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."

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 2:42pm

I understand what you are getting at.  However,that was a failure of the intelligence services and military to respond to a perceived threat before it became reality.  There have been other terrorist attacks in the US Okla City by groups intent on changing policies.  Those were not seen as a crisis but a criminal matter.  The German embassy was attacked as were others.  It is pure foolishness to engage in a war that will be a century if not longer of conflict. 

 

chaika

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 2:54pm

Could you be more specific about safe?  It is never ever safe! there are dangers everywhere!  One must be educated about those dangers.  Those countries are not the US nor do they have the attitude of POlitical Correctness.  They are in many ways rebuilding a nation from clans something the west dealt with centuries ago.    Many who see themselves Islamic do not underestand "free speech" even in countries where there are dual religeous laws (Christians can buy and consume alcoholic beverages,Muslims cannot) it is  unthinkable to have a image of the prophet.  The unthinkable can become a fuse to the powderkeg.  As it is the policy of the US is no negotiation with terrorists.  If you are captured by them ...............

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 2:57pm

Really?  Maybe you'll see fit to tell me how many fatalities we had under Bush and how many we've had under Obama.  If those numbers were used as a metric of how "safe" we are, then we were far worse off under Bush.  Annaperch earlier posted a link which shows that BushCo paid little heed to repeated warnings of Al Qaeda's intent to strike with devastating consequences.  Looks like Bush and the neocons already decided Saddam had to go.  Many of those same faces and names are now associated with the Romney campaign.  Romney must think we're a nation of blithering idiots!  Sadly enough, he may be right.

"Signs" can (and often are) interpreted in a number of ways.  Bush DID run for a second term while U.S. troops were dying in Iraq.  Left and right--far more than four deaths.  If you would like to read more about those troops, go to http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=39146#.UFYez66z6oY but be warned--there are 36 PAGES of names and details in 2004 alone.  And for what?  For what?  There were no WMD!  Bush had the gall to tell us that we needed to re-elect him in order to stay "safe".  Wanna know what's really droll?  Bush focused his campaign on national security, presenting himself as a decisive leader and contrasted Kerry as a "flip-flopper." Bush's point was that Americans could trust him to be tough on terrorism while Kerry would be "uncertain in the face of danger.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Campaign_issues  And what political candidate has been flipflopping like a just-caught fish?  Ah me, how quickly people forget...... 

Over 4,000 U.S. troops died in Iraq.  How many more would you sacrifice and for how long?  For what goal?  Given the schisms between Sunnis and Shiites, the notion that an invader can somehow bring peace, harmony AND democracy, is ludicrous.  We have ignored the Powell Doctrine because its lessons were deemed outdated.  They are not outdated.  If anything, they are more relevant now than ever before. 

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 5:31pm
So let's see if I have this correct. You seem to be implying that we're a nation of fools for having elected Obama.

Yet Obama managed to avoid embroiling us in still more costly and unwinnable conflicts; while his political opponent has advisers from a proven-false concept ("pre-emptive" invasion) and a tremendously destructive war based on that concept.

Add to that Mitt's unfortunate lack of tact and diplomacy when speaking extemporaneously, and it really would take a nation of idiots to elect him.

Jabberwocka

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
In reply to: xxxs
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 5:39pm

The states and cities are suffering from a lack of tax collections.  That caused those problems you mentioned.  In Afghanistan it is different.  WE chose nation building while looking to destroy Al Qaeda.  Very different policies.  Iraq was caused by the error in allowing Saddam retention of power after the first Gulf war. 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 5:44pm

This hits it on the head...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-obama-stumbles-in-response-to-embassy-attacks/article/2508062#.UFZHVI1lSBp

In other words, his Middle East policies are in shambles. His assumption that a president "who doesn't look like other presidents" would endear America to Arabs has been proven unfounded.

So have other assumptions. Like the idea that Iran's mullah regime would negotiate with us if we uttered soothing words and turned a cold eye on Iranian dissidents, as Obama did in June 2009.

"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
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 6:10pm

An act of war ROFL!  Please there is nothing like that happening in this world.  The German embassy was attacked will they declare war?  No one is interested in a war that has no enemy except extremist groups and mobs.  That is not viable.  Egypt wants our 1.5 billion dollars so they have a financial interest.  Those who want the US to embark on wars had better be ready for at least a century of conflict.  Iran's mullahs will do what they can get away with in that they have run the country into the ground but most Iranians do not know that.  The police there keep a close eye on everyone.  Any deviation is swiftly punished.  We learned from helping the rebels against the Soviet Union that they too were not out friends. 

   Bush and company had more mistakes in the Middle East.  So there is no party with a good record there.  That happens because we are not always dealing with a single political/religious entity, but a series of power groups.  Many of whom have their own agendas.

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 7:09pm

My point was in the questions I asked.  Thoughtful and realistic answers to those questions would have been helpful. 

Our DoD has been "offensive" just as much if not more than it's been "defensive" and the costs, in terms of life, lucre, and reputation have been staggering.  For what?  I really do want to know how we could possibly "win" a war with combatants who do not wear distinguishing uniforms, who cavil not at all in sheltering among civilians, who are inspired by religious zealots to see martyrdom as desirable and thus have no qualms about using suicide bombers as tactical weapons.  There are no "front lines", no well-defined combat zones.  Osama bin Ladin proved as much on September 11, 2001. 

BTW, it was under President Obama that Osama bin Ladin was killed.  Matt Bissonnette and various conservative manger dogs notwithstanding, Obama was the one who made the decision to make OBL's death a priority.  The operation which took OBL down was a rough and not-entirely-satisfactory justice; but it made a helluva lot more sense than GWB's wretched (and failed) efforts or his misbegotten and morally/intellectually bankrupt "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq.

We would have to wage a scorched earth war across the Middle East, count civilian deaths as collateral damage/nothing, and then have a heavy-handed occupation to use military means against radical Islam.  Or we would have to have covert assassination squads (the drones come close).  NEITHER worked in Vietnam.  Colin Powell learned. Why can't others?  Given the negative view many Muslims already have of us as the "great Satan", I cannot see how aggressive military action would have lasting success.  We would merely inspire more hate.  Would you have us be at war for decades, a century?  Don't scoff.  Other religious wars have lasted for multiple centuries.  As George Santayana observed "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  

As for spending cuts, that's another area where Obama would be "damned if he did, and damned if he didn't".  Conservatives kvetch and moan about the nation's debt but want to prevent all cuts to their sacred cow programs.   Hardly consistent with their message but that's nothing new either......... Establishing priorities*, finding a way to achieve steps forward, all while battling a headwind of political opponents itching for the nation to fail so its elected leader won't get a second term....that's damned hard to do.  How about some proof for your claim that Obama is "downplaying attention [bolding mine] to defense"? 

"Screwy" priorities?  How?  What's a "big bear"?  I see no case being made, no evidence presented, just fulminating labels and inexplicable characterizations.  How on earth did you make the leap to cuts being made by municipalities which needs must deal with diminished revenues?!  

*Money to fight wars but not to fund improvements in health care, education, environmental protection, job creation.  Yeah, that makes sense in some alternate reality, but hardly in this one. 
  

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 7:14pm
What list? Leaders elected by blithering idiots?

As for Obama heading the heretofore unmentioned list, that's your opinion. So far, no particularly convincing case has been made.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 7:23pm
Our actions in Iraq AND Afghanistan cannot be considered unqualified successes.

We don't have much experience in nation building when the nation in question is actively fighting our efforts.

Then there are the "leaders" we've backed. Karzai is a corrupt and self-serving opportunist and Maliki seems unwilling to surmount sectarian differences http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/iraq-violence-idUSL5E8KADGT20120910.

Jabberwocka