make you feel better

    I was in a bar once and guy was bashing a Hispanic guy.. calling him names and telling him to go back to his country. I’m not even sure if the guy was even illegal, not that it would have mattered. He just sat there and took it, calmly waiting it out – resigned, as if it happened all the time. When the jerk got bored and wandered off, I sent over a drink and offered my apologies on his behalf. You’re damn right it made me feel better.

    and the world should not care.

    Well, this I get.

    I’m not the.. er.. most tactful human being. There’s a gene or two missing in my DNA which might have given me the social skills to interact in a more normal fashion. As is, I often offend people without meaning to. I’ll look at it, and logically, there’s nothing wrong with what I did.. but yet.. it was still offensive. Makes no sense to me, but oh well.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that the world DOES care. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it does.

    THAT is what freedom is.

    Then you have a warped vision of freedom.

    Freedom means you can. Freedom does not mean there are no consequences.

    ME, wearing that t shirt, does not affect foreign relations…..

    Probably not. Unless you piss off the wrong person on the wrong day and create an international incident.

    You’ve seen how riled up people here get when the wrong news cycle hits and Fox plays a 24-hr loop of people in some hell-hole burning the American flag.

    I do not give a hoot and holler what they think overseas.

    You should. We need their oil. We need to trade with them. We need their markets. We need their goods. We need their raw materials. We need their waterways. We need international stability. We need their financial markets. The world is a lot smaller than it was in 1776, and we cannot ignore overseas opinions as if they’re irrelevant.

    Now, that doesn’t mean we should be invading them and manipulating them the way we do. But it does mean we should make a concerted effort to have good relationships with them, if for no other reason than that it’s in our own best interest.

    If ANYONE wishes to make a satirical or even mocking movie of something…there is no apology necessary……anywhere.

    Absolutely right.

    I was talking to a group of Holocaust survivors the other day. I told them a joke: “How many Jews can you fit in a Volkswagen? It depends on how big the ash tray is!”

    Odd, they didn’t seem to find it as funny as I did. They seemed to get inexplicably offended. But, hey, it’s just a harmless joke. So I refused to apologize.

    Then later on, I left the room and, of course, “THAT .. in itself, is an apology.”

    The greatest test of freedom is being able to express INDIVIDUAL thought….without government interference.

    How is the government interfering? They didn’t stop the guy from making his offensive movie. They didn’t stop him from publishing it.

    If you wish to go on an apology tour for people who do not see things your way….do so.

    Maybe I should. But I don’t really have any standing to do so. What’s the value of some random citizen apologizing for the evils of an entire country. For an apology to be effective, it has to come from the right source. Give the scale of our transgressions, that would be the President.

    However, while Obama did acknowledge some of our transgressions, he did not apologize for them.

    That’s like, when your wife is mad because stayed out too late drinking with your friends, you say “Gee, I guess I was out pretty late.” Well, that’s not an apology. And, if your wife is anything like mine, that wouldn’t cut it.

    If you wish to label people as bigots because of their beliefs (and you have)..that is also your right to believe that. If I disagree with you, I might want to apologize for people like you (which is what you feel you need to do for me and my t shirt)…if I do…then I have the same freedom of speech to do that,

    Yup.

    Under your guidelines, if a Texas Aggie wears a Tshirt that shows a Texas Longhorn with its horns sawed off…and that T shirt says “proud to be an Aggie”…..you would view it as a school rivalry….

    There’s a difference between a school and a religion.

    Our school rival, [redacted], would often make such jokes at our expense and we would reciprocate, and it was all in good fun. But I’m sure if anyone too it too far that an apology would be in order. And the apology wouldn’t just come from the responsible student, it would come from the President of the offending school. And it would be sincere.

    Because that’s what it takes to maintain good relationships.

    PS: [redacted] sucks! Go [also redacted]!

    but I assert there is no difference in saying proud to be infadel than saying proud to be an Aggie.

    Religion ≠ Schools

    Both shirts depict a feeling…and a universal right to freedom of expression

    True.

    without remorse or without apology.

    False.

    If you offend someone, you apologize.

    And, as a civilized person, you don’t go out of your way to offend people. There’s no reason to wear that shirt other than to piss off Muslims.

    But make not mistake about one thing, sir,,,,,,and you know this….I am not nor have ever been for installing puppet government and regimes anywhere.

    Great.

    AND that is exactly what your boy is doing. The minute he took sides in Libya…..he became what you despise. The minute he chose sides in Egypt, he became what you despise…..the minute he took sides in Yeman, he became what you despise. Where is your anger in this?

    Right here: 😡

  25. This needs it’s own post, just to drive the point home:

    Freedom means you can. Freedom does not mean there are no consequences.

    That is all.

    • Could you muster up the slightest bit of anger for the folks who scaled our embassies and killed our innocent guys? This goes straight up to Zawahiri, who really pulled the strings. Or is everything our fault and we just have to like it.

      Further why does Obama get to brag about killing Osama, and you cheer him, (remember the fights we’ve had here about giving the correct president credit), but here, we had no immediate battle going..and it’s still our fault. I guess this is where I usually have my trouble. They always start stuff when there is no imeidiate conflict. That is why I always stick up for us. You wanna fight? Fight while its on. Don’t sneak up on unsuspecting people and think you will just get away with it.

      • yeah, yeah..spelling error

      • Further why does Obama get to brag about killing Osama, and you cheer him

        I don’t think this is something we should be bragging about. I think it’s needlessly inflammatory. Though I do see why there’s a political / opportunity to do so.

        You wanna fight? Fight while its on.

        They have to pick and choose their battles. They force us to over-extend ourselves. They force us to make unpopular moves. They pay hide-and-seek and attack when and how they think they’ll be successful. They don’t have the means to keep up a constant assault. They need us to let our guard down a little bit so that they can win the exchange. Just because you think the fight is over doesn’t mean they do – they still think the fight is on, and it’s not their fault you are confused.

        Don’t sneak up on unsuspecting people and think you will just get away with it.

        I demand you fight me on my terms!

        They can’t win a straight fight. We are better armed, better trained, better equipped, better supported, more numerous, and have better toys. If they just met us on the field of battle, civil war style, we’d crush them. You know it, I know it, they know it. So why should they just walk into a losing battle?

        I love how everyone seems to think that, when fighting, our enemies should engage us on our terms despite the fact that the deck is heavily stacked in our favor, and then we hold it against them for failing to do so. Absurd.

        • Tell me how you are going to deal with theses guys who have no rules of engagement? And don’t forget..Obama’s first instinct was to go on an apology tour as soon as he got his presidential wings..and that didn’t work.

    • This is very very true…..every word.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Once again you get your arguments all mixed up.

      Personal behavior, such as “manners”, are “personal”. They should not be confused with the muddy water of International Relationships. You start out talking about International relations and immediately launch into “personal” behavior as the example. They are NOT the same.

      If this was in fact so “appropriate” would the White House have “walked back” the comments?

      A supposedly FREE Country should never apologize for the actions of a few “free people” of that country. The country should remind the world that the individuals do no represent the views of all Americans or the Govt of the USA. That is all that is needed.

      As for the rest of the world, those screaming about such things are not offended. They would find any excuse to try an “push” the USA around a little bit.

      Example, China is raising hell over a mural, paid for by a private citizen and placed on private property, depicting the brutality of China towards Tibet. It is located in Corvallis, Oregon. The Chinese Consulate has sent delegates to Corvallis “asking” the Mayor to have the picture removed. Nice lady the mayor, even if she is a Progressive. She explained that Freedom of Speech in the USA is “sacred”, as is “private property rights”.

      China is continuing to exert “diplomatic” pressure with State Dept. This is not because Chinese people are offended. This has one purpose. To show the World that China can MAKE the USA react.

      The Govt can choose to apologize for someone’s behavior if it chooses. And then it can suffer the ridicule it deserves from the citizens for doing so.

  26. Here’s your timeline of events. Note that the video was published initially in July, but drew little attention. It was published again in September, then picked up by an Egyptian Christian blog on 9/5. Parts were aired in Arabic on 9/9.

    The embassy issued it’s statement condemning the video (and hate speech in general) in the morning on 9/11. The protesters start showing up throughout the day. With the break-in occurring that night.

    4 1/2 hours after Reuters confirms the shooting, Romney criticizes Obama for sympathizing, despite that the referenced statement occurred before the attack. This statement is embargoed by the Romney campaign (meaning the press can’t release it) until midnight (ostensibly because they don’t want to be political on 9/11 and 12:01 on 9/12 is a whole other day).

    10:25 on 9/11, Romney lifts the embargo and allows the statement to be released a little early. Again, this is criticizing Obama for sympathizing with attackers over attacks which hadn’t happened at the time of his statement. By this logic, I blame Thomas Jefferson for failing to criticize the 9/11 hijackers.

    19 minutes later: Hillary Clinton officially condemns the attack in no uncertain terms.

    Somewhere around this time, the Egyptian embassy tweets (why the hell does an embassy use twitter?) “Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.” An excellent sentiment.

    12:01 (because it’s magically no longer 9/11, so it’s ok to criticize the President again), RNC chairman Reince Priebus (how is that possibly a real name?) echos the Romney attack that Obama is sympathizing with the attackers.

    7:21 AM, Obama issues a statement criticizing the attack in no uncertain terms.

    Source.

    • I’m really trying to understand the basis for this attack on Romney because he criticized Obama for sympathizing with the terrorist before the attack happened. If your timeline is correct and I have no reason to believe it isn’t. Then obviously this first statement had nothing to do with the actual attack. It has to do with the apology-which to many people’s minds is sympathizing with the terrorist and not standing up for our freedoms.

      • Then obviously this first statement had nothing to do with the actual attack. It has to do with the apology-which to many people’s minds is sympathizing with the terrorist and not standing up for our freedoms.

        Romney said: “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

        Whether “sympathizing” or “apologizing,” what did Obama say (after the attack) which could be construed either way?

        The Obama administration’s “first response” was to have Hillary issue a statement condemning the attack. But that didn’t come until 19 minutes after Romney un-embargoed his statement.

        • My apologies-Was this statement not made after the attack in Egypt? I meant it didn’t have anything to do with the attack in Syria.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            Libya!

            And you are correct. It was prepared in response to the Embassy’s twitter statement and the demonstrations in Egypt.

            According to the timeline of last night Romney’s statement was released BEFORE anyone knew that people were killed in Libya. In fact, Hillary’s comments came shortly afterward.

            But due to the timing of the release it made it look like Romney’s comment included the Libya attacks. This close timing is what allowed the “left” to accuse Romney of playing politics with a “crisis”. And this is why when you are the challenger you should hold your water on any event like this. When playing with pigs there is no reason to try and help then wallow in the mud. They will do fine on their own. If you try you will only get mud on yourself.

            Romney’s reference to the “Obama Administration” was aimed directly at the Egyptian embassy staff, and thus to Obama as POTUS. Since he is the “leader” and “ultimate boss” of the embassy staff.

            • I agree that Romney shouldn’t have made a statement to be released at a later time-without having a final okay from him before the release. But what I keep hearing is Romney lied and other totally illogical crap.

            • If I understand this correctly, then you make a good point. Since nobody knew about the Libyan attack yet (presumably), then the Romney was criticizing Obama’s (via the Embassy) response to the break-in.

              Even so, the timing doesn’t work out.

              The embassy statement was released at 6:17 AM ET (12:17 PM Egypt). The break-in occurred “sometime after nightfall.” Nightfall in Egypt (I love Google) is at 6:02 PM (local), so that’s at least 6 hours earlier.

              So the timeline goes:
              1. Embassy statement.
              2. Six hours.
              3. Break-in.
              4. Romney statement.

            • No JAC,

              Romney knew about the events in Libya and the death. Here’s his statement from Tuesday night:

              I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

          • Was this statement not made after the attack in Egypt?

            There was a break-in in Egypt (not really an “attack”), but the statement was first in an attempt to head off problems.

            But I’m still not understanding what “apology” Obama made for the attack in Libya (or the break-in in Egypt) which Romney is faulting Obama for?

            • Why are you calling it a break in ?

              • CAIRO, Sept 11 (Reuters) – Egyptian protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and some pulled down the American flag during a protest over what they said was a film being produced in the United States that was insulting to the Prophet Mohammad, witnesses said.

                In place of the U.S. flag, the protesters tried to raise a black flag with the words “There is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger”, a Reuters reporter said.

                About 20 people stood on top of the outer wall of the embassy in central Cairo, where about 2,000 protesters had gathered.

                “Break-in” seems like a good term to me..

                By the way, how curious that they raised a black flag… and someone has been suspiciously absent for the last day or two.. perhaps he’s been, er, “travelling”?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              He did not do as you say.

              His Press Release was about EGYPT. Nobody knew about the “assassinations” until AFTER Romney’s press release was “released”.

              • JAC…dont argue…the facts are about to come out. They will be out by tomorrow our time.

              • As I said to V.H.,

                The embassy statement was released at 6:17 AM ET (12:17 PM Egypt). The break-in occurred “sometime after nightfall.” Nightfall in Egypt (I love Google) is at 6:02 PM (local), so that’s at least 6 hours earlier.

                So the timeline goes:
                1. Embassy statement.
                2. Six hours.
                3. Break-in.
                4. Romney statement.

                ——-

                So, again, what “sympathizing” is Obama supposed to have done in response to Libya Egypt?

              • Romney knew about the events in Libya and the death. See above.

            • I’m gonna answer-based on the apology-since the time line is in question. I made several attempts to explain why I think it was wrong and a bad move before. But here goes-When you are talking to Countries where many have the punishment for blasphemy as death-Saying your sorry as a representative of the US government for the actions of an individual or a few individuals for words spoken against that countries religion-is like going to the court of public opinion and pleading guilty, instead of standing up for freedom of speech. IMO.

              • I see what you’re saying. That makes it a little clearer where you’re coming from, but I still think this is misguided.

                From Twitter (timing undetermined, but clearly post-breach):

                “Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”

                That’s pretty clearly in support of freedom of speech, and I don’t see how anyone says otherwise.

                And from the noon press-release (6 hours before the break-in):

                We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

                “Universal right to free speech.” Again, I just don’t see how this is painted as failing to “stand up for free speech”…

                Both statements clearly say that people can say what they want, but we don’t agree with the message. Or, if you like, “I don’t agree with what they say, but I’ll defend to the death their right to say it.”

              • If they had tweeted ““I don’t agree with what they say, but I’ll defend to the death their right to say it.” I would have cheered-but the use of the word “abuse” universal rights-makes the words just NOT have the same meaning.

              • It’s absolutely an abuse.

                That doesn’t mean it’s not covered (it is!), but that doesn’t mean it’s “ok.”

        • So we’re really diverting the conversation again to the precise timing of Romney’s statement, which accurately pointed out the absurd message coming from the State Dept, ie the Embassy in Cairo, which was first issued before the attacks and then repeated and doubled down on in subsequent twitter messages. OK, so then lets look at SoS’s sharp rebuke:

          “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

          So we pander, pander, and then finally, oh yeah, that violent stuff you did – not cool!

          This is a foreign policy cluster that has nothing to do with films, statements by presidential candidates, timing etc. This is something that Obama actually did build!!! (Who says I can’t give the guy credit!!)

          And those that have bled & breathed Obama are now doing everything they possibly can to point the finger in another direction. And oh yeah, in the meantime, 4 Americans have died.

  27. Romney criticizes Obama for sympathizing, despite that the referenced statement occurred before the attack.

    Mathius, Am I reading this correct, that Romney made a statement about an attack that had NOT occured yet? If I am, and this is true, I’m calling False Flag event! Obama needs dead people to keep his job, and he will do much worse before it’s done.

    • Maybe my phrasing was muddled.

      Order of events:
      1. Embassy issues statement against hate-speech and in favor of tolerance.
      2. Peaceful protest.
      3. Break-in / assassination.
      4. Romney statement accuses Obama of sympathizing.
      5. Clinton statement condemns attack.
      6. Obama statement condemns attack.

      Romney accused Obama of sympathizing over an attack in an embassy statement which was made before the attack even occurred.

      Is that clearer?

      • “Romney accused Obama of sympathizing over an attack in an embassy statement which was made before the attack even occurred.”

        Read your own words and tell me they make logical sense. What happened here, what caused the problem, is obviously the fact that the statement wasn’t released as You pointed out until after Sept. 11, which was after the attack occurred-if it was released when he made the statement-no one would be going around saying such illogical things.

        • what caused the problem, is obviously the fact that the statement wasn’t released as You pointed out until after Sept. 11

          It was. Romney released the embargo early.

          But, regardless, explain to me the timeline as you see it, where it makes sense? Because I’m just not seeing it.

          • I can’t explain the timeline because I haven’t studied it-I am just confused at how anyone can buy an accusation that is so illogical. A man is blaming another man for something that hadn’t happened yet. No matter the time line, unless Romney knew something the rest of us weren’t told until later. The obvious conclusion is that his words didn’t mean what some people are claiming they meant. Or the timeline is wrong. Who knows, well maybe we will by tomorrow according to D13, but the story put out there by the left is illogical.

            • The “obvious conclusion” is that he just went for the cheap and easy slam counting on confusion and confirmation bias to let him off the hook if there were any problems.

              Maybe – maybe – Romney himself was confused and thought the Embassy statement came after the break-in. But otherwise, there’s really no other way to read this. The timeline is what it is and the statements are what they are.

              • “Romney said: “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” ”

                Read these words again-I think they apply to the apology and the “attack” in Egypt. But if the time line is right and they are only based on the apology, what makes you think they can only be relating to these attacks. There have been many attacks-and if you actually look at the words-they are attacks on our “diplomatic missions” not attacks on our embassies.

              • what makes you think they can only be relating to these attacks. There have been many attacks-and if you actually look at the words-they are attacks on our “diplomatic missions” not attacks on our embassies.

                “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi.” That’s what he said.. not just attacks in general and against missions in general. He was clearly responding to the break-in in Egypt and the assassination in Libya. (a re-read and I reverse my former opinion that this was just about Egypt.. he specifically mentioned Libya). If you are going to insist that it’s just coincidence – that there have been many attacks – and the specific names and the timing are just coincidence, then there’s really no further point in discussing this.

              • And when did he say these things? -what he said seems to be constantly changing. He couldn’t possibly have said anything about a specific death before the death occurred. I am talking about his first statement-which YOU provided. I am simply pointing out -that his first statement could or could not be referring to the specific attack in Egypt but this administrations general apologist attitude towards the extremist.

              • what he said seems to be constantly changing

                You guys mixed me up and, for a while, I accepted your narrative. The definitive timeline is as follows:

                Egypt embassy statement – FIRST (noon-ish local time) (6:17AM)
                Six or more hours
                Egypt embassy attack – “sometime after nightfall” (noon-ish)
                Egypt embassy statement
                embassy tweet (2:30 PM)
                Libya embassy attack (5:41 PM)
                Media confirms Libyan fatalities (7:35 PM)
                Romney’s statement – embargoed (10:09 PM)
                Romeny statement – released (10:25 PM)
                Hillary Clinton statement (10:44 PM)
                Obama’s statement. (7:21 AM next morning)

                He couldn’t possibly have said anything about a specific death before the death occurred

                The death was reported at 7:35. His statement was made at 10:09 and released at 10:25. His statement was, again, word for word: “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi.” He specifically said “and by the death of an american consulate worker.” It really can’t get any clearer than that.

                I am talking about his first statement-which YOU provided

                That IS from his first statement. If I got mixed up or confused you elsewhere, I apologize. Full quote

                I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

                I am simply pointing out -that his first statement could or could not be referring to the specific attack in Egypt but this administrations general apologist attitude towards the extremist.

                And I am simply pointing out that this is wrong. His “first statement,” made 2 1/2 hours after the reports of the assassination, specifically reference the assassination and, in the same paragraph, accuses Obama of sympathizing with the attackers based on a statement made by the Cairo embassy about 12 hours earlier.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Not at all, because you overlooked a few things and you put something out of order.

        Demonstrations were not just peaceful. That is why the embassy put out not one but TWO statements. As I understand it, the second went out as the “peaceful” demonstrations turned to storming the walls.

        This is the ATTACK to which Romney’s statement was aimed, as it was prepared BEFORE the violent attack in Libya.

        You are trying to make “break-in/assassination” appear as a single event. What you have is TWO separate events occurring on different time lines. Three if you count Romney’s statement, and Four if you count the Administration’s “official” response.

        • That is why the embassy put out not one but TWO statements. As I understand it, the second went out as the “peaceful” demonstrations turned to storming the walls.

          Source?

          This is the ATTACK to which Romney’s statement was aimed, as it was prepared BEFORE the violent attack in Libya.

          I agree, given arguments made here and elsewhere, that Romney was referring to Egypt.

          The Embassy statement (of which I am aware) was made around noon (local time). If you assert that there was violence (an “attack”) in Egypt before noon, can you please verify this?

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Just found a great example of how the Press will try to direct your thinking by telling what something says, then giving you a quote that does not say what they tell you it says.

    “What’s more, the statement does not apologize for America’s values, but rather supports a founding American value, religious tolerance, while referencing the “universal right of free speech.” The statement in full:

    The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

    “does not apologize for America’s values” then in the statement “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims”.

    Apparently NOT HURTING FEELINGS is the American Value that was being protected. Somebody forgot FREE SPEECH.

    • “does not apologize for America’s values” then in the statement “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims”.

      Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”
      -Embassy Tweet

      If that confuses you, it roughly translates to “We do not agree with the things they say, but we will defend their right to say it.”

      Apparently NOT HURTING FEELINGS is the American Value that was being protected. Somebody forgot FREE SPEECH.

      Freedom means you can. Freedom does not mean there are no consequences.
      -Me

      Nor, I should add, does it mean that you should.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    d13

    Good morning Colonel

    “JAC…dont argue…the facts are about to come out. They will be out by tomorrow our time.”

    Not really trying to argue, just pointing out that Mathius has fallen victim to the left’s propoganda machine.

    There is no doubt Romney should have just laid low. When it all comes out the Administration is NOT going to look so good.

  30. Hillary quote:

    “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate in a city we helped save from destruction?” Clinton said. “This question reflects just how complicated, and at times how
    confounding the world can be.”

    Naive? Dangerous?

      • Why reposting? they have nothing to do with Hillary’s quote. Where’s that LOGICAL FALLACY when I need it?

        • Why is it “naive and dangerous” to think the world is complicated when one group attacks you one day and another protests in support of you and explicitly apologizes to you the next day?

          • For fun:

            “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate in a city we helped save from destruction?” Bush said. “This question reflects just how complicated, and at times how
            confounding the world can be.”

            Quote from GW Bush as attacks on US soldiers continued in Iraq.

            Naive? Incompetent? Dangerous?

            • We didn’t “save Iraq” from destruction – we invaded a country which was minding it’s own business and wasn’t in the middle of a civil war. And they didn’t greet us as liberators the way he said they would. We are an occupying force in Iraq, and responsible for tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths. If anyone is surprised that we’re being attacked in Iraq, they’re out of their gourd.

              This should not be construed as support for our intervention in Libya, but they like us there (as evidenced by the protest against the attack). So it’s understandable to be dismayed at why we would be attacked.

              And, to clarify, Hillary Clinton was using her statement as a rhetorical device – I posted her fuller remarks elsewhere – she’s not actually confused at how it can happen, but is using this as a way of lamenting. As in, “why do bad things happen to good people?” Read what she said (click the link and read the whole thing). She has a very nuanced view of what’s going on.

      • Your point? Don’t think anyone here puts all of Islam followers or all of Libyans in the same category as those that were part of these attacks and murders. However, that does not mean the area is secure or safe or free of radical believers. For the SofS to make such a head-in-the-clouds statement is baffling. So which is it? Naive? Incompetent? Dangerous? All of the above?

        • Don’t think anyone here puts all of Islam followers or all of Libyans in the same category as those that were part of these attacks and murders.

          I’m sure some do.

          However, that does not mean the area is secure or safe or free of radical believers.

          True.

          For the SofS to make such a head-in-the-clouds statement is baffling. So which is it? Naive? Incompetent? Dangerous? All of the above?

          It’s lamenting a terrible situation. You think she was actually confused by how it could possibly be that there are hostiles in a (generally) friendly city?

          ::sigh:: ok.. time to go fishing for the full quote.. Here we go..

          The mission that drew Chris and Sean and their colleagues to Libya is both noble and necessary, and we and the people of Libya honor their memory by carrying it forward. This is not easy. Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.

          But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital, and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety. And last night, when I spoke with the President of Libya, he strongly condemned the violence and pledged every effort to protect our people and pursue those responsible.

          […]

  31. Aaaandd… here we go..

    In talking points currently being pushed to Republican leaders and top surrogates, the Romney campaign recommends attacking President’s Obama “foreign policy of weakness” and dismissing questions about how the campaign responded to the crisis last night.

    A sample response, as proposed by the Romney campaign officials in Boston:

    Don’t you think it was appropriate for the embassy to condemn the controversial movie in question? Are you standing up for movies like this?

    – Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance.

    – But we will not apologize for our constitutional right to freedom of speech.

    Now, does that sound familiar to, say, this:

    We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

    or this:

    “Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”

    Because those are the statements which Romney blasted for “sympathizing” with the attackers.

    Source.

    • Sounds like a good campaign strategy moving forward. Was not a sound reaction to the events as they happened, ie apologize and not stand up for our principles.

      Of course, none of this really matters. What matters is, what is Obama’s strategy moving forward? It sounds like he is attempting to throw Hillary under the bus as one strategy, but is he capable of standing up and actually leading?

      But you just keep your eye on Romney because that is the real problem!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      NO, those were not the particular statements that had been issued when he prepared his statement.

      He said “first response”. That would be the second tweet by the embassy, which reaffirmed the first. You are now using subsequent tweets which started coming out as the breech continued. I have not seen what order they came but lets say the ones you reference were #3, #4 etc.

      I saw a copy of this second “tweet” last night on Lou Dobbs’ show. But I have not seen it in the reports you keep citing. So either Dobbs was wrong or your sources are wrong. Or maybe they are both wrong. I don’t know which.

      Is this also about the time the White House disavowed the first two tweets? So are the ones you are now referencing a change caused by the White House. Or was that later?

      • I’ll see what I can dig up..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        From your own source:

        Just before midnight ET, the U.S. embassy in Cairo removes some its tweets, from both before and during the protests, condemning religiously offensive speech. It does not remove one posted at 4:29 p.m. ET: “3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”

        If the goal is to evaluate Romney’s first response then the only real question should be WHAT INFORMATION did he have between his first preparation and him lifting the embargo. Did that information change? If so, why did he not change his message? Or did he change it and why?

        But here is the big picture. It DOES NOT MATTER unless you want to focus on Romney instead of what is happening in reality.

        The fact he responded at all is a flaw in his campaign. But as Andrea Mitchell explained to Maddow last night, this is what is happening on BOTH sides of the campaign. Each is trying to be the first to draw on what ever little thing happens. The result will be that sometimes they get a big mud pie in the face.

        So the next question I have is will the media treat Mr. Obama the same when it is his turn? Given their response on this matter I would say no. Because there is a very legitimate question lying there unasked and unanswered. WHY weren’t our embassy, consulate reinforced? WHY did we not know or predict violence against our people. There is indication that we did, but downplayed the threat. That is what is bothersome about Hillary’s statement. While it is a good statement on the surface, does it reflect a naive belief that real threats did not exist.

        On these matters, TIME will HOPEFULLY tell.

        • WHAT INFORMATION did he have between his first preparation and him lifting the embargo.

          “Lost” tweets sourced below. Safe to assume he had access to them as well.

          Did that information change?

          I don’t think so. My guess would be that the embargo was lifted as a political move – to make the statement before Clinton / Obama could – to preempt the story. This is just a guess, but it fits with the timeline as nothing was tweeted and no news broke between 10:09 and 10:25 PM.

          It DOES NOT MATTER unless you want to focus on Romney instead of what is happening in reality.

          I want to focus on Romney because otherwise this is a dime-a-dozen story. Our embassies get attacked every few years. Nothing new under the sun. I don’t recall any consuls dying off the top of my head, but I’d hardly be surprised. What Obama should have done to shore up security / what he didn’t do.. well that’s a conversation I’m not well versed in. We can discuss that elsewhere if you like, but that’s not the topic at hand.

          It may well be that you have a very legitimate criticism of Obama in that question (I wouldn’t be surprised), but that’s still another topic and it doesn’t divert from Romney’s nonsensical attack.

          The fact he responded at all is a flaw in his campaign.

          Can’t fault the guy for trying.. he’s desperate.

          Each is trying to be the first to draw on what ever little thing happens.

          True, but one guy is the President and one guy wants to be the President.

          The result will be that sometimes they get a big mud pie in the face.

          Yup. Sad, really.

          But this big mud pie landed right in Romney’s face.

          will the media treat Mr. Obama the same when it is his turn?

          Probably. In fact, the’ll probably roast him alive.. you know, “to be balanced”

          WHY weren’t our embassy, consulate reinforced?

          As I said to Naten, a GREAT question. I have no answer. I can dig in another time. But that’s still off topic. We’re discussing Romney’s reaction.

          That is what is bothersome about Hillary’s statement. While it is a good statement on the surface, does it reflect a naive belief that real threats did not exist.

          I have no idea.

  32. Americans woke up this morning with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world. This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it’s disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served, during their lives, the cause of freedom, and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.

    Four diplomats lost their life, including the U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya. And, of course, with these words, I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones, who have left behind, as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our nation, and I know that the people across America are grateful for their service and we mourn their sacrifice.

    America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

    I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t ‘cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.

    The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests. Over the last several years, we have stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region, but also poses the potential for peril, if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events.

    We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter.

    Romney made his remarks after both embassies had been attacked so the timeline goes something like this. I may be wrong..this is how I see it.

    Egypt embassy attack
    Egypt embassy statement
    Libya embassy attack
    Romneys statement
    almost concurrent with
    Hillary’s statement
    Obama’s statement.

    • I may be wrong..this is how I see it.

      You’re wrong.

      Egypt embassy statement – FIRST (noon-ish local time) (6:17AM)
      Six or more hours
      Egypt embassy attack – “sometime after nightfall” (noon-ish)
      Egypt embassy statement
      embassy tweet (2:30 PM)
      Libya embassy attack (5:41 PM)
      Media confirms Libyan fatalities (7:35 PM)
      Romney’s statement – embargoed (10:09 PM)
      Romeny statement – released (10:25 PM)
      Hillary Clinton statement (10:44 PM)
      Obama’s statement. (7:21 AM next morning)

      • Something doesn’t add up. Are you sure about your TPM timeline? The Colonel says a timeline will be released tomorrow. Let’s wait and see what that says.

        • Yes, I’m going off the TPM timeline with a smattering of other sources. For example, I got the twitter timing from twitter directly, and had to calculate Eastern Time from local time manually. I’ve also seen corroboration in a few places of several of the other times. Not all though, to be fair.

          I’ll be happy to see what the colonel says tomorrow, but let me just ask you a question. If – IF – my timeline is accurate (I’m I’m pretty positive it is), then what do you think about Romney’s statement?

          If it turns out I’m wrong, well, I’ll re-assess when I see it.

          • If your timeline is correct then Romney is re-acting to info that we don’t have. Which puts this whole thing in more of a false flag scene. I’m not so sure though Matt. I had the TV on through the night and heard of the attacks at something in the morning (before birds were chirping), Both attacks. Then I heard Romney( and he referenced the attacks and the embassy statement), then Hillary, then Obama. Besides..why would the WH distance itself from the embassy statement? It’s his adm..he owns the statement.

  33. one of the first things I thought of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings

    So in the wake of the US embassy bombings what changes were made to the security of our embassies? Why wasn’t there a shoot first policy if this was US Sovereign Territory?

    • HEY! EVERYONE! LOOK! A VALID CRITICISM!

      Gee, Naten, thank you for this.. I had almost completely forgotten what it felt like to read a legitimate question posed on SUFA.

      • Why wasn’t there a shoot first policy if this was US Sovereign Territory?

        Naten, This is the Obama administration. That should answer your legitimate question. Now, Mathius, timelines don’t mean crap, 4 Americans died on Obama’s watch. As a faux Commander -n-Chief, he failed to protect our people adequately. Epic failure, just like the rest of his Presidency 😉

      • Not sure if serious…. or just trolling…
        http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/futurama-fry-not-sure-if-x

        • A little bit of both.

          Mostly serious though. They’ve been throwing around so much bulls**t lately, I was losing faith in SUFA.

          I honestly think SUFA’s losing it’s edge – this used to be a place for rational debate.. but lately.. maybe it’s just that the election is coming up. I hope that it’s it, and things can return to normal after Romney loses. But somehow I doubt it. :/

          But, as to your question – it’s a great question and I have no answers. I haven’t looked into this, but I’d love you take, or the take of someone who is familiar with the subject.

          • It seems to me as the ‘riots’ continue into their fourth day, that a lack of deploying military defense on our Sovereign Territory is a mistake. The rioters are getting emboldened at a lack of response other then a verbal scolding.

            Years ago (so I can’t remember most of the details), a friend of mine told me of a time he was overseas in Somalia around the time of “Black Hawk Down”. (can’t remember if it were before or after) He was a Captain at the time, and some of the locals were upset at the base. There were cases where they would try and provoke a response from the base. Naturally the soldiers were unsure of how to handle this at first, but this is a part of the world where people walking around with AKs is common and not illegal. The Captain told me that they had decided to only act if the base was ‘threatened’. Shortly afterwards someone was again trying to provoke a response and pointed their weapon at the base. The snipers took him out. The Captain said that they didn’t have any trouble again after that at the base.

  34. Today has been one massive exercise in confirmation bias.

    Facts be damned, we’re going to find some way to exonerate Romney!

    • Bull Shit- It is insulting for you to just assume we are just taking up for Romney. I have tried to give my true take on what is going on-which I assume you have also done. The fact that we are both prejudiced to our side-is a fact of life-but it is an equal prejudice shared by both of us. It does not preclude me from saying Romney is wrong, if I believe he is wrong.

      • The fact that we are both prejudiced to our side-is a fact of life

        Yes, but reality is also on my side.

        I’ve presented well-researched annotated timelines. I’ve presented full quotes and source links. Hell, I even dug up the “lost tweets” of the embassy.

        This is the answer. Romney took a shot with half-baked info in an attempt to score political points in the foreign policy / national security realm, and thoroughly shoved his foot in his mouth. The “Obama apologizes” meme is worn thin, but I guess they’re going to keep hitting with it even though there’s nothing resembling a basis in reason behind it.

    • Ditto V

      Besides if the Administration would just take the LEAD we wouldn’t be in this situation.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I’m calling BS as well.

      Most of the discussion I have seen is over the accuracy of your accusations or assumptions as well as questions by others as to what is real and not.

      None of that is a “rationalization” or attempt to “exonerate Romney”

      I don’t even know what “exonerate” Romney means. Exonerate him for what?

      Speaking at all? I said YESTERDAY it was a mistake.

      I suggest you read Romney’s first statement again. Now take off YOUR biased glasses and notice that he is referring to the President in the context of the Embassy’s response. Not Mr. Obama’s speech which hasn’t happened yet. This is no different than when you post “you” in an argument when you mean “people” and not “me” in particular.

      Notice he uses the words “first response”. Which would have obviously been the Embassy tweets which appear to sympathize with the demonstrators anger. The first one prior to the demonstrations and the others that reaffirmed the first, issued during the attack in Cairo.

      So I find your first line of attack as false. But I also find Romney at fault for commenting at all.

      And in the end even his secondary comments will be flawed because we will find out that the Libya attack was not about the movie, speech or religious tolerance at all.

      Which of course means the Administration’s comments will be equally flawed.

      • Which would have obviously been the Embassy tweets which appear to sympathize with the demonstrators anger.

        I posted the tweets. Where are they sympathizing, exactly?

      • Notice he uses the words “first response”. Which would have obviously been the Embassy tweets

        As near as I can tell, the “first response” was to thank people for their thoughts and prayers.

        The second response was to condemn the attack.

        The third response was to reaffirm their stance against bigotry and condemn the attack again.

  35. Okay, I’m done with this discussion about Romney’s statement until I get more information. It has gone from Romney made the statement before the event happened and said so and so. To Romney made the statement after both Egypt and Lybia were attacked and said so and so.

  36. The lost tweets of the Embassy:

    “1) Thank you for your thoughts and prayers.” (2:28 PM)

    “2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this”. (2:28 PM)

    “3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry” (2:29 PM)

    “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy” (6:30 PM)

    “‘we did not apologize to anyone because we did nothing.’” (timing unknown)

    That’s all I can find. There were a few others about temporarily halting services and contact info for emergencies, but that didn’t seem relevant.

    So, if you know of something else, let me know. And, of course, considering that these were all (expect probably that last one) before Romney’s statement, it should be safe to say he knew about them at the time. Given these, where does the Embassy “sympathize” with the attackers?

    Did I miss any? Anyone know?

    Adding, I had to go to twitchy.. I feel dirty..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Again, from YOUR source:

      It does not remove one posted at 4:29 p.m. ET: “3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”

      Now do you notice anything a little funny about this versus the ones you posted above??

      • no.. I don’t? Are you referring to 4:29 vs 2:29? I assumed this was a timezone issue or a typo or some such. Do you have something to suggest otherwise?

        What nefarious secrets do you believe this holds?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I don’t know because both are reported as Eastern Time. And the error shows up in several places.

          The difference is that the breech was around Noon Eastern Time, so a response at 2:49, combined with the first tweet of 6:00 a.m. can be called “first response”. While the others differ in tone, they basically all came in a flurry as the breech occurred.

          If, however, this was not sent out until 4:29 pm Eastern Time then it was long after the fact. But the times on the other tweets are about the same time. So they all came around 2:30 or 4:30. I am not sure which, but guessing the 2:30 time frame is more accurate.

          Then the time on the one reaffirming the early morning message is shown as after 6:00 pm, FOUR hours after those posted during the breach. This looks like the message I saw last night, by the way.

          So I am suspecting that there is some error in the REPORTING on all this TWEETY STUFF.

          Todd’s reference noted that it was the first message and the flurry of tweets issued during the breech, at least one of which reaffirmed the early morning message, that were used by Romney to cast the “sympathizer” aspersion on the “first response”.

          • Twitter shows it as 2:29.

            Assuming that the state department hasn’t hacked Twitter, then it’s possible it was RE-POSTED at 4:29 and subsequently deleted, but it had to have been said, at least initially, at 2:29.

            That is, again, unless they hacked twitter.

            So I am suspecting that there is some error in the REPORTING on all this TWEETY STUFF.

            Perhaps. But +/- 2 hours is somewhat irrelevant because this would have been known by Romney by the time of his statement either way.

            Twitchy, which is overtly hostile to Obama, showed 2:29, as well. I imagine that if there were more damning posts, they’d show up there, no?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              If the one tweet in question had been issued 2 to 3 hours later then it would have a bigger “mistake” by Romney than if they all happened quickly during the breech of the compound.

              It does not make it better, but worse because the tweets that allowed him to stretch into “initial response” would have been less “initial” and more “followup”. But then that has never stopped either party’s candidates from STRETCHING things.

              Which leads me to laugh at your fixation with this whole timeline issue of yours.

  37. I’ll try to clear things up…at least my feelings.

    No one is defending the attackers, or saying they had a right to attack because of the movie, or anything else.

    The statement by the Cairo embassy was poorly worded, blah, blah, blah. But it was issued before the attack.

    The problem I have is:

    * Romney issuing a political statement in the middle of a foreign event that was still unfolding.
    * Romney had the facts/timeline wrong
    * Romney continues to push his incorrect facts/timeline

    Has anyone ever heard of “Politics end at the water’s edge?”

    It was first suggested by Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg about 1947. The idea was widely adopted under the Truman administration by the US. Vandenberg is recognized for abandoning his isolationist views of American foreign policy in favor of a more international view, and he worked in a bipartisan way to gather support for things like the creation of NATO. One of his principal statements was that American politicians should always present a united front to other countries, despite political disagreements on their own turf. To air these disagreements at events aimed at internationalism weakened America’s show of strength. Thus politicians visiting elsewhere took on the doctrine that politics stops at the water’s edge, since raising partisan disputes would not best represent the united front of a strong, whole America.

    Romney has agreed with this in the past – when Republicans where in the White House…

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      Exactly. Except…. I do not KNOW that Romney had the facts or timeline wrong to begin with, or that he is continuing to stand behind false claims about the same.

      I do think that some of the opinions on this particular issue are tainted by “biased explanation” or “biased reading”.

      Here is his BIG mistake, other than speaking at all.

      He might have gotten by with this had it not been for the escalation and then deaths in Libya. His comments would have fit just fine in that scenario.

      But according to the time line you presented, it looks like he had about thirty minutes between States announcement of a person being killed in Libya and when his statement was allowed to be released.

      I do not know if HE released the embargo or if it was a staffer. But at that point the game had changed and he should have sent a note to the media “withdrawing” the first comments due to the “changing conditions and loss of life” and issuing a new statement for immediate release:

      “The situation appears much worse than we thought so I am going to withhold comment until we know more about the facts on the ground”. “Our prayers are with the families of those in harms way tonight”. M.R.

      • But according to the time line you presented, it looks like he had about thirty minutes between States announcement of a person being killed in Libya and when his statement was allowed to be released.

        Nope.

        (5:41 PM) Libya embassy attack reported by media
        (7:35 PM) Media confirms Libyan fatalities reported by media
        (10:09 PM) Romney’s statement – embargoed
        (10:25 PM) Romney statement – released

        He had 2 1/2 hours between when the death was public knowledge and when he made the statement. Then another 16 minutes before they released the statement.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          From Todd’s source:

          “At 10:13 p.m. ET, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued the following statement:

          I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

          This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

          Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

          In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.

          At 10:26 p.m. ET, the Romney campaign lifted its embargo on the GOP candidate’s statement.”

          EXCUSE ME, he had 13 minutes to make the change instead of moving ahead.

          I clearly stated that based on “States announcement”. Now are you going to pull a flag on me or simply apologize. I want to see just how serious you were about your lecture on manners.

          • Nope, sorry.. misunderstood you. Let’s do some fact checking… hold please..

            ::please hold, your post is important to us::

            ::insufferable muzac::

            ::your post will be responded to as soon as possible::

            ::insufferable muzac::

            ::please hold, your post is important to us::

            ::insufferable muzac::

            I’m having trouble nailing down the timing with unimpeachable sources.

            So, if Todd’s source is right then Romney spoke (embargoed), Clinton spoke (publicly), and Romney then released his remarks. Is that what you’re getting at?

            If so, how does that change anything?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              It does not change anything. I did not try to change anything. I disagree with your original arguments as illogical but that is not what I am discussing here.

              I am talking about his last chance to have done the BEST thing as opposed to the thing he did.

              Please read my comment to Todd again with a more “focused” attention to what I actually said.

      • No JAC,

        Romney knew about the events in Libya and the death. His first statement included references to it. Stop making up excuses.

        Here’s his statement from Tuesday night:

        I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          How am I making EXCUSES for him?

          How does him including this in the message change the validity of my comment?

          He had thirteen minutes from the time State announced the confirmation and the time he released the announcement.

          Once State issued that announcement he should have backed away. That was his last best chance to retreat from the prepared statement.

          So again, how is that making an excuse for him?

          • That’s all well and good. Can we take a step back?

            Romney said Obama’s administration’s “first response” was to “sympathize” with those who attacked us. Is this true in your opinion?

          • JAC,

            Your comment:

            EXCUSE ME, he had 13 minutes to make the change instead of moving ahead.

            is nonsense.

            Here’s the timeline:

            At 10:10 p.m. ET, the Romney campaign emailed a statement from the Republican presidential nominee to media organizations about the violence in both countries, reporting of which was prohibited (or “embargoed”) until 12 a.m. ET Wednesday

            At 10:13 p.m. ET, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued the following statement

            At 10:26 p.m. ET, the Romney campaign lifted its embargo on the GOP candidate’s statement

            Romney sent out his original statement before Clinton’s statement, but it was “embargoed” until midnight.
            Clinton’s statement had nothing “new” that Romney’s statement didn’t already cover.

            Romney had 1 hour and 47 minutes to make changes or retract his statement before the “embargo” ended at midnight.
            But he decided to lift the “embargo” and release the statement early.

            How am I making EXCUSES for him?

            You’re making excuses by trying to imply that Romney somehow got caught in a time squeeze. He did not. The time squeeze was his own making. He had all night to not send the statement in the first place.

            Romney saw a chance to take a dig at the President and score some political points – you know, with all those conservatives who were complaining about him not being “tough” on Obama Tuesday. But he didn’t considering the ramifications of his childish attack.

            Not much in the way of leadership.

            He had thirteen minutes from the time State announced the confirmation and the time he released the announcement.

            No, he had all night to not send the statement in the first place, and 1 hour and 47 minutes to make changes or retract his statement before the “embargo” ended at midnight.

            The 13 minutes is just the length of time it took Romney to see Clinton’s statement and decide “we better jump on this and release our statement now.”

            Again, not leadership – just a political hack.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              This is where sometimes your own bias clouds the conversation. You are completely misunderstanding my point.

              “You’re making excuses by trying to imply that Romney somehow got caught in a time squeeze. He did not. The time squeeze was his own making. He had all night to not send the statement in the first place.”

              I agree. He in fact had until midnight if he did not decide to jump the gun. But my focus was on his last 13 minutes available to retreat, to pull back once State had issued an “official statement”.

              Those 13 minutes between States release and when he decided to lift the embargo. It is not a squeeze, it was the time he should have BACKED OFF.

              I even said that several times now. He had all night, but ONCE STATE issued an official comment he had NO, ZERO, NADA chance of making this come out good for him in any way.

              • But my focus was on his last 13 minutes available to retreat

                Get this thru your thick skull JAC – it was not his last 13 minutes available to retreat . He had 1 hour and 47 minutes.

                I am not going to let you try to make this “13 minute” bullshit stand.

                He did not have 13 minutes available to retreat .

                It took him 13 minutes to pounce.

                He had 1 hour and 47 minutes to decide what to do.

                ONCE STATE issued an official comment he had NO, ZERO, NADA chance of making this come out good for him in any way.

                And instead of taking that 1 hour and 47 minutes to actually think about this, he pounced.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              Get a grip man. We are saying the same thing. I said above I did NOT mean that it was an external time constraint. Only that it was the time between States’ press release and him lifting the embargo, or “pouncing” if you prefer.

              The 13 minutes between those events was his LAST CHANCE to pull back. PURE AND SIMPLY and NOTHING more sinister or intended by that comment. Had he waited until midnight I would have said: “This last hour and 45 minutes were his last chance to pull back.” See how that works?

              Yes, HE REDUCED the time he had to RECONSIDER his position following the State Dept’s release. HE SCREWED UP, in my humble opinion.

              Good grief.

              • It’s irrelevant and a distraction from the real issue, messing in places you should be smart enough not to mess in. And, i daresay it is deliberately being kept alive as a distraction otherwise, one might start asking questions.

                I’m telling you guys, only the Russians have it right on the Mideast. Develop your own resources and let them stew in their own juices. .

              • JAC,

                The 13 minutes between those events was his LAST CHANCE to pull back. PURE AND SIMPLY and NOTHING more sinister or intended by that comment. Had he waited until midnight I would have said: “This last hour and 45 minutes were his last chance to pull back.” See how that works?

                I still disagree with the way you’re phasing the “13 minutes.”

                The “correct” phasing would be: “instead of taking time to ponder his statement ONCE STATE issued an official comment, it only took him 13 minutes to release the embargo on his statement.”

                Do you see the difference? 😉

                I’m pretty sure Romney (or his campaign) saw his “window of opportunity” slipping away and wanted to get his statement “out there” before Obama made a statement.

                On a side note – what is this “embargoed” crap? I’ve never heard of that before? Why not just send the statement at 12:01am? Again, I’m thinking he wanted to give the media outlets time to “gear up” for its release and make a “big splash” at midnight…just a thought…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          I think I figured out what you are reacting to. I just went back to my first statements this morning.

          I started out under the assumption that Romney prepared his statement before the Libyan attacks and deaths were known. This was based on the information I had seen.

          Per the full statement you posted, several times, it appears he did know about Libya and at least one death. So now the question is whether that was the “complete” statement as first issued or if it was added when they lifted the embargo.

          Lets assume it was in fact the original. I don’t see how that changes anything in terms of Romney’s response.

          It seems pretty clear to me his comments targeting Mr. Obama were based on the messages from the Egyptian embassy. Some of which came out after the attack on the embassy. Your source agrees with this assessment.

          So he has done what all politicians do. He has stretched the context of the whole thing to tag Mr. Obama with the tweets and as the official “first response” to the attacks.

          The difference from where I started and where we are now is that extent of the stretching done by Mr. Romney. But I don’t see how it makes a material difference to my key points.

          1. He should have done nothing, except issue a statement of prayers and well wishes.
          2. If he issued something more, then it would have worked ONLY if the Libyan thing hadn’t escalated.
          3. Given that Libya did escalate and he knew it, once State made the “official” announcement he should have retreated back to 1).

          • JAC,
            You’re still making “assumptions” (excuses) that soften everything for Romney:

            I started out under the assumption that Romney prepared his statement before the Libyan attacks and deaths were known. This was based on the information I had seen.

            Seriously? I posted a link to Romney’s statement here Tuesday night. You responded to the that post Yesterday morning:

            https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/8816/#comment-144054

            it appears he did know about Libya and at least one death

            “It appears”? But maybe not, right? Maybe he just threw the “death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi” in there as a guess right? Come’on JAC…

            So now the question is whether that was the “complete” statement as first issued or if it was added when they lifted the embargo.

            There is no indication or statement about Romney changing his statement – just releasing it. Another “assumption” that clouds the story which has no basis in fact.

            Lets assume it was in fact the original. I don’t see how that changes anything in terms of Romney’s response.

            It is the original. And the second sentence is factual wrong. That’s the thing you won’t accept JAC.

            It seems pretty clear to me his comments targeting Mr. Obama were based on the messages from the Egyptian embassy. Some of which came out after the attack on the embassy. Your source agrees with this assessment.

            Bullshit. He was referring to the original message from the embassy.

            And his statements Wednesday morning were even worse.

            But I don’t see how it makes a material difference to my key points.

            You’ve constantly avoiding and downplaying the actual timeline and the actual events.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              It sure looks to me like your chasing some rabbit only you can see. So what was my response to your post yesterday?

              “Todd says:
              September 12, 2012 at 1:45 am • Edit

              I think this will back-fire for Romney, as the Fox News article leaves out some important facts…

              http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/11/romney-calls-obama-administration-early-response-to-attacks-disgrace/#ixzz26Dvwl700
              Reply

              Just A Citizen says:
              September 12, 2012 at 10:29 am • Edit

              Todd

              I agree. This is a perfect example of what we were talking about yesterday.

              Feeling compelled to comment on everything simply creates opportunities for the other side to ridicule you, and it takes away from a focused message.

              I just listened to Hillary’s comments and I must say they were better than both Romney and the White House comments thus far.

              I would NEVER vote for her as POTUS but I have gained much respect for her as Sec of State. My son was telling me this morning about people he knows who have recently left State and had nothing but good things to say about her “administrative” skills.

              She has a different problem than Romney. He thinks he has to comment on everything. Hillary doesn’t BUT her husband does. If he really wants her career to continue he should RETIRE and stay RETIRED.”

              So there you have it. My FIRST RESPONSE was that this was an example of the prior days discussion that sometimes a candidate should just say nothing. That they should not react to “everything”.

              By the way, I did not read the Fox reference closely yesterday and missed the part about him knowing about the death. But in doing so now I noticed the “entire quote” was not included. They mentioned he was upset at the attacks and deaths but quoted ONLY the second sentence of the press release.

              So my first arguments to Mathius this morning were WRONG because I presented a case where he may not have known when the statement was constructed. Having forgotten that he did know. Or at least it appears he knew. 🙂 At that point I was dealing with what looked like a flawed absolute being presented by Mathius. One that may not have been true or it might have been true.

              Now that does not change anything with respect to the points I made about the political commentary in a situation like this.

              This is politics Todd. I tried to evaluate Romney’s comments in that light. Was it good politics? NOPE. And I said so in the beginning and have repeated that several times today.

              This second sentence that you say is FALSE can be shown true as well. If you use the same “political” standard that has been “historically” applied to Both political party’s rhetoric. As D13 offered today, it has happened in the past and both sides have done it. That does not make it right or good. It is a simple statement of history and the nature of politics.

              It is what makes “you didn’t build that” open to use in various ways and why both sides can claim TRUTH on their side. It is OBFUSCATION.

              And your reference DID AGREE with my assessment so you should take back your bull shit flag. The author flatly stated that it was the flurry of tweets that Romney’s people grabbed onto in order to create or justify the narrative. It was NOT JUST the first statement.

              You can disagree if you like, but it comes down to a difference in opinion. Frankly I am not sure that absent the tweets issued during the attack it would have changed the results. You might have seen a different word or two in the statement but it was the “narrative” they were trying to hammer on. Whether that narrative is true or not is a broader question.

              Now if the first statement was the only thing they were using, it would not have changed anything regarding the good, bad or ugly of the politics in this situation. Romney could have made the same statement and been “technically close enough” to create a political statement that had a “shade of truth”. That UNFORTUNATELY is how politics works. Now, if you want to establish a standard of ABSOLUTE TRUTH ONLY in every political statement then that is OK by me. But that standard must be applied in all cases.

              Please note however, that whether Romney’s statement was absolutely true or false would not change my THREE POINTS I made above. The ones you ignored in trying to claim I was making Romney look good.

              In my comments today I was not trying to pass judgement on absolute truth. I admit I tried to show flaws in Matt’s supposed “logic” but I am still not sure what the hell his point was other than using a few words to claim Romney a liar. I was trying to provide some analysis on political commentary related to events like this. I was trying to show that what you call FALSE is in the political world nothing but that GRAY you guys love to claim exists everywhere.

              Apparently my efforts failed since you seem to think I was trying to cover for Romney. Even after I said he should have stayed out of the situation.

              • JAC,

                So there you have it. My FIRST RESPONSE was that this was an example of the prior days discussion that sometimes a candidate should just say nothing. That they should not react to “everything”.

                Yes, that’s why I was perplexed at you “defense” of Romney the last two days…

                Now that does not change anything with respect to the points I made about the political commentary in a situation like this.

                But you never make this argument when you disagree with Obama’s comments – like this one:

                It is what makes “you didn’t build that” open to use in various ways and why both sides can claim TRUTH on their side.

                And your reference DID AGREE with my assessment so you should take back your bull shit flag. The author flatly stated that it was the flurry of tweets that Romney’s people grabbed onto in order to create or justify the narrative. It was NOT JUST the first statement.

                What “author”? Do you have a link?

                I never “officially” threw the bullshit flag, but I will now! Romney’s statements never mentioned the tweets directly. If he wants to pick on specific statements or tweets, then he has to be more specific.

                Romney’s comments at his press conference Wednesday morning were specific:

                The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached, protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.

                This is not true. The statement was hours before the breach.

                After the breach is when the tweets started.

                I didn’t comment on your “3 points” because I was running out of time and they were a summarization of your previous comments for the most part. Again, part of the confusion – you’re saying he was “wrong” but still defending him.

                You didn’t comment on this JAC. Do you think it applies? Or is it now “every man for himself”?

                Has anyone ever heard of “Politics end at the water’s edge?”

                And now Romney is trying to say the White House agrees with him:

                “What I said was exactly the same conclusion the White House reached, which was that the statement was inappropriate. That’s why they backed away from it as well,” Romney said.

                I don’t think the White House agrees with this:

                It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

                I guess this is just the “Etch-A-Sketch” in action.

  38. Good lord. One could do this all day. Egypt no longer an ally nor an enemy. Today, well didn’t really mean that exactly like it came out. And who was it that claimed someone else should be careful not to shoot first and aim later? Pitiful excuse of a man, let alone a leader.

  39. Does it really matter? This time line thing? Every politician that I have ever known does this same thing. Romney, Obama, Nixon, Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Regan………………all used current unfolding international events in their campaigns and not in their campaigns. All had things to say before facts were known…..sigh.

    • It does because Romney is jumping in saying that Obama’s first response is to sympathize with those who attacked us.

      Now, while it’s abject bulls**t that he did that at all, it’s impossible to disprove until you can pin down what, exactly, he’s referring to.

      It seems that he’s referring to a statement by the embassy that they condemn bigotry.. and this somehow means Obama is sympathizing.. I’m not exactly sure how this makes any sense. But it has to be straightened out.

      The problem is the Romney is trying to puff up his foreign policy credentials while painting Obama as a terrorist coddling Manchurian candidate. And I see no reason to go along with that.

  40. Ladies and gentlemen, the leader of the Republican party:

    “What if Ayman al-Zawahiri gave up Osama bin Laden for the express purpose of making Obama look good? Giving Obama stature, political capital?” – Rush Limbaugh

    • Damn, Mathius……….you need to get off this……what makes you think Republicans listen to this guy….I am an independent that votes conservative…..I do not listen to this guy. I know many republicans (most in fact) that do not even listen to this guy at all. He does not speak for the Republicans that I know….he is an entertainer as is all news people. Nice conspiracy theory though,……lol. It should fit in with the same conspiracy theories on the JFK assassination and Area 57.

    • You’ve really lost it, haven’t you? Been complaining about SUFA and how it’s no longer the high caliber place it used to be, too much idiocy, blah, blah, blah.

      Then you spend an entire day on a timeline, for what reason I can’t figure out, (are you a salaried employee???), claim others have extreme bias, and now you post this absurd statement by a talk radio host, that no doubt was made just to rile the likes of people like you.

      If you are so sure of the path that you are following, for gosh sakes, stand up for YOUR guy. Show us how strong a leader he is, explain to us how he is all in on making good on his promises of cutting the deficit, lowering unemployment, making the world love us. Explain to us how it’s perfectly acceptable to not attend intelligence meetings, national security meetings or meet with your job council in six months. Lay out how not having a budget in over 3 years is the perfect way to turn our fiscal matters around. Give us details on how we will all benefit from the QE3 announced today.

      This ridiculous timeline situation is nothing other than one person showed conviction and another tried to play catch-up . More than any poll that is out there, you can tell by the reaction of the left to this one incident that Romney did something right.

      Left losing it=Romney did good!

    • In what context, sort of like yesterday’s? The man has a three hour per day soapbox. Generally it is three hours of free association where all sorts of stuff comes out. I have no problem at all with him suggesting it as a possibility. To me, it fails because Zawahiri, could care less who is president. Like the Ayatollah Kohmeni making Carter look bad and lose the election. If I were him, I would have released the hostages the morning before election day with assurances to the world that it was Carter’s personal diplomacy that led to the release.

      Slam, dunk, we get the guy who is best for our plans. Don’t know why they didn’t do it unless they just don’t care because their plan, to them, works regardless of who is President.

  41. I agree with Mathius – but it’s not just today. This is becoming more and more common here at SUFA…

    Today has been one massive exercise in confirmation bias.

    Facts be damned, we’re going to find some way to exonerate Romney!

  42. The deaths of American diplomatic personnel is tragic and my thoughts and prayers go out to their families. I agree with the Colonel, if they don’t like us we should pack it up and leave their countries, not continue to risk the lives of our citizens in diplomatic or military capacities in these unfriendly nations (whether they were unfriendly before or we cause it by our bad choices – meaning war).

    One comment to about the lack of beefing up the Marines in the embassies and a shoot first order. As I recall all personnel (military or civilian) are under the direct authority of the ambassador and only may act on his orders (or so I was instructed back in my service years).

    As to Romney and his comment(s). I wish he would have taken the high road and let the smoke clear before sounding off at all. I distinctly remember thinking of how Bush took the high road and refused to provide his thoughts on action Obama took in Iraq or Afghanistan after Bush left office. One of the few times I could give my unqualified respect to GWB.

    Any political posturing by either man will not gain my respect.

  43. Look, we all know that :”Bain Capital” is just another name for “Haliburton”. Ask Charlie, he knows. So what’s the big deal, it was operatives from Bain/Haliburton who took out the ambassador in an effort to drum up the next war. Does not matter if the war is under Obama or Romney, either one will do fine.

    Seriously, this makes about as much sense as what I see on SUFA today. In dealing with the Arab world, if you know anything at all about the Arab world, anything which they can see as being weakness they will treat as such. These are some sick puppies out there. This event was staged on 11 SEPTEMBER for a reason. Get that. The date drew the entire Arab world’s attention to it and thus to every response made by the US.

    I am cursed in that I have been able to read thousands of books in my lifetime, History, Biography, speculative politics, historical fiction, science fiction, general fiction and usually, after reading a book, I wind up researching some of the material in it. Individual authors tend to do a good job on research something I would never have had the time for on my own.

    Other things I have learned in my life include the fact that stereotypes exist because there is at least a gem of truth in them (usually a lot more). So, when you hear something either complementary or uncomplimentary about a people and you hear it repeatedly, it is best to back off take a look see and then come up with a decision.

    I think what I am most annoyed with these past few days is the defense of the indefensible act of presidential hubris which led us to get involved in a fight that was not ours. Ronald Reagan and then George Bush 2 eliminated Quadaffi as a threat to us and to the west. Like it or not, that’s what they did. Hate them or not, that is what they did. What the hell we were doing leading a coalition against the guy I don’t know. I don’t care about the Arab Spring. The Arab spring is a joke and you guys don’t seem to get that. A big frigging joke told to you by people who never read a book on the Mideast, do not understand its people or customs and blithely wandered in doing their mischief.

    If I have a fight with Romney, it is over his failure to condemn the damn move into Libya which caused all this. There will be more dead bodies out there soon because of the meddling we have done.

    What you folks have failed completely to draw in because it is inter-related is our apparent “hands off Syria and Assad” policy. His domestic body count far exceeds that of the late Libyan Colonel yet you seem to have no room for it in your brains. Why? What the hell is going on with that? will there be some rapprochement?

    If you are not old enough to remember the Iranian hostage crisis, do some quick study of it. I remember watching “Nightline” and Ted Koppel just about every night for all 400 plus days. Each evening we were usually treated to an interview with some well dressed, Armani suits, Gucci loafers, Iranian politician or UN flunky who lied through his teeth over and over. From one week to the next they contradicted themselves (lied) and then conveniently never remembered what they had said before, always with smile on their face.

    That crisis ended with Ronald Reagan taking office. There are only two possible reasons it ended, either because Reagan sent Bush 1 over in an SR-71 Blackbird before the inauguration to cut a deal (Hey! don’t blame me, I’ve heard this espoused more than once) or the Mullahs were afraid of Reagan. I think, in light of what we know about Ronnie, Occam’s razor would fall on # 2. Regardless of that one is tempted to ask you all, why there was an Iranian hostage crisis to begin with? Did it have anything to do with sticking our damned nose into a place we shouldn’t be?

    Brother Patrick, my High School Junior and Sr. year history teacher, made a huge point of defining the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian. I guess he felt that there was a chance for the former to morph into something better (Spain, Chile) but little for the latter. I always figured that had the Shah been the SOB he was made out to be, the Ayatollah Kohmeni wouldn’t have stood a prayer. For one thing he would have been assassinated, not exiled. That’s how Uncle Joe Stalin would have done it, just ask Trotsky.

    I’ve said about as much on this as I want to. The issue that is boiling up right now over Romney is, as the Soviets would have said, disinformation. Something designed to totally distract Todd, Matt, Buck and Charlie from the real issue. It has succeeded admirably. What we saw the other day is an immense foreign policy failure and there just is no way around that.

    A thought I had today on the Subway. Is there one single instance where the US has pushed a revolution where it has ever worked? Last I can think of was Panama and TR. Everything else has been a nightmare.

    Hey, D-13, chime in on this, you were around for Desert 1 too.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Even Panama didn’t work in the long run. We gave it back. 😉

    • SK thanks for your thoughts. They are right on. I have not had the time to go through everything in detail, but following a timeline into infinitesimal detail is as you say a diversionary tactic. I would much rather Todd, Matt, et. al. explain to us what Obama’s grand strategy is.

      Has anyone watched the video clip I posted above. It outlines 1400 years of Muslim aggression against western Europe. That aggression continues to this day. It will not stop if we just remove ourselves from the region. However, it would be quite beneficial to become energy independent of the ME as soon as possible. At least they will not be able to make war with our petrodollars nor would we be obliged to defend their oil fields. Let China, Japan and India fight over it.

      • I’ll post it again here. Watched 25 minutes. I might disagree with some of his conclusions but I do not disagree with the facts. Now you know why I call the Crusades defensive wars.

        http://www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/dr-bill-warner-subtitled-in-english.html

        and now, what the master says about facts.

        “What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”

        ― Robert A. Heinlein

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    So here is a new but related question. WHY is our Fed Govt releasing the identification of the guy behind this “movie”???

    Why are there suddenly a bunch of stories being circulated about his nefarious and dubious past????

    Mr. Obama, have YOU no shame???

    • As a sacrificial lamb-to show just how much they disagree with his actions. Who knows maybe they will prove to the world that the punishment for freedom of speech is death.

    • How about that movie – and the pastor supporting it? Free Speech – yes. But Free Speech isn’t “free.” It comes with responsibility (Shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater). I’m sure this is exactly what the Pastor wanted – cause an over-reaction in the middle east to “prove” how bad Muslims are.

      And why not identify him? Isn’t he proud of his work? Maybe he’ll get an Oscar!

    • Well if we are going after things that tick them off, or rather, hurt their feelings, how about this. On the news this morning, they showed a huge group with OBL posters and signs saying, “lookout America, we have 1.5 million OBL’s”.

      So the killing of OBL has hurt their feelings. Who was behind that? Well we’ve had it thrown in our faces time and time again, including the original announcement, where Obama used the word “I” something like 30 times. Then just recently at the DNC convention, the slogan, “GM is ‘alive’; Osama is dead”

      So will the DOJ be at the front door of the white house today?

    • It is a diversion. I am much more interested in “Egypt is not our ally.” Mr.,” I am God’s gift to the universe and know all there is to know about foreign policy and got you out of Iraq and am getting you out of Afghanistan and got you in Egypt and Libya but am not getting you into Syria”‘ can explain that tomorrow. Or will he?

      Ain’t getting tied down in no BS NY Times pieces. haven’t read the “Times” (and I used to be their campus rep.) since Tet in ’68 because they were full of it then too. And another thing. Eagerly awaited the publication in paperback, over a thousand pages, of “The Pentagon Papers”. Got about 200 pages into it in the early seventies. Still sits on my bookshelf. There was NOT a single revelation in there that I did not know about. as they say the eyes do not see, the ears do not hear.

      Fools who were “shocked” by Vietnam were people who paid no attention to it as it unfolded ’60,’61,’62,’63, and had never heard of Dr. Tom Dooley or Bernard Fall (look them up). When it finally hit the fan, in their best imitation of Sgt. Schultz, they covered their eyes, ears and mouths and mumbled, “I know nothing”.

      Santana, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

      Our job should be to keep the next president the hell away from Senator John McCain who is channeling Woodrow Wilson for the last twenty years or so.

    • Good find Charlie!

      Feel free to reread this when you’re staring at the ceiling at 4 a.m.

      Or maybe 3am? What’s that tagline on SUFA? Waking America Up One 3:00am Phone Call at a Time

      The film popped up on YouTube dubbed in Arabic, stirring outrage. In response, the American Embassy in Cairo said it deplored “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

      Does that seem all that bad to you, people? It was definitely a film whose only point was to offend people of the Islamic faith. I would also call whoever made it not well-guided.

      It isn’t clear how the movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.

      The one big advantage to being a boring candidate is that you give the appearance of calm and stability. But, suddenly, Romney seemed to want to go for a piquant mélange of dull and hotheaded.

      Virtually nobody seemed to think this was all that great a plan. The Romney campaign, according to CNN, helpfully passed out suggestions for supporters who might want to defend Mitt. (When asked whether he was too quick on the attack, loyalists were supposed to say: “No. It is never too soon to stand up for American values and interests.”)

      But not all that many other Republicans seemed excited about joining in. A few social conservatives did unveil a hitherto-unnoticed passion for the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom to make fun of religion. “It was disheartening to hear the administration condemn Americans engaging in free speech that hurt the feelings of Muslims,” said Senator Jim DeMint.

      And, let’s see, who else. Donald Rumsfeld tweeted support. Party chairman Reince Priebus chimed in: “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.” Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona said the embassy’s comment “is like the judge telling the woman that got raped, ‘You asked for it because of the way you dressed.’ That’s the same thing.”

      On this side: Mitt Romney, a totally disgraced former secretary of defense, a person named Reince Priebus, and a new Republican rape comment.

      Two months to go and we’re rethinking our presumption that the Republican primary voters picked the most stable option.

      • Better read is the first comment below the Times piece from Michael Q.

        michael q
        NYC

        NYT Pick

        i find myself agreeing with Mitt. Islam, because of the threat of violence, is not allowed to be criticized, parodied, satirized in popular culture. All religions should be looked at critically and certainly from various questionable points of view, especially the powerful religions. Of course, I’m someone who believes that more artists should be exploring the reaction of the world to the violent destroying of all sacred religious symbols. I think that would start a nice discussion on why Hollywood can make fun of/question Christians, intellectuals can be called anti-Semitic for speaking objectively about the discrimination in conservative Jewish culture and no one can draw a cartoon of Muhammad.

        Obama said “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

        This is a normal, diplomatic election-time nonstatement. Yet it stil has the implication that it’s not right to question religions

        To me that’s like a mayor saying, “While we strenuously object to prostitution, we are appalled by the murder of this young girl.”

        It implies the victim had it coming, or moral equivalence to a vast difference in degrees of practical damage.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Good find???

        And you accuse others of confirmation bias???????????

  45. Peggy Noonan, who made waves with her criticism of Romney on Fox News, had an even more withering assessment for her own Wall Street Journal.

    “Romney looked weak today,” she said. “At one point, he had a certain slight grimace on his face when he was taking tough questions from the reporters, and I thought, ‘He looks like Richard Nixon.'”

    On Thursday morning, Joe Scarborough said he had been “absolutely flabbergasted” by Romney’s response.

    Even Bill O’Reilly called Romney out, though very briefly. Playing footage of Romney criticizing the Egyptian embassy for issuing a statement that was “akin to apology.”

    “I’m not sure the Governor is correct on that,” O’Reilly said. “The embassy was trying to head off the violence. Being conciliatory in that kind of a situation seems logical.”

    Wow, even Bill O’Reilly!!

    I never thought I’d agree with all three on the same day!!

  46. Kathleen Sebelius (sp)……….In direct violation of the Hatch Act, directly called for the defeat of Amendment 1 in North Carolina, and directly called for the support of Obama…….and the White House has said that this particular violation of the Hatch Act does not warrant disciplinary action…..and then the DNC has paid off a loan that she had….another violation that is deemed not worthy of disciplinary action……………..

    And the left wants the right to take them seriously.

  47. Amazing. I think you lefties have just about raked Romney over the coals. It sure didn’t deserve all the dustup you have devoted to it. He’s dust now. OK? Nothing much else can be said about him. So. Onto Mr Obama. How much criticism can you pull out of your hats about his foreign policy. I mean he is THE MAN. Much of this lands squarely at his feet. NOT ROMNEY’S. Let’s start with the apology tour right out of the gates. Fail. His bragging about getting Osama which is now being mocked..”we are all Osama”. Fail. His embrace of the Arab Spring/Muslim Brotherhood. Fail. Leading the march into Egypt. Fail. Libya? Fail. Knowledge of attacks 48 hours prior..then..Having no armed Marines guarding embassies on 9/11. Fail and Fail. Issuing a weak statement after sleeping a good night while he had no idea on the well being of Chris Stevens and others. Fail. Turning his back on reporters allowing no question. Fail. Way to go Mr. President. I feel so much safer now. So lay it on us guys..can we devote an entire day to Obama’s failed foreign policy? I mean..he’s your guy to defend.

    Buck..out from behind your desk.
    Mathius…1000 word comments please
    Todd..a lefty not wanting to bring em all home?
    Charlie..I know you have something up your sleeve.

    • Let’s start with the apology tour right out of the gates.

      What apology tour?

      His bragging about getting Osama…

      Well, he did get Osama! I tend to agree with you though on this – enough bravado! Though at the same time, you and I both know if it was the GOP that got Osama we would never hear the end of it either (and probably would be hearing much much more of it).

      His embrace of the Arab Spring…

      I don’t believe he handled this all that poorly. How do you feel he ‘failed’ on this score? What specifically would you suggest he have done differently back then?

      Libya?

      Are you talking about the recent embassy attack, or are you talking about the intervention back in 2011?

      Having no armed Marines guarding embassies on 9/11

      Forgetting hindsight (which is always 20/20), were there any intelligence briefings indicating a need to have additional guards this year on 9/11? Or is this a precaution you believe should have been taken every single year on 9/11?

      Issuing a weak statement…Turning his back on reporters allowing no question.

      As opposed to rushing to release a quick politically motivated statement prior to having all the facts in? I also don’t fault him for not taking questions at that point in time — when we still didn’t have all the facts, things were still unfolding, and most of the questions would have resolved around Romney’s statement anyway as opposed to the actual events on the ground.

      Now, please excuse me while I go duck back behind my nice, safe desk…

      • By the numbers:

        1. Guess you missed it
        2, It’s about the only thing he can brag about and vis a vis the GOP, I doubt it
        3. Arab Spring? What Arab spring? Ask those Coptic Christian fellows, ask Israel
        4. Why Quadaffi, why not Assad?
        5. Mayor Bloomberg and PC Kelley had extra cops on duty 9-11, the greatest president ever never thought of it?
        6. Resembled a deer in the headlights.

        Must be hard coming up with all those excuses and premium gas just went above $ 4.00 on the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway.

        • 1) Easy to miss something when its a figment of another’s imagination.
          2) You really doubt the GOP would be plastering Osama’s death everywhere? Did you completely miss Bush’ 2004 campaign?
          3) ….
          4) No good answer to that; you can’t intervene in every issue worldwide though. Now whether or not we should have intervened in Libya in a legitimate question, but insomuch as we did intervene I believe Obama handled that intervention pretty darn well.
          5) Obama is not the greatest president ever. No one here has argued he is. But back to your point, there is a difference between the two and you know it. Again, any intelligence briefs indicate any reason (other than it being 9/11) to do so in these particular embassies?
          6) Yes, Romney did resemble a deer in the headlights Wednesday morning. I completely agree!

          • 2. Disagree that it would be pumped the way it is. Anyone would have taken him out, only the stupid give the credit to anyone other than the intel services and the special ops people. Was the Bama on the helicopter. ’04 was really before the folks realized the shit had hit the fan.
            3. What Arab spring?
            4. So he handled and illegal, unjustified intervention really well?
            5. It was 9-11 in the Mid-east, Southwest Asia and North Africa too. I believe in the past, during that Bush administration thing there were “heightened alerts” on 9-11. Maybe he missed that intel briefing?
            6. Ha Ha. “Mr President, is this an act of war”. (Silence)

            • 2) Disagree any President would have made that call. In hindsight you are treating it as if it was the easiest call in the world. It wasn’t.
              4) There is a legitimate question to ask as to its legality. But you don’t get to automatically cast it aside as being ‘illegal’.
              5) Because we all know how well those ‘heightened alerts’ and color-coded terror levels went over under the last administration…I’d be interested to know exactly what it was the Bush administration did with respect to foreign embassies on 9/11. Any links?
              6) Pretty loaded question if you ask me and one that could very easily insight a ton of political fallout (and possible stoke more violence) regardless of the answer given.

              • 2. Who would not have? (maybe Carter)
                4. War powers act?
                5. Only remember that it was constantly announced that we were on “heightened alert”
                6. easy answer for someone not always scripted. “This act was apparently perpetrated by individuals, not a government, as an act of terror, since we are engaged in a Global war on terror, it is merely another battle in the prolonged war started against us on 9/11/01”. Not that hard was it? Inspiring too!

      • Anita- great post, great questions.

        Buck- I’ll borrow a quote from few posts up:

        Today has been one massive exercise in confirmation bias.

        Facts be damned, we’re going to find some way to exonerate Obama!

        Pretty much sums it up for me……

        Murf

        • Not trying to exonerate Obama — I clearly stated that he is not the ‘greatest president’ since sliced bread! But a lot of the criticism on Obama for foreign policy is a bit undue. Especially this whole apology tour BS!

          Let’s try it this way — What do you believe to be Obama’s greatest foreign policy achievement? How about his greatest foreign policy failure? And why?

          • No, you tell us. Most here don’t support Obama’s policies. You tell us why and how he is doing a good job. Rule: don’t use Bush or GOP in your answer. Speak to Obama only.

            • I’d be more interested in hearing your take on his foreign policy (other than ‘abysmal’, ‘horrendous’, and absent mention of any supposed ‘apology tour’). Give me an honest assessment of

              1) Greatest foreign policy achievement (and why)
              2) Greatest foreign policy failure (and why)

              Are you capable of giving a real assessment?

              • NO BUCK. We are asking…time and time again ….for YOU to make your case for him. Just do it!

              • Anita, I responded to your previous post in regards to a few specific issues relating to Obama’s record on foreign policy. Now I ask for your thoughts on his greatest achievement and greatest failure. I’m looking for an honest assessment here as opposed to the ‘everything Obama has done has been a dismal failure’ we’ve been hearing about on SUFA far too much lately.

                I’ll be happy to provide my answers following yours.

              • Obama’s greatest acheivement -foreign policy -hmmmmm-I’ve been thinking since you posted the request the first time-I honestly cannot think of a thing. Our ally’s seem unhappy with us, the ME is blowing up. Seems he’s nice to those who hate us and is rude to our, at least supposed friends. Nope-simply can’t think of anything.

              • Sorry VH, but I don’t buy it. I’ll just keep waiting for your answer on your thoughts on his single greatest achievement and single greatest failure in foreign policy. I have all day!

              • Well, I don’t ,I’m on my way out-Have a good day 🙂

          • Buck: Though I am not totally ignorant on Obama’s foreign policy, I didn’t feel well-versed enough to articulate a good answer, so I did some (non-partisan) research on his accomplishments. I found quite a bit of opinion on it, so I will quote some who said it better than I can.

            Jamie Fly (executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative):

            “The Obama administration does have achievements to point to in the war against al Qaeda and affiliated groups — the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. Navy SEALs chief among them.”

            Glenn Greenwald (contributing writer at Salon.com and author of three New York Times bestselling books):

            “The war in Afghanistan, which he escalated, remains a disaster. Serious tensions with Pakistan — which even Bush was smart enough to avoid — are more dangerous than ever; along with the collapse of any prospects for an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement, that is probably his worst foreign-policy failure. One achievement commonly credited to Obama — the ending of the Iraq War — was actually negotiated by Bush and forced on Obama by his failure to convince the Iraqis to let U.S. forces remain, and thus does not belong in the success category. In sum, Obama has deftly and intelligently pursued ignominious and ignoble foreign-policy goals.”

            Murf

    • Anita,

      I think you lefties have just about raked Romney over the coals. It sure didn’t deserve all the dustup you have devoted to it. He’s dust now. OK? Nothing much else can be said about him.

      Right. Two days of raking Romney over the coals is enough.

      Onto Mr Obama.

      Yes. Now it’s back to our “regularly scheduled programming” of “raking Obama over the coals” for the other 364 days this year, right?

      Because raking Obama over the coals never gets old!!

  48. @ Stephen K. Trynosky…………….I am not going to get involved in these discussion on the ME any longer. No one understands what the ME is really like. Blame the US is all I hear and if that is how the left thinks……I cannot change their absurd and baseless arguments…it is impossible. All one has to do is read the history of the Persian Empire. These issues date back thousands of years and everybody acts like it began 200 years ago. They have not a clue. Not one. They are going to find out, albeit too late, that you cannot appease Islam. It cannot be done until there is an Islamic Flag flying on the White House and Sharia Law being administered the world over…..the stated desire of the Muslim Brotherhood…..publicly stated. No one gets it. All this bullshit about Romney and timelines is nothing but a diversion from an economic mess that has been made so much worse. All this clap trap about making movies and saying, how can you blame the Muslims for their actions…but then laughing and supporting the same kind of movies that show Christ and Mary in a tumultuous relationship, and Jewish noses on the disciples and the left saying that is free speech..and the Christians should not be upset. I have stated repeatedly on here that I am not a christian believer…I have no affiliation with any religion but I can clearly see the double standard. Mathius has said words to the effect that “we, Americans, can show how much better we are by not responding violently to absurd depictions of Christ and showing that we can have freedom of expression to anything”,,,and then condemns some idiot that makes a disparaging movie about Mohammed and understands the violent response and faults the US….Unbelievable and I cannot argue him down on this because he is one sided. I understand Mathius perfectly and I like sparring with him on most things but I have seen such a vitriolic exchange on here now…..it is not worth arguing any longer. The ME is about to explode exactly as I predicted 14 months ago on here,,,,and pointed out who is going first and last and how it was going to happen. There is nothing that I have posted on this matter that has not come true so far….the left did nothing but admonished Bush 1 and 2 all during the wars they started. Obama himself condemned the incursion into Iraq and Afghanistan and now when Obama gets condemned it is suddenly unethical. Unbelievable. These are not disorganized mobs out there and the issue in Egypt was NOT a simple break in. Libyan and Egyptian security did NOT help fight anyone off as is reported by the MSM…..I know it, you know it….but our news is so sanitized now by this administration…the truth is not being told and the progressives buy it. I cannot stop that. AND..it is a beautiful distraction from the real problems here. And the Progressives laugh.

    Yes, I was in Desert Storm….I was over there for over 18 months…..here is what I saw…in my own AO (area of operations)…on our bases, our females were not allowed to wear t shirts while working in 115 degree heat because the Arabs did not want to work while a female arm was exposed and they walked off the job but in the US, if an employer says I do not want a hajib worn on my premise, the progressives label that as discriminatory. The progressives say, you are in their country so you have to understand but then here…we have to understand them and accept it…..double standard yet again….but hell, they know this. I could go on and on on the double standard and the hypocrisy. But I will not….it is ludicrous.

    So, Stephen, and USW……I am going to take a back seat because there is no reason and no discussion….just finger pointing and blame and the ones doing it…are the most guilty.

    Until people understand the ME, which clearly most do not,,,,,,,,,there is no room for discussion.

    The real problem is here on the economic front and it is not a Bush fault….again, history reigns….I wish everyone on here would look at the numbers of the Bush administration…the numbers DID NOT TANK until the Dems took over in 2006…..it is there for all to see…..today you have $100 per barrel oil, $4 gas, health insurance under Obamacare has increased 22%, elimination of jobs under Obama that makes Bush look like a piker, this administration has sent over 100,000 jobs overseas and Bain capital is the focus. Unbelievable….the middle class is $2-4,000 worse off since Obama…..and if he is re-elected, the middle class disappears and the poverty class increases. You have cronyism that is worse than Nixon and you have payoffs worse than Johnson…and the Progressives love it. I cannot argue against this

    Foreign policy….well…..there is none other than appeasement and apologies….and the more we apologize, the more the world laughs at our cowardice.

    So….I will stop in from time to time and read…..but I doubt I have much more to say. Anyone that wishes, can get my email from USW.

    • Sorry to see you signing off. I greatly appreciate you experience, wisdom, and thoughts.

      • Not exactly signing off, T-Ray…just not going to get involved in senseless argument any longer. If someone wants a specific reply to a subject matter….I will be happy to do that. I have made some good friends on here….but I am tiring of the bantering without conviction.

    • This makes me sad Colonel. Honest to God. I completely understand your frustration. If you, personally, having lived it, and sacrificed so much, cannot show these guys the confusion in their thinking…nobody can. It infuriated me ..the lack of respect Matt had for you in your exchange the other day. It sure does seem like the progressives are digging their heels in deeper by the day. I’ve had the same feelings about just chucking SUFA, but it’s guys like you who keep me coming back. I just want to tell you thanks for all the time you’ve spent here. I have learned sooo much from you and will remember you always. Don’t even know if it’s appropriate for a suburban mom to salute..but here goes anyway… Thanks Colonel.

      • Anita,,,,read post to T Ray…..and as far as Mathius is concerned, it is his position. I understand that and did not see it as a lack of respect for me at all but just a lack applying the same standards on a consistent basis. I will be around.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning Sir.

      I am one of many here who want to hear your thoughts on the ME as well as other things.

      Hint: You don’t have to engage in debate with the non-believers. Just post your opinions.

      But you will do us great disservice if you just stop talking about the situation.

      I do have a general question that leads to many off shoots. I agree with your assessment if we are looking to the Islamic leaders of the ME. Like all geopolitical situations it is the leadership that dictates events, not the general (peace loving) populations.

      So…….WHAT do we do about it? This is the conundrum I have found no answer for. We pull out of the ME and leave it to its own devices. I’m good with that. But then what?

      Do we, as J Edgar said, become victim to our own American values of “tolerance”. Do we have to violate our Constitution to prevent takeover or can we fight this another way.

      Do we continue to fund Israel as our surrogate in the region, hoping they neutralize or control the spread?

      Can Turkey be salvaged as an ally and impediment or do they in fact just wish to replace the Persians as leaders of the global Caliphate?

      Lots of questions, as you can see. Today may not be a good time for response but I hope you will share your thoughts on what to do.

      Best wishes to you and your fellow Texicans this fine Friday morning.

      P.S. Watch for mood swings while in convalescence. Meds can cause all kinds of problems.

      Heartfelt tip o’ my wide brimmed hat to you.
      JAC

      • JAC,

        I’m up for it. The ME is able to pull all this crap because they are floating in MONEY. Take away the money and the high rolling lifestyle and see what happens to their desire to export trouble. As an aside, the birthrate over there is a reflection of petro dollars and nothing else. There is no reason for it being as high as it is other than that an abundance (excess) of money makes it possible.

        If you want to shut them down, reasonably quick and not in 100 years, go for oil,coal,gas nuke and anything else you can think of rather than wind and solar which , after 40 years, are still basically nowhere.

        Shut the immigration doors. Do we need more cab drivers from the ME?

        Right now, I think and only think that the Turks are having problems because of the successes that have been accomplished in the Muslim world. This has given their great unwashed an opportunity to turn away from the West and the reforms Mustafa Kemel launched at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. If they see their neighbors back eating sand, there will be a turn around.

        Let Israel do its thing but, realize that they too are fighting an excess of MONEY. Take away the money and their neighbors go back to squabbling over water holes.

        Lowest Common Denominator is OIL and MONEY. Remove them and the whole ME house of cards collapses.

    • JAC, don’t get suckered, drop it!

      No heightened security and it was 9-11. Maybe Bloomberg should be President and Ray Kelly Sec Def. They get it.

      • Timeline my ass. the real important question is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

      • HEY! Knock off the Bloomberg for Prez talk! We have enough trouble as it is 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        S.K.

        I am not getting suckered into anything. Part of my thing here is to share my experience in POLITICS. I may not be the “operative” like all the paid talking heads but I have seen the inside and the operations.

        So that is what I am commenting on. The timeline, etc is all bullshit. It is in fact a typical POLITICAL response from the opposition. If, and I emphasize IF we held all politicians to the same standard of CLEAR and CONCISE TRUTH, then this caterwauling would be meaningful. But we don’t and therefore it isn’t.

        The most curious thing to me right now is the willingness of “certain” Republicans to openly criticize Romney when it was they that helped him win the Primary and it is they who wanted Obama gone so badly.

        Perhaps their own “selfish” interests are in play!! Perhaps Romney is more of an OUTSIDER than others realized. Otherwise the “establishment” wouldn’t be so quick to chew on his back.

    • Your probably right, save on the stomach acid.

      So, today:

      Oil hits $ 100.00 per bbl for no good reason
      Gold hits $1776 for no good reason
      Silver hits $34.60 for no good reason

      and

      Bernanke announces the printing presses shall run 24/7 with new presses on order.

    • The young folks don’t get it and won’t take the time to find out. Here’s a story. Back before the Shah fell, I remember talking to a group of Iranian students at a school I was attending. They were all bright young guys, early 20’s, mostly grad students. They all had thrown in with the Ayatollah. they were so convinced that they could control HIM! Their country was so modern, so sophisticated that it could never fall for a theocracy. They saw common cause with the fundamentalists whom they would then discard.

      I sat back and listened over a few sessions and asked some questions mostly centering on how the population had managed to enter the 20th century and get so highly educated(perhaps something to do with the Shah?) I also pointed out how revolutions had been perverted in history,( Russia and Germany for example) but, it was hopeless totally, absolutely, utterly hopeless.

      Well, we all know how it worked out in the end. Almost all those young fellows, now in their 50;s reside here or in Europe today and if you were to run into them, they could convincingly tell you how they opposed the Ayatollah from the beginning. In psychology, they call this defense mechanism, “false memory syndrome”

      As you say above Colonel, it is essentially hopeless unless one wants to learn but….The fall of the Shah led to the establishment of the theocracy which killed off a significant number of its own and forced others to leave Iran. This left Iran relatively weak on the technological and military end. That in turn left a power vacuum. While the Shah checkmated Iraq, with the Shah gone, Saddam was free to take a shot at Iran which he did. This led to the ten year war and America siding with Saddam which gave him some pretty stupid (in retrospect) ideas.. While Iran could not ,militarily defeat Iraq (which they easily could have under the Shah) since they had lost then technological advantage, they could stymie Iraq by sending a million boy soldiers to their deaths in Iraqi minefields. Eventually, everybody was tired and went home. The Iraqi’s continued exporting trouble in the region, Saddam licked his wounds, was pretty broke and managed to convince himself that he could take over Kuwait with perhaps only a verbal scolding from the west. After all, he was on good terms with us wasn’t he? Well, we all know how that worked out don’t we? After a few more years of him being obtuse and feeling weakened he finally pushed enough of our buttons to drag us into a war with him. I think you get the idea. The meddling with the internal politics of Iran was perhaps the biggest foreign policy goof since the Truman Administration inadvertently left Korea off of our “Strategic importance” map before the Koran war.

      In addition to the general indecisiveness of the United Sates, foreign leaders have learned that agreements made with the US are not worth the paper they are written on. We are not to be trusted and we will sell you out at the drop of a hat. While we may perceive what we do as being for a greater good (democracy),other cultures interpret them in terms of their own internal experiences and see them as calculated treachery at best. I think I can say with some certainty that to have helped the US or the Coalition in Iraq or Afghanistan will get you very dead soon if you already aren’t.

  49. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    “On a side note – what is this “embargoed” crap? I’ve never heard of that before? Why not just send the statement at 12:01am? Again, I’m thinking he wanted to give the media outlets time to “gear up” for its release and make a “big splash” at midnight…just a thought…”

    A couple outlets reported some sort of “informal truce” between the campaigns for 9/11.

    So it would not be that unusual to have them send a press release for after midnight.. This kind of thing has been done in other situations.

    In this case it was 9/11. Some times it is the news cycle. I would bet that the White House has done the same with its Friday releases. Again, not as uncommon as you think.

    Which should raise a question of greater importance than Romney’s intention. That is the COZY relationship between news makers and news reporters. All to often it is much “friendlier” than it should be.

    • JAC,
      This wasn’t a shot at Romney – he’s just the example. I’m sure they all do it, and it does seem just a little too cozy.

  50. Hey Anita & LOI – you two have fun and dance on a few tables for me! Wish I could be there!

  51. Buck. Thinking…thinking.. Hmm.. I can’t think of anything off hand. Let me do a search:
    http://obamaachievements.org/list

    Arts & Culture..so
    Banking & financial reform..#14..I like that. Otherwise more big govt
    Civil Rights..12 billion (gasp) for Americans with disabilities Act. Without looking I’m sure this is an overlapped program..more money..more govt FAIL .Lilly Ledbetter.. Women don’t need more govt for more pay..we can earn that on merit. Next.

    Lets get real..

    Economy.. ARRA..789Billion for shovel ready jobs..I guess the shovels were’nt all that ready.snicker, snicker
    Energy: BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA..Solyndra, windmills PLEASE

    Cmon Buck, this is doing nothing for my headache. YOUR TURN

    • Nope, I asked for your thoughts on his single greatest foreign policy achievement and his single greatest foreign policy failure. I still await your answer, all head scratching aside!

      • See VH’s reply. Buck YOUR GAME IS BULLSHIT! You can’t even defend your president. You never have been able to take a stand ON ANYTHING.. You forever need more info. or you always want our side first. Why? So you can blast our position, while not having one of your own? WTH. Just spit it out.

        • As I said, I will be happy to list my thoughts on his greatest achievement and failure after seeing your own. I’m just tired of this whole BS of everything Obama has done has been an abysmal failure – we both know this isn’t true. How about we place things in perspective and actually try to provide honest assessments here? I’m very interested in hearing your real assessment of Obama’s foreign policy — one achievement and one failure, and why.

          • OH, but you can just switch the argument from what Kathy wanted from you to what you want it to be? Not buying it. Answer Kathy’s question, please. We are asking YOU. You don’t get to ask us. It’s on you. And I tell you right now. I’m not giving your president credit for a DAMN THING. That’s my answer.

            • Kathy’s question to me was a response to my question to you.

              Oh, and by the way, Obama is your president just as much as he is mine. And certainly there must be something in the area of foreign policy you can give him credit for. Sigh…

      • Buck,

        The Arab Spring, The Arab spring. How’s that for an answer. When things start to go bad, they really go bad. Ask Carter.

        • What about it? Are you listing this as Obama’s greatest failure? How so? What do you believe should have been done differently?

          And what about his greatest success?

          • Done differently? How about not done at all?

            Arab spring. The praise that always accompanies apparent success until the naivety wears off. Again, see the first few days of the Iranian revolution when the Shah left. Wore off pretty soon though. I can easily say that it was a huge Foreign policy success for Carter until it turned into a huge Foreign policy failure. Sort of Ying and Yang.

    • And wait, just caught that — “Lilly Ledbetter…Women don’t need more govt for more pay…we can earn that on merit.”

      You don’t even support the Ledbetter Act? I don’t know why, but I’m actually surprised by this turn of events. The Act merely extends the statute of limitations for bringing an action against an employer for pay discrimination. What’s your problem with this?

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    A tale of two men:

    Part One:

    The announcement:

  53. Just A Citizen says:

    Part Two:

    The announcement:

  54. Just A Citizen says:

    Obama and foreign policy!!!!!!

    Greatest success?……………. mmmmmmmmmmmmmm…….mmmmmmmmmmm…next question please.

    Greatest failure? Foreign Policy. That was much easier.

    • Come on JAC, I expected more from you.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        When the “Arab Spring” began in Egypt it started with moderates crying out for freedom.

        The Administration had about a three week window to throw in with the moderates. Mr. Obama did nothing.

        Until the Muslim Brotherhood stepped in and became the face of the uprising. Then the brotherhood was invited to the White House.

        Greatest failure? Foreign Policy.

  55. Holy Crap! Here’s some foreign policy for you:

    http://drudgereport.com/

  56. Meant to ask this yesterday. What does this mean?

    “‘Ally’ is a legal term of art.” (Found several paragraphs down in Vietor’s quote)

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/13/white_house_clarifies_obama_s_statement_that_egypt_is_not_an_ally

  57. @ JAC……..”But then what?”

    The ME responds only to respect and respect is ONLY gained by force…the big stick. That is all they truly understand and will ever understand. The ME sees appeasement as a weakness and will exploit it. They are NOT our ally and never have been. The big stick is not military……it is money. The answer is that we have all the natural resources in our own lands that can make us totally energy independent. Wind and solar are pipe dreams and are political payoffs. Please remember, that part of our family business is oil and gas exploration. We know what is where and how much there is. WE could stop the ME cold in its tracks. Become energy independent and the ME falls dead. Russia cannot save it and neither can Europe nor China. We owe the ME nothing.

    As I said before, the secret to the ME is history and it is repeating itself….just more modern. Open up all oil lands, coal, and natural gas in the US. Open up all oil drilling on the sea shelves. Stop giving money to Brazil to exploit their oil and then buying it from them. We beat OPEC back in the 70.s real easy but not buying from them and exploiting our own reserves. The gas lines went away almost immediately. We can be oil independent within 5 years…..at that time, we do not care about the Strait…let it go and let Iran have it. The Russians will step in and stop that…so will China at that point. We will create four million jobs within five years in just energy alone.

    There is nothing that we can do about Egypt, Libya, Yemen…..they will be Muslim Brotherhood within three years totally and not a democracy. The rest of North Africa will follow. Within two more years, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar will be cracking apart. The Saudis are scared to death of this because they lose their little kingdoms…..so let them. The ME people will go back into the stone age because Sharia will dictate it.

    You asked about Turkey…..it is lost at least for a generation.

    You asked about Israel….we do not use them as a buffer. We were the first country in 47 ( I think that was the year) that recognized them as a legitimate government. Ok, so we, and the facsimile UN recognized Israel…..but let Israel defend itself. The whole ME is nothing but tribal and it is not going to change. That is the mindset and no progressive movement is going to change it, here or abroad. Just look at the history of those that have tried and history is repeating itself.

    Pakistan is NOT an ally, Egypt is NOT an ally (at least Obama had that one correct), Kuwait is NOT an ally…want proof……shut off the teat. It is ALL about money and nothing more. Pull our money back to our own shores….do not prop up the international banking system….do not prop up the UN,,,,and do not prop up the world courts (which are a sham) and you will see where the true allies are.

    LOL…..I was waiting on someone to bring up mood swings…….I am on some blood thinners and pressure meds but not mind altering….I am ok. I have a nuclear stress test to take next week to get back on flying status.

    Oh, and Bernake, after drinking more kool aid, printing more money is doing nothing but creating inflation. He is following the mantra of spending ourselves out of recession….it will not work. QIII us doa.

    Thanks JAC…..have a good one.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      I brought up the meds because I assumed you were on thinners and BP medication. I have seen these combine to affect moods. They are not designed to be mind altering but they can created chem. imbalances that cause big swings.

      Your reaction to the silly was a little “stronger” than usual so I thought maybe a word of caution was worth it.

      So heads up, if you will.

      Now back to the regular programming. If we let the ME go back to the dark ages, won’t we see a major out migration to places like the USA?

      So how do we deal with the Sharia types here?

      • My wife claims I am more nuts since I went on the pills a few years back. Always prided myself in being nuts so I think more is better.

      • Yes, yes, yes and we have to shut it down. For openers when Iraq and Afghanistan collapse there will be a huge call to open the floodgates to our “friends” who helped us. It will be Vietnam and Cuba on steroids. Even now, there are Iraqis coming in who claim to fear for their lives. No way Abdul! Give these folks about 23 minutes in the US and they will start protesting against our biases. laws and beliefs. I think England and France are instructive on this point.

        I believe that there are many, many laws on the books that supposedly outlaw and punish those advocating the violent overthrow of the Government and Constitution. Enforce them! yet, this catches the left in a bind. They are fine with shutting down criticism of Islam (didn’t I see that just equated somewhere above with yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater?”) Yet have no problem in extending free speech to cover calls for the downfall of the US Government and Constitution. We have to keep harping on this schizophrenia of theirs never failing to point out the complete hypocrisy and asking the tough “Why?” questions.

        The hardest part of us surviving will be convincing our young folk, with no concept of history that things can go very, very bad in a hurry. They all seem to live in an artificial world where everything is always the way it is now and always will be.

      • Wait…I see fuzzy spiders…….no wait…….they are…….one eyed one horned flying purple…….no wait…..its Elvis…….na na na naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh…
        I am telling you it does not affect me…..

        If they violate our laws…..burn ’em.

  58. Reality in comics! Have a good weekend everyone!

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=43513

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      From your link:

      “Matt says September 14, 2012 at 7:57 am

      This whole thing has me convinced that liberals believe Romney and Republicans are more the enemy than radical islamists.”

      Bwahahahahaahahaa

      Have a nice weekend. Out chasing Badgers I presume.

    • Bookmarked that page 😉

  59. @Buck, I have thought of your questions for quite some time. I guess if you consider not being in a nuclear war a success, than that would be it. His biggest failure can’t be identified so easily, there are far too many of them. But, for your sake, I would say getting involved in Libya. Disgraceful at of violence while IMHO, illegally using our military.

    To add, Obama has marginalized alot of different groups, vets and the military, gun owners, just to name a few. watching Mathius and Todd lockstepping behind the Liberal MSM is exactly as D13 says. Romney is the furthest thing from a problem at this time, the economy is on the brink and Obama is a failure as President.


    • 🙂

    • Thanks for the actual answer!

      Interesting — I would count our intervention in Libya as a success overall, though agree that doing so requires you separating the issue as to ‘military/political success’ from that of ‘constitutional legality’. I personally would label his biggest foreign policy failure as his complete inability to put forth a coherent foreign policy, with clear objectives (in specific) and clear over-arching guidelines (in general).

      How do you reach the conclusion that Obama has marginalized these groups? What, if anything, has he actually done to do so?

      By the way, I can see the campaign posters now — Re-elect Obama…after all, there hasn’t been a single nuclear war since he was elected!!!

      • Libya fails the “Why?” question.

        You cannot separate the two (political/legal). It’s like me saying I fed the homeless by the simple expedient of shooting a guy with a lunch box and giving his lunch to them. The end never can justify the means.

        • The reason I separate the two is because I don’t believe it was an unconstitutional action. But I admit that the action does raise legitimate constitutional questions. Those questions though should not come in to play in deeming the action itself as a foreign policy success or failure.

          If you shot someone, stole their lunch and fed the homeless, then I’d say: Good job feeding the homeless! That was great! Next time maybe use your own lunch instead of shooting someone else to do so. Now please proceed to jail. Do not pass Go.

          • So that’s what they are teaching today in law schools?

            • Shades of grey SK, shades of grey.

              • There is a right, there is a wrong. There are absolutes whether you like them or not. Without them, civilization cannot continue.

                You see something your way, the Colonel his, JAC his, Anita hers and I mine. All are exclusive. It is only by having societal norms and following them that we live in a homogenous society. If we all follow our “shades of grey”, the chaos eventually takes over.

          • Buck says: “If you shot someone, stole their lunch and fed the homeless, then I’d say: Good job feeding the homeless! That was great! Next time maybe use your own lunch instead of shooting someone else to do so. Now please proceed to jail. Do not pass Go.”

            Wow…..really? “Good job feeding the homeless….that was great!” After not only stealing the lunch, but shooting someone to get it?

            True progressive ideology, I guess. Shoot ’em, take from them, and then pat yourself on the back for feeding the homeless.

            Again, that about sums it up for me. I am, however, surprised you so openly admit it.

            Murf

            • I think you missed the point where I said, Now go to jail!!

              There were two distinct elements of his action — feeding the homeless (good) and shooting someone (bad). Each can be judged independently of the other, and no, the end doesn’t justify the means (otherwise I wouldn’t have sent them on to jail).

              • Buck….actually, you missed my point….I saw where you politely told the murdering thief to please go to jail. You further said:

                “There were two distinct elements of his action — feeding the homeless (good) and shooting someone (bad). Each can be judged independently of the other, and no, the end doesn’t justify the means (otherwise I wouldn’t have sent them on to jail)”

                Let me distill that a little… “feeding the homeless (good) and shooting someone (bad)”. The implication there seems to be that each action is equal on the scales of justice. Feeding a hungry man one meal, and shooting (I got the implication of murdering) the person from whom the meal was stolen….when there are actually three distinct elements of his action: 1- murdering, 2- stealing, and then 3-giving WHAT WASN’T HIS TO GIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

                So…if your kid shoots your next door neighbor, steals his Lexus, and gives it to you because he knows how much you need a good car…..you will honestly feel that in giving the car to you, he did something good? As he is led off in handcuffs…”Hey, son….thanks so much for the Lexus! Great job! Just what I needed!”

                I have read lots of your posts, Buck. You are obviously a cool, smart guy with a great sense of humor. Probably also a very pleasant and good man. That’s why I can’t understand how you could see ANYTHING good in that scenario. THAT is what I saw as characterizing the real values of progressives like yourself, and that, to me, is disheartening.

                Murf

              • I agree it isn’t the best of analogies, far from it. And obviously I’m not condoning the theft and murder. It was a glib response for a poor analogy to a much more complicated scenario — Libya.

                The question is can we assess our success/failure in intervening in Libya without addressing the question on whether the intervention was a constitutional act? I believe we can. Your thoughts?

              • Buck- I read D13’s assessment concerning the success/failure in intervening in Libya and agree with all of it…. especially that, diplomatically, it was a failure because we intervened and took sides in another sovereign nation’s civil war.

                Murf

  60. Buck..didn’t know you were writing Carney’s lines: 🙄

    “We are happy to debate — and there is certainly ample time and appropriate time to debate foreign policy approaches, this president’s record on foreign policy,” Carney told reporters during the press briefing when asked if the attacks stemmed from “perceived American weakness” that stems from Obama’s leadership. “We’re very proud of the president’s record on foreign policy and are happy to make the case at the appropriate time.”

  61. @ Buck, His administration has raised the cost of Tri-Care (or whatever it’s called nowadays) for military members and families. His administration has argued against military members voting early in some states, just to name a few. His signing of the NDAA pissed alot of vets, military and gun owners off (thank God a Federal Judge just overturned the indefinite detention portion). Obama is a well known pro-gun control advocate as well. These are just a few things. The coal mining folks have fire Obama signs all over the place around these parts as well.

    Saw a bumper sticker that said “Changing idiot Puppets would be racist, Fire All of Them”

    • His administration has argued against military members voting early in some states

      False! His administration has argued that non-military members must also have the same right to vote early.

      Obama is a well known pro-gun control advocate as well.

      Not that he’s actually done anything on this front. But its enough to believe Obama wants to take away your guns, isn’t it? Sure sounds like marginalizing gun owners to me!

  62. His administration has argued against military members voting early in some states

    False! His administration has argued that non-military members must also have the same right to vote early.

    Buck, this is what I mean. Everybody else isn’t being shipped into a war zone where they may not get to send or recieve mail for weeks or month’s. Obama has no flipping clue what sacrifices our military men and women make, he has no clue on foriegn policy, he has nor leadership skills, and he is a failure. I’m sorry that I cannot agree with his arguement here, if the fat welfare whores can’t get off the asses on election day and go vote, too fu$#ing bad, they aren’t in a situation where their lives are on the line. UGH!

    Sorry, these are the things that piss me off about this idiot called President.

    • And this is precisely what I mean. Obama has not come out against early voting for military members. He has come out in favor of treating all citizens equally under the law. But yet somehow this gets twisted into Obama hating the military and trying to marginalize the military and deprive them of their voting rights. It’s absolutely ridiculous!

      Your ‘argument’ about fat welfare whores who can’t get off their asses on election day doesn’t even deserve a response. Dang! Wasted precious time even writing that…

      • Since the military ballots are generally either never received or never counted something which became a major issue in the past two general elections, and nothing has been done to rectify the situation. The president is obfuscating the issue by his mixing apples and oranges. This issue of military voting has always been held separate from other voting issues (no shade of grey unless a brand new one)
        \
        This is not something new, military men and women have been disenfranchised time and time again during wartime. This is when the ranks swell and the politicians see the opportunity for some mischief.

        Unless I am incorrect, it was one of the ways that prohibition passed. Something like 3,000,000 mostly eligible voters away in training camps or Europe. Can’t hardly believe that the troops did not occasionally enter an estiment in France and sample the vin ordinare.

        • According to my dad, military personnel were not allowed to vote until WWII. (I am not sure this is true since I have not researched it myself.) He received an absentee ballot in the mail from home, He was also offered a ballot by the military which he refused and received flak over. The reason he refused it is because it was already marked for FDR. Somethings never change.

  63. Just A Citizen says:

    Mr. Obama’s campaign plays the RACE card once again.

    “The Obama campaign touted his appointment of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor — and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s opposition to it — in a Spanish-language ad released on Friday targeting Latino voters in Florida.

    “I want to talk to you about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor,” attorney Nydia Menéndez, who is Puerto Rican, says in Spanish in the ad, as translated by the campaign. “When she was nominated by President Obama, we all celebrated — Puerto Ricans and all Hispanics. But Mitt Romney was opposed to Sotomayor. He offended me when he stated he would have voted against her nomination.”

    Even while campaigning ahead of the primary in Puerto Rico, Romney was vocal in criticizing the appointment of Sotomayor, the first Latina on the Supreme Court bench. “

  64. Just A Citizen says:

    Ah yes, the nature of free speech in the good ol’ “modern” USA.

    Barack Obama Kansas
    A Kansas resident has dropped his objection to President Barack Obama appearing on the state’s ballot.

    A Kansas man who filed an objection with the state to President Barack Obama appearing on the state’s ballot, is withdrawing his objection.

    Joe Montgomery’s decision, which he communicated in an email to the secretary of state’s office Friday afternoon, ends a process that caused the all-Republican Kansas Objections Board to vote unanimously Thursday to seek further information before making a decision on whether Obama could be on the ballot.

    Montgomery told The Huffington Post Friday afternoon that public reaction to the complaint led him to decide against continuing. He declined to say exactly what was said in the calls and emails he received, but indicated that people who knew him both personally and professionally were also contacted about the complaint.

    “I didn’t file this objection with the desire to involve anyone else. This is me expressing myself on a personal political level,” he said. “I would appreciate it if people would not call anyone associated with me, whether a personal or professional association.”

  65. Col. D-13, Sir.

    While you are recovering, a highly recommended fast, fun read.

    “Scarlet Fields” by John Lewis Barkley

    http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/barsca.html

    I cannot describe it, you gotta read it for yourself. In a nutshell, a 30 year old wrote a memoir of his experiences in the 3th ID in France in WW 1 as a 19 year old. The lead up, training, fight and postwar occupation duty. Fascinating. Wonder why I never heard of it before now. It was originally titled “No Hard Feelings” in reference to a comment his first Sgt. made to him when he sent him out on the suicide mission. Been out of print since 1930.

  66. @ Buck, Obama’s problem, is that not everyone is equal under the law! I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and will ask you straight up, Do You Know What the American Military Member goes through? Obama sure as hell doesn’t. So do you? I do! So don’t even ask.

    As far as the Fat welfare whore, well they exist, whether you want to aknowledge that or not, they are in every major city and many small cities too. They live on welfare, have babies, and make more money that youand I. Sorry to adress reality but ignorining it will not make it go away. Yes Buck, they are large in numbers and hey are real.

  67. @ JAC…..this is why they need a diversion (per your question)

    Source: US Department of Labor and the US General Accounting Office:
    FY 1992-FY 2000 US Unemployment Rate 5.21%**
    FY 2000- FY 2008 US Unemployment Rate 5.27%**
    FY 2008- FY 2011 US Unemployment Rate 9.36%**
    ** Adjusted for part time workers

    Source: US Department of the Interior/US Department of Land:
    FY 1992 – FY 2000 Applications for natural resource drilling increased 58%.
    FY 2000 – FY 2008 Applications for Natural resource drilling increased 118%.
    FY 2008 – FY 2011 Applications for Natural resource drilling decreased 36%.

    Source: US General Accounting Office
    FY 2008 US National Debt =9 Trillion Dollars
    FY 2011 US National Debt=15.566 Trillion Dollars

    Source: Standard and Poors Office of Management and Budget , US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Morgan Stanley Joint Committee on Taxation, and the US Census FY 2008 – FY 2001.
    US Sovereign Debt Downgrade…first time in US History
    Federal Spending 25% of GDP…highest since WWII.
    Budget Deficit 10% of GDP…highest since WWII.
    Federal Debt is 67% of GDP…highest since WWII.
    Employment is 58.1% of the total workforce…lowest since 1933.
    Long term unemployment of the total workforce 45.9%…highest since 1933.
    Increase in non-farm payroll 0.5% ….slowest job growth since WWII.
    Home ownership is 59.7 %…the lowest since 1965.
    Percentage of tax payers paying income tax 49%…lowest in US History.
    Government dependency 47%, defined as persons receiving one or more Federal Benefits payments….the highest in US history.

    Source: US Department of Health and Human Resources and the General Accounting Office:
    FY 1992 – FY 2000 Number of recipients of Food Stamps = 23 million.
    FY 2000 – FY 2008 Number of recipients of Food Stamps = 23.5 million.
    FY 2008 – FY 2011 Number of recipients of Food Stamps = 39.5 million.

    Source: US Bureau of Statistics
    Cabinet Appointments: Prior business experience beginning with T. Roosevelt through GWB…28% to a high of 68% (Eisenhower)….Obama cabinet appointments with prior business experience…6.2%.

    Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics:
    FY 2003 – 2007 Republican Congress jobs created = +8.1 million jobs***
    FY 2007 – 2011 Democrat Congress jobs created = -8.0 million jobs***
    *** Net of jobs created and jobs lost.

    Source: US General Accounting Office:
    Annual increase in debt as a percentage of GDP by Speaker of the House
    O’Neal = +1.4%, Wright = +0.5%, Foley = +1.8 %
    Gingrich = -1.6%, Hassert = – 0.9%
    Pelosi = + 6.4%

    Source: US Congressional Budget Office
    Current Income Tax Rate 35% Obama proposal 39.6%
    Current Income/Payroll Tax Rate is 37.4% Obama proposal is 52.2%
    Current Capital Gains tax is 15% Obama proposal 28%
    Current Dividends Tax rate is 15% Obama proposal is 39.6%
    Estate Tax (2010) 0% Obama proposal 55%.

    Interesting stats!!!!

    • There is an error in the year posted on the fourth paragraph (S & P)…it should read FY 2008 – FY 2011. Sorry.

    • Colonel,
      So you’re trying to prove that the US entered a recession in 2007? You didn’t already know that?

      It’s interesting that the Republicans were in-charge leading up to the recession. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

      • Hi Todd…actually…..not at all. First, these numbers show that everything was much better prior to 2008…..Everybody likes Clinton…. the Clinton Bush numbers are almost identical….

        This information is published by the United States Government….that the left likes to champion. Their own numbers show that when the dems took control of the house and Senate in 2006….things went South then….not before. Everything was on par with Clinton (except wars) and everybody loves Clinton. This information goes on to show the progression of excessive spending, attitude, and destructive economic policies.

        I remember Tip O.Neill and Jim Wright very well…..they were Democrats and liked spending, but they were at least cognizant of the economic impact. This information shows how the democratic party has been hijacked by extremists far worse than and Tea Party hijacking of the Republican Party. This information shows a trend. At least back in the 90’s and 80’s and 70’s, the Dems back then had country at heart….the dems of today do not.

        What I found most interesting is all this championing of all these jobs created, when the net effect, according to the governments own numbers…..shows an 8 million net job lost……after the dems took control in 2006. These are not my numbers but the “adjusted” numbers that always come out two weeks after. Shows a trend Todd….nothing more.

        When Bernake pumps the money again…watch what happens…..Wall Street will make a killing and the middle class will take another 20% rise in prices and inflation and the blame will be on Wall Street which is a false blame…..Wall Street ONLY RESPONDS to government policy. But, do not take my assessment as gospel…..watch yourself.

        However, it is the trend Todd…..nothing more. The governments numbers do not show recession until 2007…one year after the dems took the Congress.

        • Right Colonel, in one year the Dems completely tanked the economy. It had nothing to do with the previous years of unfounded wars and tax cuts.

          • Don’t yell at me, counselor…..I gave you the source and the numbers. Check it out, yourself.

            Where you and I will be in agreement on one economic front….were the unfunded wars……like Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen……..

            and the unfunded liabilities of Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, and the soon to be unfunded liability of the ACA.

            Yes, sir…they all had significant impact as far back as….Kennedy. No war has been funded since 1945….and that is in the numbers as well. (Not the ones I posted but the same source. It really is quite telling to look at the trend from 1944).

            The numbers I posted are not cherry picked….but it does take some research time as access to the governments computers is tenuous at best…but you can get there. All of the conclusions…(ie: highest since WWII, etc) were not my conclusions….I copied the exact wording from the government papers in its entirety….

            By the way….thanks for some of the Yankee weather…..high today….78.

            • Come on colonel, you know me better than to think I’m yelling at you. And you’re welcome for the weather – enjoy it! Going to be a gorgeous today here as well, blue skies and a high of 75.

            • @ Buck…..another example that I offer (that helps somewhat support your post) is that when the housing bubble burst……this was not Obama’s, Clinton, Bush I or II nor Reagan…..it is Jimmy Carters fiasco that took 30 years to break. The problem was that when Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II tried to warn the Congress…….it was voted down and stymied. To this very day, it is still being held hostage in the Senate.

              You are not dumb, Buck…..I know what you are doing for your clients and you have to see this on the horizon. Everybody is protecting themselves now….we are…you are…..your clients are….

              We are going to wait and when it happens….move in and pick up pieces.

              • More comedy:

                it is Jimmy Carters fiasco that took 30 years to break.

                Again, show one study that agrees with this.

          • BUCK,

            The housing bubble. I got to tell you, I am not a finance guy but having gone through the 89-90 Freddie/Fannie crisis, when the same crap started all over again almost immediately in the early ’90’s I was incredulous. by 2000 I though we were past due for the crash. As each year went on, I kept seeing the bubble grow exponentially and kept predicting that it would get progressively “worse”. By 2007, I expected Armageddon. All of my friends whom I had known for 20 or 30 years in the landlord business in NY had stopped buying by 2000. The prices were unsustainable. Only fools who were neophytes continued to buy or speculators who expected the boom to continue a few years more so they too could unload the overpriced stuff they bought to bigger fools or the next level of speculators. When it fell, it fell hard.

            I could almost give you chapter and verse on a few buildings that were built in the ’20’s, decent but not spectacular neighborhood, walk-up’s (5 Story) not elevator with a “real” worth in the 4 to 6 times rent roll category that were sold in 2005 and 2006 for in excess of 10 times rent. There was little to no upside potential on rents.

            So, I expected a crash, much worse than in the ’90’s . What I never expected, (being a multi-family guy), despite being aware of the inflated prices of private homes, was that so many, such a proportion were bought with little or no cash. Within minutes of the crash, equity was wiped out.

            What should have been learned, the first time around and it is very common sense, is that government entities like Frannie and Freddie cannot be allowed to enter the private market. They are no match for the banks and worse, the private mortgage lending companies. Some poor shnook comes out of business school, goes to work for Fannie or Freddie and then is wined, dined and overwhelmed by guys twice his age who “tell him” what the market is. They arrange private sales of three or five houses or buildings in a given area and then the sale prices, all artificial, become the basis for appraisals in the area on other properties, driving them up and making bad deals look good. Mortgage brokers and bankers get ahead in this world today by putting money out on the street. Quality does not matter just so long as you are out the door before the house collapses.

            Barney and Chris and their gang were able to compound the mess by insisting that cash down on private homes be negligible. If the prices get inflated, since every bit of profit is based on percentages of the price, its good for the bloodsucking parasites. They range from sales people, through appraisers, through title companies, to local governments to bankers to former officials at Freddie and Fannie. Everybody gets rich skimming money from the four sided box with roof. That is, until the music stops and the first little kid says, “Gee dad, the emperor has no clothes”.

            And that my friend, is in Trynoskyspeak, what brought us to the sad place we are today. Worked wonderfully, no one has ever gone to jail for the largest fraud, I might even say RICO fraud in the history of the United States and maybe the world.

            Next stop, Sallie Mae, whose ridiculous loans have allowed universities to raise tuition far, far beyond what it should be. Instead of capping tuition and being a player, they have chosen to just rubber stamp what the education industrial complex wants.

            • Stephen,

              by 2000 I though we were past due for the crash.

              Sorry, this can’t be true. You must be either lying thru your teeth or making stuff up, because as the Colonel pointed out, the problem didn’t exist until the Democrats took control of Congess in 2007.

              Oh, wait a minute, the problem started 30 years ago…so then how can it be blamed on the Democrats in 2007?

              Gee, I’m confused. Could you please explain this to me????????????????

              that government entities like Frannie and Freddie cannot be allowed to enter the private market.

              Fannie and Freddie are not in the private market. You cannot get a loan from Fannie and Freddie. They do not make loans. They buy mortgages from banks, giving banks more money to lead.

              This is a common misconception, but I’m surprised you made. Maybe there’s more to the story?

              • They buy and guarantee loans that a third party, banks or Mortgage companies have made. They buy, as people used to say, a pig in “poke”. That is what I mean by operating in the private market. After the ’89 – ’90 crash, banks were forced to take back some of their loans, many mortgage companies went out of business. From my perspective in the business, loans were approved based on flawed models. I remember attending a meeting with the Northeast Region Freddie Director in ’89 and asking him about max loans in the South Bronx. He babbled on about “replacement value” something which may have played fine in Peoria but in a borough that was being burnt down in the ’80’s did not make much sense.

                The house fell in in 2007. Bush had issued warnings, warnings were there for all but the most blind to see. Barney and Chris , among others, had their own little side deals and I think in Barney’;s case, he really was so dumb as not to see what could happen. The ’88–89 collapse was peanuts compared to 2007. In 1991 things started getting restructured. In 1992, Clinton was elected and there was a huge push for “affordability” in housing. This included the flawed idea that anyone could afford/own a home and that multi-family buildings (existing) needed access to large amounts of capital. Now, if a building had a Freddie Mac loan in ’89 for 1 mil, was sold and came back in ’93 for 2 mil and then was re-sold in ’99 and came back for 5Mil. Something is wrong with your system. Other than putting money “out on the street” what did you accomplish?

                Democrats did not deal with the problem nor to this day even acknowledge it. This same thing will happen again should the economy be righted. If the government wants to build Public Housing at 3 times normal construction cost, fine, if they want to issue Section 8 certificates and drive up private rentals, fine but if they want to be a player in the Mortgage re-finance business, then they should at least have someone in charge who has been in that business for 40 years and understands value and the marketplace. Angelo Mozilo, who ran Countrywide was essentially the guy that our geniuses in DC listened to. and allowed to set the standard. A standard I might point out that was constantly shifting. Hey, Todd, don’t you remember few years back when they offered almost annual re-finances to take a vacation, buy a car, send your kids to college etc.? Nobody in DC noticed this? Historically house values always increased double digits every year?

                The reason nobody went to jail was because, once the pigs like Mozilo squealed (to save their pig asses), we would need vast new jails for our elected and appointed officials.

                Historically, you would have o look at who set up the Freddie/Fannie programs to assign blame. More importantly you would have to look at the board of directors sitting at the time who allowed the rules to be thrown out the window. Regardless of good intent, if you screw up big time through ignorance, you are guilty of malfeasance. While I think Chris Dodd was as big a crook as Randy Cunningham, and should be sharing a cell, Barney Frank, despite his reputation as some kind of thinker is a just dumb assed stooge which could be easily demonstrated by looking at his choice in former “life partners”.

        • Colonel,
          You think everything was just “peachy” until the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, and in less than 1 year they ruined the economy?

          This is such a childish “analysis” – top to bottom. If this is your understanding of the economy, don’t quit your day job.

          Show me one economic study that agrees with your conclusions.

          • Ahh, Todd……all I did was post statistics….that is all I did….and they came from the US Government…tell you what……you draw your own conclusions. Nowhere did I say that everything started in 2007….I just posted statistics…charts/graphs are all there….so, no these are not my conclusions….

            As far as my understanding of economics…well, sir…….I do not need to prove anything. I will be just fine….I have more money than I need…..and I will make an absolute killing if Obama gets re-elected because I know the damage that is being done. We made a fortune because of Carter and we will do so again. The minute Bernake and his ilk start printing huge sums of money…..and the dollar dives and inflation and high interest rates for borrowing money sets in as it will…..it will be Jimmy Carter all over again. THe housing market has not seen the disaster that is coming when the Fed starts buying mortgages…..just wait and see, sir…..just wait and see.

            Oh. btw, you knew exactly what I was talking about 30 years ago on the housing issue….it had nothing to do with the recession of 2007….but the numbers are there…..and verifiable….look em up.

  68. You didn’t comment on this JAC (again). Do you think it applies? Or is it now “every man for himself”?

    Has anyone ever heard of “Politics end at the water’s edge?”

    And you didn’t comment on this:

    And now Romney is trying to say the White House agrees with him:

    “What I said was exactly the same conclusion the White House reached, which was that the statement was inappropriate. That’s why they backed away from it as well,” Romney said.

    I think this backs up one of my points:

    I’m pretty sure Romney (or his campaign) saw his “window of opportunity” slipping away and wanted to get his statement “out there” before Obama made a statement.

    So Romney can “claim” that retracting the statement was his idea. That he is somehow “leading”.

    But what it really shows is that Romney is nothing more than a cheap opportunist.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      Politics ends at the waters edge? WHEN??? NEVER…………..

      It is a great MYTH in American Politics.

      You sure have used a lot of energy and words just to conclude that Romney is also a POLITICIAN.

      What a surprise.

      I thought him claiming that the white house agreed with him very clever.

      • JAC,

        Romney is also a POLITICIAN.

        A long time ago (for some reason I think it was March 2010, but that’s just a guess), I posted what I’m sure was a magnificently eloquent comment about democrats doing something right, and your response was (I’m paraphrasing!):

        Why does that matter? I thought we agreed all politicians are scum!

        Now, this was back during the ObamaCare debate, when you guys were all into VLDG and all that stuff.

        So, do you still feel that way?

        Or now that you have Romney as the GOP candidate, is it just all democratic politicians are scum?

        I thought him claiming that the white house agreed with him very clever.

        Yes, it was clever. Kind of like a high school prank where you pin a kid down because he’s different and cut his hair?

        Are these more examples of Romney’s “leadership”?

        • Petty. The hair cutting story is unprovable since the kid is now dead and the family has no memory of it ever happening. Nothing in this post has anything to do with leadership. Are you drunk blogging? None of your overnight posts make any sense..all are just lashing out. And to think I was quietly giving you credit for many recent posts for actually being civil instead of cranky.

          • Not just petty. Todd is simply following the lead of the Dem party leaders and their media minions, do not talk about Obama. If anyone brings up the US military action in Libya, where our Ambassador and three others were killed, change the subject to anything anti-Romney. (Romsters dog is barking, wanting down from the car roof) If anyone brings up Egypt, where Obama ignored our allies advice and set his personal policy as US policy, change the subject, do not discuss the results of Obama’s Egypt policy. (Romney has made any future relations with his adminstration impossible) (If Romney wins, the Middle East is set to explode in anti-Americanism) (gee, are we feeling the love from them while Obama is president? oops, sorry, not allowed to ask that, are we???)Sure Todd, sing us a song about Romney, the “Barber of Massachusetts”.

          • Anita,

            The hair cutting story is unprovable since the kid is now dead and the family has no memory of it ever happening.

            Right. Deny. Deny. Deny. We’ll just ignore the witnesses that were there…I believe 5 of them have come forward.

            Nothing in this post has anything to do with leadership.

            What? It shows GREAT leadership. Romney leading his posse to impose his standards. Why would you want to deny that??

            Are you drunk blogging?

            Had a few beers with dinner, but that was hours before I posted this. Just too much to do – not enough hours during the day. So here I am SUFA’ing again late at night.

            None of your overnight posts make any sense..all are just lashing out.

            No, they’re pointing out the obvious.

            And to think I was quietly giving you credit for many recent posts for actually being civil instead of cranky.

            Cranky? No – it just seems that way to you because you don’t like what’s happening. I’m having FUN. The right-wing is quickly becoming a (bigger) joke, and they’re taking Romney down with them.

  69. Finally, someone has some balls….

    House votes to phase out energy loan guarantee program after Solyndra

    Published September 14, 2012

    Associated Press

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/house-votes-to-phase-out-energy-loan-guarantee-program-after-solyndra/?test=latestnews#ixzz26Xc24K5x

  70. @ JAC…..this also pertains to the question you asked me.

    Diplomatic Posts Targeted Repeatedly In Benghazi Prior to Deadly Assault

    While Obama administration claims there was no actionable intelligence that could have stopped the assault on the US Consulate in Libya, there was a heightened threat in the area due to four attacks on diplomatic, western targets leading up to the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.

    It is important to remember that neither the military nor any contingent security can increase security of any Embassy or Diplomatic Post without civilian authorization from the White house. These are not spontaneous attacks….they were planned and executed and this film is nothing but a rabbit trail of an excuse. It had nothing at all to do with these attacks.

  71. @ JAC……..

    New Syria envoy warns conflict a threat to world peace

    Published September 15, 2012

    Associated Press

    Interesting reading…would suggest it.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning Sir. Hope you are well this AM.

      AP’s release is most interesting in what is “missing”. Like any explanation as to “why” this guys thinks this.

      So my read is “The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the UN needs to “intervene””. How did I do??

      I do have one question though. The ruling family in Syria has pretty much kept the radial Islamists in check, so why is it we were never allied with Syria?

      Was it just about Israel or does it go to the Soviet expansion into the are after WWII?

      Guess I need to do some more studying.

      Hope all is well in Texas.

  72. G’ Mornin 🙂 Anybody like to comment on the feds decision to buy 40 billion a month buying derivitives? Gold and silver spiked, the dollar fell after the announcement.

    • The credit downgrade process starts again.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Bernanke to the American Public:

      “I don’t know what to do so here we go………..”

      Bernanke to the Elite:

      “Looks like the ship is going down so this is our last chance to take what wealth we can out of this bloated whale before it dies.”

      Special Note to SUFA: WHY has not a single reporter asked “WHO owns the Bonds that the FED is going to be buying”?

  73. OMG – Rick Santorum actually speaks the truth!!

    Rick Santorum, the former presidential candidate, had a message for attendees of the Values Voter Summit on Saturday.

    “We will never have the media on our side, ever, in this country,” Santorum said. “We will never have the elite, smart people on our side, because they believe they should have the power to tell you what to do.”

    There you have – Rick knows where the smart and the not-so-smart fall on the political spectrum. Maybe’s he’s been reading SUFA recently! 🙂 🙂

    • The joke is on you Todd. The media and elite are putting the spin of all of us..you included.

    • No the real message is:

      “because they believe they should have the power to tell you what to do.”

      He should have said “the people who think they are smart”

      • Bama Dad,

        No the real message is: “because they believe they should have the power to tell you what to do.”

        Right. Because that gets in the way of Santorum telling you what to do…

        He should have said “the people who think they are smart”

        Maybe. But he didn’t.

    • Reuters had an article that OWS is mostly a media created event. A few dozen, hundred or thousand show up to protest and it’s national news on all networks. Code Pink protests Bush, ( around a dozen) and it’s news. But when they protested Obama, zero coverage. And that teaches them a leson, do what we want to report on & you get national attention.
      How was the backlash of the Chick-Fil-A covered? Conservatives dwarfed liberal protesters. What was a major story became non-news. If the liberals had been effective, it would have been a headline for weeks, consider how much more coverage there was before when the liberal protesters were expecting to have a significant impact, vs the coverage after it did not happen.

      http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/31/occupy-wall-street-and-media-ethics/

      Smart people? Yep, you do have Joe Biden as the leading example, the highest I.Q. in the administration. (slow hand clap) Yes Todd, victory is yours…

    • What-Am I the only one that hears the sarcasm? Todd printed it in bold-so we couldn’t miss it.

  74. Good Morning Folks 🙂 Another fine sunny day ahead here, some good football this afternoon and the cold brews to boot! The country life is good!

    Anita, forget about Todd, he’s an MSM minion, just like Mathius. The media speaks, they jump. They have no clue what they are even supporting.
    History tells it all, not the media. Depression, currency war, trade war, then world war! Keep your powder dry my friend.

    • Mornin’ G!

      About to start a work-out. Got some kinks from air travel. Funny thing, went thru TSA twice and had not a single issue. Helped I wasn’t carrying a toothpick or any other “weapon”. Wondering if I should post an open mic or if anybody else has something they want up? Will check back in & then spend an afternoon with the Illusion clan.

      I do think the teachers strike has gotten to little attention, but agree the ME violence is more interesting. Kinda think we could compare the unions to the mob’s attacking our embassies?
      Also the attacks planed for 9/11, targeting a date for maxium advantage. They have been going at this all summer, but the srtike happens just when Rahm HAS to go to the DNC convention. They strike just when school starts, not two weeks before. Message, pay us off now or there is zero chance your boss will get re-elected. (welcome back to Chicago)

    • Gman do you post on the news boards as “We the People”?

  75. @ JAC………….Are you beginning to see what is happening? The WH has no clue……this Carney guy, press sec, saying it is a small group of militants……this is the ostrich approach. These protests are not spurred on by this stupid movie….these protests (and by the way, this is a media left spin…the word protests)..these actions are spurred on by two things…..they are orchestrated and led by the Muslim Brotherhood…and they will continue to grow because the US under this current administration, will not do anything about it. Apologies, conciliation…..reminds me of a saying that Vince Lombardi once said……….”show me man that is not afraid or does not care about losing….I will show you a loser”. The US is weak, now..and it is like blood in the water.

    • Our UN ambassador says the “protests” were spontaneous eruptions. She must be Baghdad Bob’s daughter.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good afternoon Colonel. Sorry about that little whoopin my Seaducks put on them Pokes.

      I think you might have misunderstood some of my posts. You are preaching to the choir when it comes to the mess in the middle east.

      My only argument might be that given the nature of that part of the world it may be premature to put ALL credit with the brotherhood. Although it was their long efforts at indoctrination that is at play.

      • No, did not misunderstand……..boy, did the pokes look bad or what……..lol…..but we had to put a hurt on the Mariners because Oakland does not look capable of losing…..they are on a hell of a streak.

  76. The problem with the apology was this: The movie, if it really even was the source of the issue and not merely a scapegoat, was not the result of any US action. It was not a show of disrespect for religion as a nation. It was the result of inaction, the inaction of government in that they permit things to be done by individuals, that they do not take action to restrict or suppress freedom. That inaction, that belief in freedom, that attitude that individual action is not representative of a whole nation or its policies, is a cornerstone of what our nation, and government, is supposed to be. Government’s place is to protect rights, not to restrict them, nor to apologize for abuses and immoral actions and bigotry that invariably happen when people are free. Not all people use their freedom wisely, but it is not the government’s place to judge those actions, nor to grant either apology or praise. In their condemnation they stood in a place of judgement. In their placating they made the actions of a few seem to apply to a nation, where no such correlation existed. In their attempt to apologize, they betrayed the real problem of both our current government’s attitude and the problem with the government’s of the countries the embassies are in. The idea that a nation can be judged by a few individuals, or by providers of entertainment and commentary, or that it can be condemned because of the actions of a few, is a poor representation of this country, or at least what this country is supposed to be. The idea that a government should publicly judge and comment on the actions of its people, or worse, control the actions of its people, shows a blatant disregard for the proper place and roll of government in a free country. It is the attitude of this government, but it is the wrong attitude. It is not just this administration either, this sort of attitude has been around for a long time and is growing, and being gradually sold to the population as a good path. The supporters and purveyors of laws that address individual actions that are not in violation of anyone else’s rights are the supporters of this attitude, and they involve as many of the religious right as they do of the socialist left. There is no difference really, not in core philosophy, not in the understanding of what freedom really is or what government should be.

  77. Huh! Learn something new every day. Mohammed al Zawahiri is the blind Sheik’s brother? And the Egypt and Libya riots are revenge for keeping the Sheik in prison?

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/13/Cairo-Riots-Were-Not-Over-Offensive-American-Movie-Freedom-of-Blind-Sheik-The-Goal

  78. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    The fact that I think Romney’s play with the White House over retracting the apology statement in question does not mean I think highly of Romney.

    My only caveat, and it is very minor, is that Romney is not a typical “politician”. One reason he is personally not very good at the game. But he is surrounded by people who are.

    Seems to me you are displaying a venomous hatred or anger at all things Romney. Why?

    You don’t display the same behavior towards Obama yet you criticize those on SUFA who criticize Obama harshly but let Romney slide a bit. I am not letting either slide, by the way.

    You asked me questions about the politics of the situation. I provided my opinions on that matter. Romney made a mistake in jumping in. But here is the thing, in politics once you jump in you are ALL IN. It is very, very, very, rare that a politicians will simply back off with an “I’m sorry, I made a mistake”.

    Hell, the only time I remember Obama admitting a mistake was over the assumptions about Stimulus and “shovel ready jobs” then he turns around and proposes more of the same. Some apology that was.

    I don’t even know how to respond to you comparing his statement with the bullying behavior of holding someone down and cutting their hair. Since when is making a clever political point or comment the same as bullying?

    I will respond to my prior notion about politicians being scum. This is true. But there is scum and then there is scum. Mr. Obama is for sure pond scum. The lowest of the low. Mr. Romney is that breed of scum that has crept onto shore. BOTH are scum, but they are not identical scum.

    And thus we get to have a major political debate for three months on which scum is better than the other scum.

    It happens that I firmly believe that Mr. Romney would be a better leader and a better President than Mr. Obama has been or is capable of being. However, I also believe Gary Johnson would be better than both of them. He has the greatest chance of actually getting Congress to break the gridlock and act.

    • Curious, why the belief in Gary Johnson? I actually looked into him and didn’t see much there, other than he has an (L) behind his name.

    • JAC,

      Seems to me you are displaying a venomous hatred or anger at all things Romney. Why? You don’t display the same behavior towards Obama yet you criticize those on SUFA who criticize Obama harshly but let Romney slide a bit.

      Well it is a political blog. Have you ever noticed the venomous hatred and anger at all things Obama? Its pretty common here. I was just having fun turning-the-tables for a day or two. Don’t worry, you can go back to your “impartial” Obama bashing now!!

      I basically agree with Obama. Why would you expect me to bash him? You seem to have that covered. Am I required to attack Obama to post here?

      I am not letting either slide, by the way

      Seriously? You spent the last few days defending Romney because “he might or might not have known” something that was in his statement. And yet when its Obama, you assume (as fact) his every statement, word and thought is Socialist – Socialist – Socialist!

      I know you think you’re the great impartial arbitrator of all things right & wrong, black & white, but that doesn’t quite fit your comments.

      As a side note – I always find it interesting when someone tells us how impartial (or smart) they are here on SUFA. It smacks of insecurity. Why not let your comments stand on their own? If you want to be perceived as impartial/smart, then post logical and well thought out analysis. If you have to tell me you’re impartial/smart, maybe its because you’re concerned your comments aren’t all that impartial/smart?

      I don’t even know how to respond to you comparing his statement with the bullying behavior of holding someone down and cutting their hair. Since when is making a clever political point or comment the same as bullying?

      They both show someone who thinks he’s better than others. Someone who wants to – and has the ability – to force his will on them to get them to do as he wishes.

      But there is scum and then there is scum. Mr. Obama is for sure pond scum. The lowest of the low. Mr. Romney is that breed of scum that has crept onto shore. BOTH are scum, but they are not identical scum.

      Oh, and here it is – another one of your “in-depth” and “balanced” analysis? I always find it entertaining when you guys try to prove you “impartiality” by throwing a weak insult at some Republican, and then attacking Obama. USWeapon is the Master of this!

      I firmly believe that Mr. Romney would be a better leader and a better President than Mr. Obama has been or is capable of being.

      Well, I kinda figured that out already!! See, I’m not as dumb as you guys think!

      • I actually think, I could count on one hand the times you have actually commented on anything that had to do with political debate. It would be nice to know how you stand on something besides your personal opinion of the people who participate on SUFA.

  79. Good Morning SUFA 🙂 I enjoy getting up and reading all of Todd’s late night posts. Todd claims to just point to the obvious, yet doesn’t know who the CFR is 🙄 So let me point out something (it’s oblivious, cuz few seem to see it), The Democrats and Republican are nothing that they want anyone to believe. I see them as nothing more than crime families, like the Bananno’s and the Gambino’s, they play the same game, just different mouth’s talking about it. All, the while, those pulling the strings remain safely out of sight.

    Note to USW or LOI, please start a new thread, this takes forever to load 🙂

  80. Franchisors warn Obamacare will halve profits
    September 13, 2012 | 4:27 pm
    537Comments
    Paul Bedard
    Washington Secrets
    The Washington Examiner

    The International Franchise Association held a convention in Washington this week where most of the Radio Shack, Dunkin Donuts, Curves and other franchisers were grumbling about new federal regulations, especially the impact of Obamacare.

    Most, said Atlanta Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchiser David Barr, presumed that the reports about how hard Obamacare will hit them were overblown. “They had their head in the sand,” he told Secrets.

    That is until he pulled out his powerpoint showing how funding Obamacare will cut his–and likely their–profits in half overnight. With simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren’t eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and pay the $2,000 per employee fine.

    Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81 percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028 for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a year. Employees pay $995.

    Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales. As a result, he said, “I’m not paying $444,000.”

    Providing no insurance would result in a federal fine of $158,000, $29,000 more than he now spends but the lowest cost possible under the Obamacare law. So he now views that as his cap and he’ll either cut worker hours or replace them with machines to get his costs down or dump them on the public health exchange and pay the fine. “Every business has a way to eliminate jobs,” he said, “but that’s not good for them or me.”

    But that’s not all. His experience tells him that most low-wage workers he would have to cover under Obamacare won’t take it because their $995 share is too high, meaning those the program was set up for won’t see any benefit. And those who do will because they have major health issues, likely resulting in higher premiums to him.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/franchisors-warn-obamacare-will-halve-profits/article/2507920#.UFcKU_WwUZk

    • Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just scrap the current employer-provided health insurance model in the first place?

      • @ Buck….Good morning, counselor. How about putting the private insurance health care and the government insurance healthcare on the same footing and let the chips fall where they may. What about this idea…..eliminate all controls, both for government and private alike. What ever tax increase is needed for the government plan…….allow a corresponding tax abatement for the private insurers. Then, let the market decide.

        Allow me a personal example. The VA health system is a government run organization. I think you will agree with this. You are aware that I had a heart issue in the form of a blocked artery at 98% and another one at 30%. I had to have a Stent put in the right coronary artery. You also know that I have Tricare and the VA Health System….I also have supplemental health insurance through USAA because there is no full time coverage for veterans any longer, unless you are destitute. I live in the Fort Worth/Dallas area which boasts of the most new and modern improvements to the VA Hospital and Health Care for veterans.

        Thank goodness that I could afford to go to Baylor Medical Coronary unit because I could get in there. The VA,aka government run health care, could not have taken me for 15 days. I was able to have a stent put in within 1 hour after arrival and out of the hospital within 36 hours. If it had been a major heart attack, I had no where to go unless it was the county hospital. Oh, and Tricare does not cover Baylor and neither does the VA.

        So, how about this….allow the same amount of tax abatement to private heath care as there is a tax increase for government run health care. (What ever that formula is). Allow dollar for dollar deduction to individuals who opt for private health care. Then let private health care compete with the government on the same basis and level playing field, Since you like the penalties that are in the ACA…leave them there. BUT……do not “require” any services to private health care. Let private health care do its own thing…and if people want all these freebies, they can go to the government. That leaves the individual a choice,

        Now, I know you do not like individual choice, but go with me on this…..what do you think?

        • Will have to give more thought to your proposal and get back to you another time. Suffice to say though, you know where I stand on the issue — I am a huge proponent of single payer in some form or another.

          One of the reasons I am a supporter of single payer is precisely on the issue of individual choice — medical decisions should be left entirely to the doctor and patient, and in no way, shape or form should it have anything to do with having to deal with some insurance company. I understand your fears/concerns with now having government in the equation under a single payer system (which in your mind would be much much worse than current issues with insurance companies), but there is no need for this to occur. It is a legitimate concern though and one that must be addresses in fashioning any new systerm.

          I am aware of your recent health issues — good to see you’re doing well sir! As with others, your own history will necessarily influence your support/opposition to single payer, raise concerns to be addressed, etc. The fact that there is no full time coverage for veterans is an absolute disgrace in my opinion and something that must be rectified as part of any discussion on our health system.

          • Yeppers…know where you stand……but let me clarify…….your definition of single payer is verbatim…..SINGLE……only one with no other?

            • Well yes.

              Perhaps individual choice is restricted in insurance company options, but not in terms of your actual health care decisions. I am ok with the former, not the latter.

  81. Really starting to like this woman-even when she talks democrat-she is reasonable.

    President Obama, stop blaming the victim for Mideast violence

    By Kirsten Powers

    Published September 15, 2012

    FoxNews.com

    “Disgusting and reprehensible.” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Truly abhorrent,” an outraged White House official told an international conference. Were they talking about the murder of four Americans in Libya? Or perhaps the hoisting of an Islamist flag over the U.S. Embassy in Cairo?

    No. For that they stuck to diplomatic speak. For the president, the harshest language was: “I strongly condemn the outrageous attack.” For Clinton it was that the US is heartbroken and she condemned “this senseless act of violence.” But “disgusting and reprehensible” and “truly abhorrent ” were reserved for an amateurish and silly film by someone nobody has ever heard of.

    In fact, what is “disgusting and reprehensible” is that there are people in the world who think they are justified in attacking and killing people because someone hurt their feelings or offended their sensibilities. The US government should not act as a validator or enabler of this upside down worldview, which is exactly what the Obama administration has done repeatedly as they have responded to these abhorrent attacks against the United States.

    I have defended the Obama administration against the complaints from the right that they have run an “apology tour” in the Middle East because I believe the US should admit when we make mistakes, such as the accidental burning of Korans. But what we shouldn’t do is affirm the wrongheaded view that people should be protected from the free speech of others.

    Worse, our leaders shouldn’t let our enemies know that when they kill our people and attack our embassies that the US Government will act like a battered wife making excuses for her psychotic husband. Wake up: we weren’t attacked because of a movie made by an American. We were attacked because there are crazy religious fanatics who hate the United States. We didn’t ask for it.

    Egypt’s President Morsi reportedly asked Obama “to put an end to such behavior”—presumably freedom, constitutional rights and the like — as it led to the making of, in his eyes, the offensive movie.

    Obama has no legal recourse but our president seems to be acquiescing to Morsi’s request by trying to silence the movie-maker through verbal intimidation, including a call from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey who asked Pastor Terry Jones to withdraw his support for the film. Additionally, The Hollywood Reporter reveals that the FBI was dispatched to Hollywood to uncover the identity of the filmmaker. (Don’t they have real terrorists to catch? I’ll be looking for the administration’s condemnations next for the selling of the DVD of “The Da Vinci Code,” the blockbuster American movie that claims Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene.)

    Team Obama’s unseemly groveling to violent extremists has been cloaked in a newfound concern on the left for respecting religious sensibilities. Tuesday, a liberal professor argued in USA Today that the maker of the Mohammed film should be arrested.

    President Obama said in the Rose Garden: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” and Clinton asserted that, “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough endorsed efforts to create “a world where the dignity of all people—and all faiths—is respected.”

    Apparently our foreign policy is now being run by Dr. Phil. Someone needs to explain to the White House that our Constitution protects freedom of religion from government interference, not the protection from people who say mean, critical or offensive things about one’s religion.

    But if this is truly their new position, then they have a lot to be outraged about right here at home. Remember Amanda Marcotte, one of the left’s top bloggers and a columnist for the left-wing Guardian who chose last Easter — the holiest day of the Christian calendar — to chime “Happy Jeebus Day”? She once asked: “What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? [Answer]: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.”

    Then there was the tweet last year by Bill Maher about Tim Tebow during a particularly bad game: “Wow, Jesus just f—– #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is Tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.” This was so offensive that President Obama’s PAC still managed to take a million dollars from this man to help finance his reelection.

    If Christians had burned down Maher’s house in response, would the administration put out a statement condemning the violence but pointing out that he should have respected the religious beliefs of others?

    Of course not. Nor would anyone want that.

    But that is what the administration keeps doing with their responses to the attacks in the Middle East. The condemnations are paired in with claims about respecting religious beliefs, which is implicit sympathy for the claims of some of the attackers and rioters.

    It’s time for the Obama administration to stop blaming the victim.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/14/president-obama-stop-blaming-victim-for-mideast-violence/#ixzz26jAe9cgC

  82. Does anybody know what the big flap is about Jay Leno and Howard Stern? I read a side bar a little while ago but it did not go into what the issue is. I do not watch nor listen to Howard Stern nor do I watch or listen to Jay Leno……is this just two egomaniacs going after each other?

    • I’m assuming this is why.

      Howard Stern calls Jay Leno a ‘spineless maggot’: Nastiest celeb feud?

      Published August 29, 2012

      Howard Stern is biting the hand that feeds him. Stern, a judge on NBC’s “America’s Got Talent,” slammed NBC’s “Tonight Show” host Jay Leno following reports that Leno had taken a pay cut to save jobs after the network laid off about 20 staffers from his show.

      “It’s a smokescreen… Here’s what it really means, and you can take this to the bank: Jay Leno is a scumbag,” Stern said last week on his radio show. “He’s a spineless maggot. Jay wanted to cut staff. He’s embarrassed to do it. He didn’t want to come off as a bad guy.”

      SODAHEAD SLIDESHOW: See the nastiest celebrity feuds.

      The following day, Stern said he received a “threatening kind of comment” from an NBC executive who asked him to stop talking about Leno. But Stern refused to shut up. “I said, ‘Do not tell me not to talk about Jay Leno.’ I will f***ing talk about Jay for four hours if you tell me not to. I was done with Jay — now I’m all fired up again.

      “I love my job on ‘AGT,’ I love working for the people at NBC — they’ve been nothing but wonderful,” Stern continued. “But please don’t tell me what to say. I’d rather leave than not talk about Jay Leno. … It’s fine. Fire me too.”

      PHOTOS: See the latest celebrity pictures to hit the Internet.

      We get it, Howard. You really, really hate Jay Leno. From Stern vs. Leno to Joan Rivers vs. Rihanna, let us know: Who had the nastiest celeb feud?

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/08/29/howard-stern-calls-jay-leno-pineless-maggot-nastiest-celeb-feud/#ixzz26jdccERy

  83. new page up–open mic

%d bloggers like this: