Ah…I appear to stuck in prediction mode this week. I came right up to the edge of a big prediction last night. Tonight I’ll go at it again and this time dive over the cliff. Israel will attack Iran. The only way this won’t happen is if a popular revolt topples the Iranian government or Netanyahu is removed from power. Barring those two events – this attack will happen. The question is - when? A few weeks ago I said I thought it would be after our election and before the New Year – giving the Mayan Calendar consortium a P.R. boost. Being a History Channel junkie, let’s stick with that time frame.
Whatever anyone believes about the morality of the coming war what matters here is this: Israel – or rather, Netanyahu – believes he has no choice. He won’t allow himself to go down in history as the man who looked on as Iran obtained nukes. Can’t say as I blame him. Think JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Kennedy had shrugged while the Russians weaponized Cuba he’d hardly be a hero today.
The reason I bring this up again today is the weird spectacle of Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu later this month when the Israeli Prime Minister is in the U.S. Obama’s schedule is “full” according to the White House, a lie so ridiculous one can only see it as a nasty little joke. Our President doesn’t do much of anything except campaign and golf. One less trip to a tire factory in Dayton might be in order given the stakes.
I’m going to go out on a limb here (snark) and tell some self-evident truth: Obama doesn’t like Israel. He doesn’t like Netanyahu. He doesn’t want to be bothered an annoying world crisis while on his campaign/adulation/bear hug tour. And, the man with the kill list probably takes some pleasure in insulting Netanyahu. Men with kill lists tend to be a certain type.
There is no good reason to stiff are Netanyahu. The meeting would present good pics for the campaign and add ballast to the foreign policy digs at Romney. It would present a united front – at least in the photo-op. It would help with Jewish voters in swing states. And it gives Obama a chance to push for more time. The upside is substantial.
Still, Obama is busy. With what? Maybe he thinks if he ignores Israel, Israel will go away. A better choice is to engage and find a way to avoid a catastrophe.
Oh well.
9/11/12 Cairo Embassy attacked. Benghazi consulate burned. At least one American reported dead- though there are conflicting reports. The Embassy in Cairo APOLOGIZES? On THIS, of all days? Obama releases Youtube message to Arab Forum0 arab spring blah blah blah. On 9/11? He declines to meet with Netanyahu- did that happen also today- or are we just finding out about it? Saw this tweet- and could not agree more.
If Romney does not take all of this and hammer that nail DOWN until it can never pop up again- he wants to lose.
photo/1
Does anyone still think Obama takes Florida?
One can’t rule it out because the American people are incredibly ill-informed and irrational. That this election is even close when the incumbent is an ‘epic fail’ says it all.
well, there is that….
Agree NES.
I checked the popular “news sites” (NBC,CBS,ABC) and the only mentions of the attacks were at the bottom of the secondary categories. I heard about it on the CBS newsradio station’s 7:00 news (about 2 hours ago) and there was almost nothing said about the attacks and only a bit more about Netanyahu’s rebuffed request to meet whilst he is in the US. CBS reported Obama said “they won’t be in the same place at the same time.” I haven’t heard anything since.
If I weren’t reading blogs, I’d never know anything. This is why my friends are angry with me right now. They know I don’t like BHO and they think I’m making up stuff.
“Men with kill lists tend to be a certain type.”
********
Sociopath, his FU to Netanyahu is that he will be doing the Letterman show that day.
I agree, I think the shit is about to hit the fan re: Israel/Iran. Iran is rapidly moving it’s 20% Uranium enrichment facilities from Natanz to an under a mountain facility at Fordow. The Iranians recently announced that they have double the capacity of the Fordow facility. Netanyahu see the window for an effective strike rapidly closing. Israel doesn’t have anything that could destroy Fordow and I am not sure that the US does either.
Iran now has a significant inventory of Uranium enriched to 20% u235. That degree of enrichment is,IIRC, 99% of the way to weapons grade, 85-90%, enrichment,
Wrong! This war is not happening.
Oh welllllll…I guess that settles it.
Did you glean that bit of intelligence from the Lord Obama himself?
Do all obama supporters possess the mental age of a seven year-old? Or are some even younger?
yes, tamer, they do and yes, they are.
John, in the vein of your great piece, let me state this self-evident truth: Obama does not want Israel to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Grasp that nettle and everything falls in place.
Why does O feel this way? Because he sees Israel as a Western imperialist power (or at least a proxy for Western imperialism) occupying the home of the Palestinians. Everything in his background, his studies, his writings, his mentors points to this simple answer.
You ascribe to obama a geopolitical frame of mind the little cocksucker simply doesn’t possess.
I see two motives. One, obama has a pathological urge to humiliate anyone who follows him. He wants to say to the dem-loyal jewish vote, ‘see, I just insulted your beloved Israel, and you bitches will still vote for me!’ Two, the proglodytes have a collective hard-on for the Palestinians. Snubbing Bibi helps excite the cadres at a moment when OFA is trying to roll out its field operation. In the 19th century, the Dems used to fire up the Irish vote with disparaging speeches against England. It was called Twisting the Lion’s Tail.
And if you recall the ending of the 2016 film, you saw the spread of the Muslim power right across the Middle East as it split the continents. It feels as if they’re on their way.
You may well be right, Tamer. It’s certainly a plausible alternative explanation. Maybe there’s truth to both scenarios.
If a dishonorable failure thinks he can outfox Bibi, he is even dumber than I thought.
John…O is very busy…
he has been with the boyz:
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/09/dolphins-dissing-president-obama-chats-pitbull-medicare-on-911-with-pimp-with-the-limp-dj.html
and O’s got Letterman when Net’s in town…no time, bro…
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/11/obama-back-letterman
Too freakin’ bad. He’s suddenly got bigger problems than Israel now, though that will play a part as well. Romney’s got an opening here, but it’s a matter of swift timing. He could win or lose this election tomorrow. http://peacocksandlilies.com/2012/09/11/what-a-game-changer-looks-like/
Romney responded: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/11/romney-obama-handling-of-libya-egypt-violence-disgraceful/
Pitch-perfect. Obama admin now saying apology wasn’t cleared by them, even as it was up on the embassy website for hours and hours. Like 12.
The idea that what Barry thinks decides anything always cracks me up. He’s busy cause his handlers say he’s busy…I’m thinking the timing is off. Our Iran ducks aren’t in a row yet. Syria hasn’t crumbled like it was supposed to and now Iraq is convicting our toadies( ex-Vice President Hashemi) so we gotta teach them who’s boss again with a wave of sectarian violence…So Bibi, we are kind of busy indeed
Right on, PD, especially “The idea that what Barry thinks decides anything always cracks me up. He’s busy cause his handlers say he’s busy.”
In my opinion, O is not involved in the government of this country in any meaningful way. He only does what he was hired to do- campaign and look pretty for the cameras. That silly “kill list” story was just an overblown attempt to make him look hands-on, and any discussion about his motives, philosophies, etc is a waste of time.
That silly “kill list” story was just an overblown attempt to make him look hands-on
Exactly…and it kind of backfired and I say if he’s as good at that as he is picking winning basketball teams , well there you go, it might help those on the ground.
We were sold the hokum he was too much an idea person to “micro” manage ( that is, work) but he has time to pick drone targets ? WTF
Perhaps you all give Obama too much credit.
He’s ok smart but he isn’t “gifted” and he isn’t brilliant and he doesn’t have a philosophy.
He is intimidated by strength and true brilliance and sharp attention to detail.
Bibi is just the opposite.
Obama appears to be barely hanging on to his dignity.
JMHO
FFS.. it’s absolutely horrible that someone was killed today of a GD movie.
In fairness here are the responses I could find for everyone to read.
Cairo Embassy Response:
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.
My take: Are you kidding me? Is the assumption there that the peace loving, benevolent and munificent followers of Islam heard that there was a movie talking smack about Mohammed and they decided to go out and “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims?” Is that the take-away here? When they were scaling the walls of the embassy in Cairo did they think “Oh man we’re going to really hurt some feelings here” and in Benghazi when the men armed with guns and grenades stormed the compund were they thinking “were going to show them, we’re going to hurt some feelings right back!” Why are “hurt feelings” and “religious beliefs” the issue here? There needs to be something in here about free ice-cream.
I can’t find a full quote if someone can please let me know, but here is a partial Hillary Clinton response:
” 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.”
A better response from Clinton, she starts to get to the idea that it was over “inflamatory material” but still the idea that we somehow have to vouch for the fact that we are a safe haven for religious beliefs. I don’t remember the last time a wife was stoned to death for adultery in the US, or a thief had their hands chopped off as proscribed by our tolerant religious society. So again, why is the US response so measured and nuanced to say how religiously tolerant we are?
Mitt Romney response:
“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.”
A better response from Romney than from the Embassy and no mention of religious tolerance, which makes him seem like less of a pushover IMO, a little less “stately” than Clinton but he kinda flubs it at the end. Nowhere in any response from the Embassy or from SoS Clinton is there any sympathy directed towards the attackers, what Romney might’ve meant (which is good and bad) is that we are directing any sympathy towards Islamic fundamentalists in general….protestors, attackers, etc.
Barack Obama response:
Nothing.
Obama was too busy tweeting to ask for volunteers for his 2012 re-election campaign:
https://t.co/NG8eOEfm
What bothers me about this whole situation, aside from the most obvious fact that someone was killed, was that we are collectively (through the words of our officials) saying that we are “religiously tolerant” at the same time a group of individuals is aggressively and in the most extreme case, violently, reacting to the information and opinions contained in a movie.
Islamic fundamentalists don’t call America the Great Satan because we’re religiously intolerant, it’s because their intolerance of us is a basic tenet of their fundamentalist belief system. They don’t hate “freedom”, they believe that they are compelled by their religion to fight a jihad against those who they judge do not support Islam.
That cant really be understood by papering a tolerant/benevolent religious filter over the basic issue. The fact that we have a religiously tolerant culture is obvious to Islamic fundamentalists, and in their fundamentalist view that makes us infidels.
Maybe I’m off base, but I think the whole idea that we’re going to end violent religious extremism by preaching religious tolerance is a bit naive.
” The fact that we have a religiously tolerant culture is obvious to Islamic fundamentalists, and in their fundamentalist view that makes us infidels.”
It also makes us vulnerable…sitting ducks. Wait till they start emigrating en masse to (and otherwise populating) this country (a la Eurabia) and using the Free Exercise Clause against us. I hope I’m dead and gone by then.
Thanks for posting that tweet, Leslie. What a jerk-off the guy is.
That statement utterly sucks.
Two cornerstones of American democracy are: the separation of church and state; freedom of speech. It is impossible to “abuse the universal right of free speech” by “hurt[ing] the religious beliefs of others”; for hurting the beliefs of others is permissible under free speech.
So here goes: anyone who is stupid enough to believe in the koran deserves to be force-fed the splooge left over by the camel that fucked mohammad’s ugly sister up the ass.
NES, word to the wise — avoid Marseilles.
Tamer, why should I avoid Marseilles? Is it crawling with Islamists? If so, I’ll give it a wide berth, notwithstanding that I’ve always wanted to sample the local bouillabaisse.
Any hope that if Israel attacks Iran, we can stay the f out of it? I didn’t think so. Hence, it might be nice to do something intelligent now. But anyway, I don’t think Israel will do it. I hope Israel doesn’t do it.
I think you’re probably right, but there is another possibility: Israel attacking Iran with US (and possibly Saudi) assistance, for which both we and the Sunni Arab states want deniability.
Interesting stuff here. – I do not like saying this but the MSM is so far gone at this point that I have to go to Drudge to find out what is happening if that something puts Obama is a spot in the least. I would not have known about the attacks today at all if not for Drudge. It’s shocking if I think about it too long. The MSM either massages everything for Obama, or simply ignores big stories that don’t fit their narrative. It is Soviet. Drudge drove this story today. THEN the rest picked up on it. It’s appalling.
- I read the U.S. response as a panicked reaction to avoid more attacks on more embassies. This is no excuse. Obama needs to avoid a week of embassy burnings at all costs. Ugly but true.
From what I gather it sounds like the Cairo protest was a large angry mob and the embassy walls were scaled and a flag was torn down, but from what I can glean from news posts online it was non-violent.
It’s hard to find out what happened in Libya..it sounds like there was a firefight between the people within the compound and the people outside, who were armed with RPGs and guns and during that the American was killed.
I understand that the US has to say what they can to mitigate the chances of additional riots throughout the week, but messages of how religiously tolerant we are in the US are about as useful in the Middle East as a wink is to a blind man.
Mitt Romney politicizing this the way his statement does is completely irresponsible. All it shows is he cares more about himself and his own success than about anyone or anything else. It’s another big reveal into the character and personality disorders of this man. And Romneyites who cheer this are revealing something about themselves as well.
You are projecting. Are you going to call Romney un-American next?
The way American culture and character is today, Mitt Romney is quintessentially American. And so, by the way, is Barack Obama. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be where they are.
I can’t disagree with you there Zal.
My frustration last night came from a place where I understand why everyone felt the need to say “something” in response but everyone got it wrong in their response… The lack of ability by any official to be able to articulate a reasoned response to both incidents without veering of into other.areas is just wierd to me.
I am not surprised that Romney politicized it, Romney has to hit Obama however he can. I’m not surprised he flubbed his last thought, its what Romney does…I’m not surprised Obama didn’t respond… It’s what he does.
What I’m surprised at, is the response from SOS and Embassy as one of outrage and at the same time religious tolerance. Radical Islam doesn’t care that were tolerant, and when one person is dead and the walls have been breached. Coming back with some pithy speeches just makes us look more like a paper tiger and virtually guarantees it will happen again.
He’s a politician, Zal; they politicize everything. barry politicized the trayvon martin thing.
For once, though, I’d like to hear a public figure stand up for free speech, instead of kissing the intolerant moslems’ asses.
Zal, I respectfully disagree that Romney did the wrong thing here. When an American President fails to act, the opposition can and should call him on it. That it’s election season is too bad–international crises don’t take that into account. And it’s not like Romneys statement gives ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy — to the contrary, in fact.
PS: Our pResident is in Las Vegas today, campaigning of course.
“For once, though, I’d like to hear a public figure stand up for free speech, instead of kissing the intolerant moslems’ asses.”
Agreed.
This exact statement came from the Obama Camp almost immediately after Romney made his statement. FTR, I agree with Romney’s statement
Which proves what? That Zal is an Obot? Sigh…it’s so tiresome, Anthony. You have tons of valuable things to say — why must you stoop to troll hunting? Here’s the thing: let’s assume you’re correct and Zal is an Obot, so the heck what?…it’s not like people unquestionably take what he says onboard. People who post here have strong views of their own and don’t come here to be persuaded — they don’t need the protection of troll police.
NES, you really need to stop jumping to your own conclusions and putting words in my mouth. This is not the first time you’ve attempted to do that. It is, however, the first time I’m directly addressing you about it. You need to stop.
I think you and everyone else here knows that I’m outspoken enough that if I thought Zal was an Obot for making his comment, I would’ve come right out and said it. I’ve done it in the past, and if I feel that way in the future, I’ll do it again.
Interesting to me is that we have the same thoughts on this (Romney’s statement), but you prefer to take me to task for something I didn’t even remotely indicate in my comment.
You have some interesting and valid things to say yourself, but your response to my comment is not one of them. And, FTR, I don’t appreciate your accusations. Get a grip.
And to clarify this further, NES, I will explain it to you:
I was pointing out that using a statement from one candidate (Obama) that is being used to politicize an issue in an attempt to accuse your opponent (Romney) of doing the same thing accomplishes absolutely nothing. If one is irresponsible, then so is the other.
I’m a peace-loving, anti-war, anti-violence Stein supporter, and I don’t see anything wrong with Romney’s statement. And, IMO, as a candidate for the presidency, he has an obligation to make a statement about this horrific attack. If he hadn’t made a statement, he’d be getting slammed for that. And all the while the asshat in charge of this eff’n mess gets his pillows fluffed.
Yeah – Romney did the wrong thing. Not our own government throwing one of our most cherished principles under the bus and implying that our embassies and citizens are right to be attacked and killed by lunatics because someone posted a film on You Tube. Yeah – Romney’s the crazy one in this scenario . . .
NES, if this were typical of Romney the way it has been of, say, Jimmy Carter, I’d take your point but Romney doesn’t make public comments about foreign policy. Romney’s comment is about nothing at all except his political campaign and diving into an opportunity to score points in a Presidential race. And it’s irresponsible because it’s divisive and seeks to muddy an issue in a way that could further enflame a dangerous international incident. Romney should save his comments for when the incident’s fireworks have died down.
I don’t care who does it, a comment like that is unnecessarily playing with fire with American security, and that says a lot about what kind of decision maker he is and would be as POTUS and CiC.
The restraint I’m describing isn’t just good judgment in national and international affairs, it’s good judgment in personal affairs. Smart grown up leaders from the same family, the same neighborhood, the same town, the same country, don’t strike out at one another, trying to score points and create divisiveness, when external forces threaten the safety of some of its members; good leaders leave criticizing of this type to after the danger of violence has passed.
And I might add this is all the more true if the current President is incompetent or making poor decisions. If his challenger wants to try to make a situation better, the way to do it is through back channels.
Zal, your comments and Romney’s comment don’t jibe. The man said nothing to risk national security. He spoke his mind and said what a lot of Americans are thinking. I can’t help but wonder why self-proclaimed liberals are suddenly afraid of free speech.
Free speech does not mean we have no responsibility to exercise restraint in what we say and when. Hence the classic yelling fire in a crowded room example.
Romney can say whatever he wants and he won’t be arrested or jailed for it. That’s as it should be; that’s free speech. But what we say, how we say it, and when we say it, reveals something about us.
Most people don’t make judgments and come to conclusions about people based on who they show us they are, but rather on manipulative PR and what people want to believe. This is another example. And that, gxm, is how we end up with people like Bush and Obama and Romney for President.
I also disagree with you, Zal. Romney is (supposedly) the opposition candidate. Of course he would politicize the situation, he’s running against Zero.
I agree with NES. And the fact zero is in Vegas instead of acting like the leader of our country and stepping up to the plate, is disgusting, unpalatable, and totally in character.
Well I agree with what you said about Obama.
Anthony: I apologize for misunderstanding the import of your comment. I was thrown by the fact that you appear to have quoted and indented the first sentence of Zal’s comment at 3:33 a.m. (atop this sub-thread).
That said, you might consider “get[ting] a grip” yourself. It’s not like you haven’t gone troll-hunting against Zal on this site on prior occasions. (And I’ve voiced my annoyance…not because it’s Zal [who, ironically, troll-hunts Lola and is otherwise capable of taking care of himself], but because it’s silly.) I don’t say that to detract from my apology to you — that stands, since I clearly misunderstood what you meant by indenting Zal’s quote — but rather to question the moral high ground you staked out (in the first of your responses to me). Because these aren’t face to face conversations, misunderstandings of words and context will occur periodically; it’s best to take them in stride. If I have put words into your mouth on another occasion, I’d be interested in a chapter-verse recitation.
gxm said above: “Zal, your comments and Romney’s comment don’t jibe. The man said nothing to risk national security.”
Agreed. Zal, I don’t see the risk to national security in what Romney said. In your response to gxm you referenced the “crying fire in a crowded [theater]” test. I hope I’m long dead and gone before the highest courts in the land start applying that exceedingly narrow exception to keep people from criticizing, critiquing, or parodying that precious prophet Mohammad. That would be a gross misapplication of the test; if and when it happens (and I don’t rule out that possibiltity), it’ll be because people buckle to fear of violence or have been rendered braindead by the PC orthodoxy, or both. It would be preposterous. It is being debated though, and I’m both appalled and alarmed by the debate; it’s not one a free people should be having.
Zal, to clarify, I’m not suggesting that you place Romney’s words in the “crying fire….” category. But, you did reference that test as limitation on free speech, which is what I picked up on. There’s a debate out there about applying that test to anti-Islamic/anti-Mohd. speech in a world where crazies get inflamed by widely distributed material on the internet. In my view, it’s an alarming debate and one people are entering out of fear. We need to push back against dark-ages ideas and methods, not placate them.
All kinds of appalling and alarming things are debated by free people. We survive debate; in fact we’re more likely to survive alarming debates unscathed than we will the power of the Internet being available to every devious deceitful sociopath who once upon a time had to make do fuming in their little rooms.
Zal, what part of Romney’s comment = “Fire!”? You seem to be attempting to manufacture smoke where there are no flames.
I’m glad to see NES seems to have noticed I didn’t equate Romney’s comment with yelling fire; I merely used the example as common understanding that free speech doesn’t mean the absence of restraint; free speech reasonably has responsibility attached. I haven’t suggested Romney shouldn’t be able to make the comment he did; he should have the right to, and he does. I said it was irresponsible for a Presidential candidate to say that in the circumstance he did, as events of a violent situation were unfolding.
Thats a good policy, NES. There have been plenty of times that I wasn’t sure exactly what someone meant (including some of your comments), and rather than assume I knew their intention and shot my mouth off, I just scrolled past it. Thanks for the apology.
Zal, you certainly implied that’s what Romney did. Romney has been the central figure in all of your comments. (You only begrudgingly mention Obama by name once or twice.) Again and again, you call Romney’s comments irresponsible, then you said that free speech carries a responsibility for restraint, then you made the Fire! reference. It’s pretty darn clear that you are trying to equate the two (while feigning innocence), all the while avoiding my initial question: What did Romney say that can be equated as a risk to our national security? Did he give away launch codes? Did he reveal the identities of ME informants? Or did he merely express an opinion that posed absolutely no security risk whatsoever? I’m going with the latter.
Have you forgotten who’s actually in charge? (His name starts with “O.”) This is his mess and the attempt to pin it on Romney is one of the more surreal ObamaNation moments of the last four years. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more ludicrous, it does.
Get a hold of yourself. I did not “certainly” imply that. If I’d messed up the structure of that comment and accidentally worded it to say what you’re insisting it says I’d understand your insistence that that’s what I meant but it’s not even written that way, you have to assume that’s what I meant. Utterly ridiculous. You may interpret my post any way you like, and you will, but you do not know “certainly” what I intended to imply. You can disbelieve me if you want but I’m telling you I did not equate Romney’s comment with the “fire in a crowded room” example. You’ve read my posts, I do not weasel away from what I say, so why you believe I’m doing so now is beyond me. But whatever, that’s your deal.
As I’ve indicated, it wasn’t only what he said, it’s when he said it. The incident was still hot, wasn’t yet finished, the dust hadn’t settled, details were still unknown, the names of those killed hadn’t even been publicly announced, and the man challenging our current President for the White House came out calling the administration’s response disgraceful. We, including Romney, didn’t know what might happen next, and when there’s danger from outside the house a family should pull together as one. A house divided is much easier to successfully attack than a house united. There is a time and place for public criticism of top leaders by top leaders on the same side, and during a suddenly recently erupted volatile situation is not the time. Today, this weekend, it’s a different story, but that night Romney should have kept his public mouth shut.
I know exactly who’s in charge and I’ve been very clear for years that I think he’s a total fuck up, a narcissistic machiavellian sociopath who doesn’t care about what’s happening over there or here or anywhere else for that matter except with his own inglorious self. But like a dog who’s been peeing on our furniture for four years, I’m not surprised when he does it. Everybody on this blog basically agrees with what I think about Obama, and maybe it’s interesting to you to do nothing but agree with comments, repeat what you’ve been saying for four years, and say what everybody else is saying, but echo chambers are not interesting to me. You want me to say this is Obama’s fault, I’ve already said that somewhere in this thread, you want more – it’s Obama’s fault it’s Obama’s fault it’s Obama’s fault it’s Obama’s fault. Happier now?
Look, although I sometimes post a “spot on” comment, mostly if I comment it’s when I have something original to say. Those are the posts I enjoy and learn from reading, and those are the posts I choose to contribute. I have no agenda, I’m not trying to persuade anybody of anything, not trying to gain power, not trying to be liked, not trying to get anybody elected, I’m just speaking my mind; I have plenty of faults but I don’t lie or cheat and if I say I believe something then that’s what I believe. I see devious deceivers here every day being believed, and me, someone who tells the truth, is not believed. And that also doesn’t surprise me any more because that’s pretty much what America has become.
“As I’ve indicated, it wasn’t only what he said, it’s when he said it.”
Okay, so let me get this straight. It shows a lack of restraint and responsibility to raise one’s voice during a “volatile” situation. Presumably, one must wait till the house has burned down before telling the fireman to move his ass already. Gotcha.
And seriously, “a house divided”? WTF. I hate this silencing tactic. Shhhhh. Let’s not mention that Obama’s a fuck up, we don’t want our enemies to know. Like they haven’t figured it out already.
As I said, if Romney had waited until the dust settled, the next day or so, it’d be a different matter.
But you’re not listening. You’ve decided what I meant and no matter what I say you’re going to believe what you’ve decided to believe.
Sorry to burst in like this, OT and all, but … going back to that allegded improvised ‘happening’ with Obama being lifted off the ground, his literally ‘hands off’ “Look Mom, look! No hands!”-approach, seems rather puzzling.
If I found myself in that situation I would instinctively reach out for support, either the guys shoulders or his upper arms. Then I would vigorously try to push myself away from him. First my head (far too close), then my body.
After having been put down I would probably try to conceal my anger, but I don’t think I would be able to disguise my embarrassment and feeling of humiliation.
But then, unlike Obama, I really, really don’t like to be carried.
Hahahaha!
Awesome.
ROFL.
Islamist extremists simply don’t understand the concept of free speech, or how our gov’t cannot prevent its’ citizens from activities offensive to Islam. They are secure in their belief that killing those they consider infidels is another step towards Paradise and all those welcoming virgins.
Thank goodness we just sent the Muslim Brotherhood another 1.5 billion, that’ll show ‘em.
Exactly right, sophie. We keep sticking our noses into situations that aren’t our business and cultures we do not understand. Obviously this has been going on for a long time but as if world leaders weren’t screwing it up badly enough, it’s coming to a particularly volatile head now, in part because of the access the Internet creates for people with half-baked or ignorant or fanatic or devious intentions.
Freedom of speech, like all freedom and privilege, comes with responsibility. And when that responsibility is ignored, all kinds of worms come out of the can.
I was attacked for warning about this while so many were wildly cheering the Facebook fueled “revolution” in Egypt and elsewhere called the Arab Spring. This is headed in a very dangerous direction.
Mubarek and Ghadafi would have fallen sooner or later, leaving a vacuum that islamic militants would have filled. The proper response for the West should have been to give a shove to the old regimes, while cultivating moderates to replace them. We did the former only belatedly & half-heartedly, and the latter not one bit.
The approach I hear advocated by Zal & others is: ‘anyone who believes mohammed had a flying horse deserves to live under a dictatorship to keep them docile.’
Zal,
I agree that we are always sticking our noses into other people’s business (I again recommend reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein to those who has not read it), however, when attack against our embassies happens, we the people expect the person in charge to make a statement and be a leader. A statement defending our liberites and our laws and our free speech. I doubt if many people would want our leader to apologize.
I’m from Europe originally and one of the reasons that Queen Elizabeth II and her parents and sister were forgiven much and were so popular is the way they comported themselves during WWII. During a crisis it is human nature and instinct that we look to those who represent us – our leadership – to defend us. We have been in a financial crisis some years now and the leadership has instead consspired with the banks and financial institutions. Despite this, however, when an act of aggression is made against our people and on our soil (as embassies are purported to be) it behooves our government to stand up for its people and its principles and its laws.
I don’t like Romney and will not vote for him, however, I think his statement was fine. I don’t think it was strong enough.
BTW went to a Jill Stein rally on the weekend and met her. I hope enough people vote for her to make a difference and register their protest at the voting booth.
I agree with everything you said here Senneth, and I think obviously our embassy issuing an apology sounded stupid and childishly fearful. Interesting that, although apparently there’s concern that my criticism of what Romney said threatens free speech, nobody here has complained that criticizing what the embassy said threatens free speech. I guess, as is often the case, getting defensive about free speech depends on whether or not one likes what’s being said.
I disapproved of the US getting involved in Libyans’ fight to overthrow Gadhafi because that was their fight, not ours. It’s generally a bad idea to get involved in other people’s civil wars and revolutions, that’s a mistake the US has been making for years. I don’t care if it’s strangers, friends, or other countries, assuming other people would be better off living as we do, or that it’s even possible, is one of the dumbest assumptions there is.
My point about Romney, however, stands. All I can tell you is I’d take the same position no matter who the candidate is. I don’t disapprove of him making a comment, only one that criticizes the current administration before the dust has settled and danger of violence against our people has passed. There hadn’t even been public confirmation of who’d been killed when he issued his statement. What he said didn’t help anything (from what I’ve seen it didn’t even help him get new supporters) and was gratuitously inflammatory. I want a President who knows how to stand strong and also knows how to measure his or her words and actions.
4 dead including the US Ambassador to Libya.
I agree with Zal and Sophie, this is a barbaric incident within a region of the world that shows very little inclination to anything beyond ongoing barbarism.
A few Americans posting from their parents’ basements have a Rambo complex. There seems to be a streak in our culture that thinks it can simply paste Western culture on to the Eastern brain….Oth, it is imperative that our politicians realize all we can hope for is an armed truce of sorts, no matter how hard we try,or how much we spend. They are Never going to take us home to meet Mom, unless, of course, Mom is heavily armed.
Sophie, are you referring to what I said?
I hope I havent come across like Rambo or jingoisti
I agree with what you posted and that’s my inherent frustration, we aren’t going to Westernize the Muslim world yet we keep trying. There is nothing new about yesterday’s events, and that’s even more frustrating.
If I said something out of line I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Again, agree 100%.
Except for the “from their parent’s basements” characterization because the truth is it’s also seemingly nice normal likable people with average jobs and children of their own. A lot of these people do not present as crazies holed up in their parent’s basements. Especially online. I know that’s just a creative line describing them but I can’t stress strongly enough that evil doesn’t necessarily wear horns and a tail or schlep around in the cellar; don’t be fooled by people who appear agreeable, people you feel an urge to like and side with, because sometimes they come across that way by design; while you’re being charmed by them, they’re stealing your wallet and slicing up your grandchildren.
Dan, I think sophie may have been referring to Florida pastor Terry Jones, who in the past tried to rile up people by burning the Koran and its now being rumored is behind the proliferation in Europe and the Middle East of the YouTube that sparked these protests and killings.
Again, like I said, if something I posted was out of line I’d like to hear your thoughts. I do come here to post my thoughts, but also to hear others thoughts and insights for a better understanding of those around me.
Sophie,
I agree that acting like “Rambo” is inappropriate. I don’t think the “owners” of our government care about westernizing the Middle East. I think we are short of resources and we are in a resource war. A lot of what is going on in the ME is because of rising food prices. Our public foreign policies are much different than what is really happening through our satellites like the CIA, etc..
However, when an act of agression occurs a lot of emotions are stirred up and the citizens want a government who’ll stand up for them. While a measured response is needed, the people expect their government to stand up for them. Zero has done zero of this. I think grimmer times are ahead.
O my goodness Dan, I would never criticize anyone for trying to understand the unthinkable.
I was referring to those who fail to see how their actions may have horrible consequences..The ‘pastor’ in Fl. is a perfect example.
Once again, my blabby fingers get ahead of my brain, the movie seemed like some sort of student film class prank.. I learned this a.m. that it cost 5 million dollars and was produced by a supposed grown up.As things evolve, that may also turn out to be untrue. It is such a contradiction that some of those who use the web to get out their ‘message’ seem to think it only exists in a pro West vacuum. Our enemies may have at least one foot in the fourteenth Century, but the tools of their trade are firmly in the twenty first.
That said, as usual, the WH has made a hash of this, as expected, Any apology on the anniversary of 9/11 is dishonorable and disgraceful, imo.
I unequivocally defend Terry Jones’ right to say whatever he likes, and burn whatever books he wants. I defend the filmmakers’ right to portray whatever they want. I defend the moslems’ right to go fuck themselves.
So, do I. The alternative is outrageous and intolerable — that others (particularly medievalists) should somehow dictate the content and parameters of our exercise of free speech through violence or the threat thereof. This is a hill we should defend to the death.
What tamerlane and NES said.
Agree with Tamerlane and NES. And also point out that the “religion of peace” has no issuses with demeaning other religions or murdering people who embrace another faith. We need to stop apologizing to a culture that thinks nothing of stoning women or gays or butchering people of other religions. If JFK hadn’t met strength with strength in the Bay of Pigs incident we would be living quite another history.
Yes, senneth! Well put.
Thanks, NES.
p.s. the more things change……
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
High School History classes are underrated..we forget them when we become ‘ sophisticated’ grownups..
I guess the last thing I’ll say on this is that I’m all for religious tolerance, and I don’t think that anyone should for any reason have their right to free speech impinged upon. I don’t think people should have to live under a dictatorship either.
The fundamental disconnect for me is that we’re preaching a gospel of religious tolerance to a group of people who worship a man who went to heaven on a pegasus and also believe that they are compelled to defend, with violence, the literal sanctity of his image.
Granted, at the same time one can argue that a man who was concieved immaculately and rose from the dead is equally quaint in its superstitious value, but when The Last Temptation of Christ came out in the 90s I’m pretty sure nobody was killed in protest.
That’s not a completely apples to apples analogy. It’s not simply a religious problem, I fully admit that. It’s frustrating that it is constantly framed as a religous issue. There is a lot of history that got us to where we are in the Middle East.. but the notion that if we just be benevolent that Islamic radicals will somehow evolve and there will be an Arab Spring is pretty quaint as well. The only thing that seems to have evolved throughout the time that the West has been there is the level of violence, the capacity for destruction and the speed and scale in which it takes place.
“It’s hard to find out what happened in Libya..it sounds like there was a firefight between the people within the compound and the people outside, who were armed with RPGs and guns and during that the American was killed.”
So, is anyone asking how the “protesters” got RPGs. And why bring them to a “protest”? Did they run out of signs at the last minute and someone suggested that waving artillery around would be effective form of communication.
gxm, ROFL. As always, humor packs the most wisdom.
a quick comment…yesterday before we heard of the attacks and when most of the media was talking about O and Netanyahu…I happened to catch this ‘foreign policy expert’ on Cnn, i believe with Erin Burnett…i do not watch that show but just happend to catch the discussion…and I could not believe the words out of the woman speaking as the fp expert…I wish i could find the clip to post…bottom line…in the discussion, when asked why O would not make time for Netanyahu, she actually said with a big smile on her face…that O was mad because of the dressing down Net gave to O in the past and he was going to get back at him…
unbelievable…this on top of missing his security meetings
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
by chance, just saw a breaking news special report at 4 pm and Scott Pelley came on with a recap of the Libyan attacks and they went right to Steve Kroft who interviewed O for 60 minutes and asked him about Romney’s response…what an freaking set up
and then O says “Sometimes Gov Romney has the habit of shooting with aiming….bla, bla, bla
the whole point of the breaking news with Pelley was to get the clip on of O insulting MR
cannot stand how this media protects and lies to protect O…borderline unamerican
Bob Woodward’s book, the price of politics…where he goes on about O and his immature arrogance that brought us to the brink of another financial collapse…
we have got to vote this guy out…his vanity is destroying this country…
Wiser words have ne’er been spake.
http://www.therightscoop.com/exclusive-open-mic-captures-press-coordinating-questions-for-romney-no-matter-who-he-calls-on-were-covered/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/press-coordinates-question-ask-romney_652241.html
Here’s the transcript:
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….
CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*
CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?
CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*
CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..
**Later**
CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?
***************************************************************
CBS is knee deep in pimping for O
…on the other hand, I don’t blame the press corps for coordination efforts to make sure that certain questions get answered.
I saw the first part of press conference this morning as I’m on the west coast. It was the press at their worst – asking the exact same meaningless question over and over and over again: “Don’t you regret the statement from last night.” Answer: No. “But, in light of the ambassador killed, don’t you regret . . .” Answer: No. “But, if you knew then what you know now. . ” Answer: Not going to answer hypotheticals, particularly given the seriousness of this situation. “So, you won’t say whether you would have, knowing now what you know . . ” I wanted to stick a fork in my eye because this is what our – I won’t even call them press – has come to.
I wanted to know how would Romney address this situation as President. Who does he think is really in charge in these countries. Would he pull embassy staff out? Does he think it’s a declaration of war? Would he consider/authorize military action? What are our next steps in that area? What would he say to Morsi when he’s in NY for the UN? Would he take this action of agression to the UN? There are endless substantive questions we actually need answers to from the person who might be our next president in evaluating his fitness for office. Did our press get to them? I certainly don’t know since they spent 15 minutes asking nonsense questions – that apparently they are such idiotic sheep they need to coordinate to ask 1 stupid question 50 different ways – and I had to go to work and turned it off.
We are in deep trouble, people. We have no 4th estate any longer.
Correct run, we have no Fourth Estate. The thought steams me every day. Another great reason to send this guy packing back to where he came from.
Jay, do you mean the same, superficial question…over and over again…
How about the press asking:
“President O, do you really think you should be going to Vegas today for yet another fundraiser? perhaps you should stay in town and do the work we hired you for, especially since our ambassador was murdered and our embassys are in flames…perhaps you might consider starting with going to your daily security briefings”
…oh silly me…instead the press serves the public so much better by trying to attack Romney on his right to free speech..ah, yes…they set such a wonderful example for other countries to emulate…
.
Free speech should always be defended, but common sense needs an equal seat at the table. I don’t blame the pastor in Fl., I even kind of agree with him. Maybe we should burn a Koran every time they burn our flag..
Yeah that’ll end well.
I’m with Gandhi: an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
I just saw a movie trailer with Sam Rockwell (love him) where someone says “an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind” and he said “no it would leave the world with one guy with one eye” it was funny, I think the movie is Seven Psychopaths…
Zal, I’m so upset even my snarking makes no sense. Is it still all Bush’s fault or has the needle moved to Romney ?
O can’t be blamed, as you no doubt know, he has skipped at least half of his security briefings,
appearances on Letterman being so much more educational for him.
As President, Obama’s to blame. Bush is long gone and Romney’s only showing us who he’ll be, how he’ll make choices, if elected.
But the world has changed, people in the US have changed, and more and more ordinary people are also to blame. The pastor in Florida for instance. People who become Internet savvy and try to create discord or chaos are not making anything better, they’re part of the problem that just gets bigger and bigger.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity (sic)
WB Yeats
If that were true Obama would be the best.
Sorry Yeats, thumbs down from me on that one.
Awww man, why the Yeats hate Zal?
I’d always undertood that poem to mean that when we need the best to step up and lead, they were nowhere to be found. Their absence was filled by the worst, the demagogues, those filled with the passionate intensity of their beliefs.
I’d stick Obama on team 2, as I’m sure Yeats wouldve.
Well I don’t know what Yeats would’ve thought of Obama but I know what I see and I don’t see passionate intensity in Obama, I see a lack of all convictions.
Maybe it’s just me but that’s what I see.
I think Yeat’s reaction to Obama would’ve been: “Aye Jaysus, who is this gobshite?”
I should know better than to quote poetry ;P
So, I’m watching cable news and it’s 4 am in Cairo and there are men teeming around the US embassy burning stuff – who knows what – and getting ready it looks like to rampage AGAIN. I’ll just say it. Maybe if they got up at 4 am to engage in productive, industrious activity, they’d build the type of life for themselves and their family where they wouldn’t want to go off on a murderous rage every time someone posts a stupid you tube video. I’m just sayin’
Worth saying. One of the problems is there’s massive unemployment in Egypt, particularly for young men (the troublemakers in any population). But, still, point well taken.
I sorry about what will happen after Friday (jummah) prayers — some idiot mullah may say something to spark another riot. I hope the Marines are already in place — all over the M-East. Friday prayers are key events in riot world.
Erratum: “I worry about what will happen….”
he is busy golfing all month long!
Not so Smart, Mr. Smart! It is easier to blog, than to manage the affair of a state, and if you live in the USA, no one needs to remind you how many Presidents failed to manage the affairs of the country well, why should it be easier for a country threatened by extinction? The snarky, smug, snotty comments do not add a bit to the discussion because you, and your like cannot figure what this man has in mind or how he believes he could obtain the results that they expect. Few know, and it is simply too early to tell. I suggest, cool your jets. A little humility goes a long way!