Obama Fiddles...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Obama Fiddles...
37
Fri, 09-14-2012 - 10:42pm

So, our embassy is burning, 4 Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, whom Obama claims to know.

He's out in Vegas, making jokes and campaigning... he sure got over the Ambassador's death pretty quickly! No time to gather the team and come up with a strategy to handle this crisis, he's too busy.

And what's with Hillary? Is she on drugs or something? She's like a robot. You'd think she is reporting on the weather.

Our sovereignty has been violated, our people murdered, and they go on like nothing happened? Do they get angry about anything, other than the Tea Party?

Clearly, they are in way over their heads.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

Pages

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Fri, 09-14-2012 - 11:01pm

That is just silly.  What do you want declare war?  In the real world nations handle this very carefully.  This is not by any means a crisis!

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sat, 09-15-2012 - 1:39pm

Nah, ambassador and others murdered, embassy burning. Crisis? What crisis?

That's exactly the problem.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Sat, 09-15-2012 - 4:05pm

No it is not a crisis.  This is In one case mobs, not the nation.  If the nation had been behind the attacks then that would qualify.  But neither nation/nations are responsible.  In the Libyan case it was a planned attack by a splinter group.  In Egypt it is a spontaneous mob action.  Neither qualifies for the definition of crisis!  

   Now it would be a crisis if a nation attacked.  That is a total difference!!!

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Sat, 09-15-2012 - 4:55pm

In the narrow subject line that is this discussion the events under consideration do not constitute a crisis.  The are other events that might warrant that definition. 

is the splinter group the whole of radical islam?

   Unknown.  The Muslims are as divided as Christians when it comes to internal argument.  It is the thought that they are being attacked/disrespected that brings out the mobs.  Many in that world do not have experience in living in Free Speech West but in very strict almost/ religious police state countries who have no tolerance for anything that smacks of ideas that go against the doctrine of the religious leaders. They do not have any experience being free as the West does. 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2002
Sat, 09-15-2012 - 7:36pm




iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sat, 09-15-2012 - 10:46pm

What? You didn't type anything.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sat, 09-15-2012 - 10:50pm
xxxs wrote:

No it is not a crisis.  This is In one case mobs, not the nation.  If the nation had been behind the attacks then that would qualify.  But neither nation/nations are responsible.  In the Libyan case it was a planned attack by a splinter group.  In Egypt it is a spontaneous mob action.  Neither qualifies for the definition of crisis!  

   Now it would be a crisis if a nation attacked.  That is a total difference!!!

What nation attacked us on 9/11/2001? I guess that was not a crisis either.
Wise up.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 9:59am

I saw coverage of Obama and Hillary Clinton on the day after the attacks.  Obama wasn't doing any "happy campaigning".  As for NOT campaigning at all, it seems likely that he's "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't".  He'd be accused of not taking free elections seriously, were he to opt out of making already scheduled visits. 

In this thread, Hillary Clinton was accused of looking like she might be on drugs.  Stoicism isn't regarded as a virtue apparently.  How petty can you get?!  Never mind, that was a purely rhetorical question.  Clearly there is no limit on the paltry and picayune, particularly if one doesn't tear up at the slightest provocation, ala John Boehner.

Regarding the ongoing unrest in the Middle East, Obama is clearly paying attention.  http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/obama-condemns-embassy-attack-in-libya-vows-justice-1.952404  It's a very fine line to walk, the area between being taken seriously as a potent power, and the side which is knee-jerk military might reaction. 

Do you really want to see us sucked into another interminable war, particularly a religious war with an enemy which uses tactics like suicide bombers, IED's, RPG's and fading into the civilian populace?  We have not fared well in either Iraq or Afghanistan and only mental midgets would agitate for further U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. 

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 10:52am
It IS silliness but silliness possibly meant to divert from the lousy way Romney responded. Best defense is to be offensive.

As for the Middle East attacks, I disagree. "Crisis" is endemic in that portion of the world. This one happens to be capable of sucking the ignorant, dense, unwary and/or inexperienced among U.S. leaders and voters into backing ANOTHER military over-reaction. And that would be a colossal mistake.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 1:06pm
annaperch wrote:

Trivial compared to the fiddler on 9/11.

Really? Was Bush campaigning the day after? I think there was a lot of work being done to secure our nation. Not so for Obama. Oh, and Bush stopped golfing, out of respect.

Not Obama, nothing stops him from golfing, disrespect be damned!

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

Pages