The Gawd-Awful Video That Enraged The Gawd-Awful Islamists


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

Personal image in politics is so damn hard to eliminate from the voters' minds, isn't it? You can make a case that the real Obama is a cynical steel hearted Communist and/or fanatical sharia jihadist, a secret homosexual and so on...lots of net nutters believe all of these ... and you can demonstrate Romney to be a fine caring ethical person who has used his wealth to try and make the world better...

And you look at the two of them, and you admire Romney But Obama, for some reason, you just like.

Adam excepted of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Carol:

He is a marxist. His mentor was a registered Communist. This is not disputed.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politicians lie and cover up. I don't think Obama is a good president. But I hope his lies are in the hope of preventing more war and violence, not encouraging it.

Carol,

Any lies told by Barack Obama have the purpose of gaining or keeping political power for Barack Obama.

Nothing more.

May the count of American dead not rise.

If it doesn't, under President Obama's policies, he will be the beneficiary of sheer dumb luck.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I agree with all of this. Politicians all want to get and keep power.

It is what they wish to use that power for, that concerns all of us. Romney's No Apology, jump-to-foregone conclusions mode, and the fact that most of his foreign policy advisors are Bushites, are scarier to me than Obama's blunderings.

This especially concerns me because Harper is very tight with Netanyahu and the Republican machine. If there is a war I am afraid we will be drawn into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mona Eltahawy has gotten part of what she wanted: suppressive measures by the Metropolitan Transport Authority.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/nyregion/mta-amends-rules-after-pro-israel-ads-draw-controversy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

He is a marxist. His mentor was a registered Communist. This is not disputed.

Adam

I never disputed his mentor. My mentor was an Objectivist however, so I dispute your assertion.

Fair enough. I believe that I can make the case, but now is not the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mona Eltahawy has gotten part of what she wanted: suppressive measures by the Metropolitan Transport Authority.

http://www.nytimes.c...tw-nytimes&_r=0

Robert Campbell

Now that is an unbelievable act of cowardice. This has to go into Federal Court immediately. I am going to make some inquiries this weekend.

This is the 1919 case all over again.

I have to check who is the head of the MTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney's No Apology, jump-to-foregone conclusions mode, and the fact that most of his foreign policy advisors are Bushites, are scarier to me than Obama's blunderings.

So the fact that Mitt Romney was right about the attacks in Benghazi, and Obama was wrong about them, redounds to Obama's benefit?

This might be in need of further explanation.

That Dubya was the fount of all evil remains an idée fixe for many on the Left, both inside and outside of the United States. It's outlived the election of Barack Obama and the subsequent continuation of many of Bush's policies by the very man who was expected to redeem us from them.

I never liked Dubya and the Republican Party is still recovering from his influence, but the demonization has always struck me as disproportionate. Especially when Dubya is blamed only for his foreign policy.

While some are sure that Mitt Romney will be awful, because there are Bushies among his advisers, the weeping and wailing about his supposedly fatally flawed campaign has largely come from all the other Bushies whom Romney has left out in the cold.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charming crew...

http://www.mta.info/mta/leadership/board.htm

Ferrer - ex Borough President of the Bronx and David Patterson [good man].

Well at least I know two (2) them. Ferrer is a less than adequate politician.

Patterson is an honest man and I personally like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney's No Apology, jump-to-foregone conclusions mode, and the fact that most of his foreign policy advisors are Bushites, are scarier to me than Obama's blunderings.

So the fact that Mitt Romney was right about the attacks in Benghazi, and Obama was wrong about them, redounds to Obama's benefit?

This might be in need of further explanation.

That Dubya was the fount of all evil remains an idée fixe for many on the Left, both inside and outside of the United States. It's outlived the election of Barack Obama and the subsequent continuation of many of Bush's policies by the very man who was expected to redeem us from them.

I never liked Dubya and the Republican Party is still recovering from his influence, but the demonization has always struck me as disproportionate. Especially when Dubya is blamed only for his foreign policy.

While some are sure that Mitt Romney will be awful, because there are Bushies among his advisers, the weeping and wailing about his supposedly fatally flawed campaign has largely come from all the other Bushies whom Romney has left out in the cold.

Robert Campbell

It is only foreign policy I am concerned with here, as I am foreign. If Benghazi had happened under a Romney presidency, what would his advisors advise him to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Obama, for some reason, you just like.

I don't consider President Obama to be a Marxist.

Those who believe that Barack Obama is a social democrat, who will build a bigger Welfare State and keep on building, or that he is an enviro, who will ban pipelines, boost energy costs skyward, and lavish subsidies on politically connected Greens, or that he is an American unexceptionalist, who has a project of weakening the United States diplomatically and militarily, all have a point. (Obama is also weakening the United States financially, but this was not his actual plan. He is probably still puzzled about the resounding success that the stimulus never had. But actually learning anything about economics would not have been conducive to his personal advancement, in the past or in the present.)

The social democracy, environmentalism, and unexceptionalism are all positions that President Obama has adopted to curry favor with authority figures in his past, and to elicit support from his political party's client groups in the present.

Ultimately, however, he has no ideology and no principles. He is too narcissistic to stand for anything, save the aggrandizement of Barack Obama.

So why would anyone who does not expect to receive advancement from Barack Obama, or from his underlings, "just like" him?

Barack Obama doesn't care about any of these people who just like him—not even a little bit. He despises everyone who is not a member of his immediate coterie. In most cases, he doesn't even like other Democrats who hold political power well enough to work effectively with them.

Are millions of people so easily bamboozled by this guy?

I don't like Bill Clinton, but I find it easy to understand why many others do like him. His empathy for large numbers of people is real, although the uses that he often makes of what it brings him are not with their best interests at heart.

Given Mitt Romney's political history, I was prepared to dislike him much more than I do. Away from politics, Willard Milton Romney has been a pretty admirable person.

Whereas away from politics, away from the present client groups of the Democratic Party, I'm not sure that Barack Obama would ever have been anything at all.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only foreign policy I am concerned with here, as I am foreign. If Benghazi had happened under a Romney presidency, what would his advisors advise him to do?

Carol,

You don't think that, say, running up humongous debts or shoving dollar-denominated interest rates to the floor for years on end have effects outside the United States?

I figure that a President Mitt Romney would have tried to ensure that security was better at embassies and consulates in certain countries. If a successful attack had nonetheless been carried out—as it still might have—I figure that his aim would be to go after those responsible as soon as they were identified, and to do so with or without the cooperation of the local government (the latter being better—when it can be reliably obtained). I hope—for I am actually less sure about his response here—that in the process he would make no advance concessions to Islamic Imperialism, whether along the lines of Dubya's "hijacking a great religion" or Obama's most recent references to "blasphemy" and "slandering the Prophet." I presume that Romney understands world political realities well enough to know that sucking up to Islamic Supremacists will not get them to like us any better; it will only get them to hit us harder and more often.

Is your concern that a President Willard Milton would respond to an attack in Benghazi with a carpet-nuking of Libya, or an all-out war on Iran, or something along those lines?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only foreign policy I am concerned with here, as I am foreign. If Benghazi had happened under a Romney presidency, what would his advisors advise him to do?

Carol,

You don't think that, say, running up humongous debts or shoving dollar-denominated interest rates to the floor for years on end have effects outside the United States?

I figure that a President Mitt Romney would have tried to ensure that security was better at embassies and consulates in certain countries. If a successful attack had nonetheless been carried out—as it still might have—I figure that his aim would be to go after those responsible as soon as they were identified, and to do so with or without the cooperation of the local government (the latter being better—when it can be reliably obtained). I hope—for I am actually less sure about his response here—that in the process he would make no advance concessions to Islamic Imperialism, whether along the lines of Dubya's "hijacking a great religion" or Obama's most recent references to "blasphemy" and "slandering the Prophet." I presume that Romney understands world political realities well enough to know that sucking up to Islamic Supremacists will not get them to like us any better; it will only get them to hit us harder and more often.

Is your concern that a President Willard Milton would respond to an attack in Benghazi with a carpet-nuking of Libya, or an all-out war on Iran, or something along those lines?

Robert Campbell

No,-- it is just that I don't have any idea how he would have responded, and we do have an idea of how his advisors advised Bush to respond to things.

I know our economy is a lot tied to yours, but I try to worry about only one hypothetical apocalypse at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good piece of time line work by Bret Baier, pretty solid reporter from the old school of here are the facts in time sequence that we are reasonably sure of:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1867119840001/ Can't get it to embed...

Here is the page from the Hyscience blog:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2012/09/must-watch_vide_6.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Hyscience+%28Hyscience%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know our economy is a lot tied to yours, but I try to worry about only one hypothetical apocalypse at a time.

Carol,

Not just Canada's to the USA's.

We do live in an age of globalization.

Financial writers worry how a collapse in the Eurozone would hurt North America economically.

How, for that matter, a recession in Japan or China would hurt North America economically.

I think they have good reasons to worry.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know our economy is a lot tied to yours, but I try to worry about only one hypothetical apocalypse at a time.

Carol,

Not just Canada's to the USA's.

We do live in an age of globalization.

Financial writers worry how a collapse in the Eurozone would hurt North America economically.

How, for that matter, a recession in Japan or China would hurt North America economically.

I think they have good reasons to worry.

Robert Campbell

Oh, no.

Lucky for my fragile psyche, I consider economists and their pundits the financial writers, to be slightly less reliable at predicting the future than philosophers. Only with the aid of this irrational prejuduce can I face each new day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky for my fragile psyche, I consider economists and their pundits the financial writers, to be slightly less reliable at predicting the future than philosophers. Only with the aid of this irrational prejuduce can I face each new day.

Carol,

You're right. Economists and business/finance writers don't have such a great track record at predicting the future. The good ones will explain why they think trends are going to go in the predicted direction—which makes blame assignment easier when the predictions turn out to be wrong, and credit assignment easier when they turn out right.

All of this also applies when they assure their readers that everything is going to get better and better.

And here's one of the more reliable generalizations currently available: government debt that's hit 100% of GDP and keeps on growing is not a positive economic indicator.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good piece of time line work by Bret Baier, pretty solid reporter from the old school of here are the facts in time sequence that we are reasonably sure of:

http://video.foxnews.../1867119840001/ Can't get it to embed...

Here is the page from the Hyscience blog:

http://www.hyscience...ent=Yahoo! Mail

The Administration's Messy Story on Libya Attack

Washington is notorious for dropping news it doesn’t want scrutinized too closely on the last day of the work week. So last Friday was a convenient time for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to release a statement about the Obama Administration’s conflicting accounts of the attack that killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.

The ODNI statement appears intentionally vague on exactly what it knew when and who was told. It does little to address concerns that the President’s senior supporters seemed more concerned about minimizing criticism of the White House than addressing the threat of transnational terrorism.

The question remains: Why did senior officials issue contradictory and wrong accounts of what happened during the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi?

It took the intelligence community more than a week to get out the clarifying statement—and its “explanation” came only after the Administration started taking heat for initially downplaying the involvement of terrorists in the Benghazi attack. This raises concerns that the ODNI statement is more about providing political cover for the White House than answering serious questions about the misstatement from the President’s spokespersons.

From the outset, there was more than a little confusion about what government officials knew when. As Heritage’s Helle Dale noted on Thursday:

Reportedly,
U.S. intelligence sources
knew within the first 24 hours of the attack that not only was al-Qaeda involved, but also which members and even where one of them lived. And yet, Administration officials toed the line unfailingly that the murders were provoked by the YouTube trailer for
Innocence of Muslims
.

The Administration’s official line on embassy attacks was already shaky, after Twitter posts, press statements, and other official pronouncements related to the attack on the U.S. embassy in Cairo were pulled from State Department websites.

But the worst was Ambassador Susan Rice’s defense of the Administration on television last weekend. Rice vigorously asserted that the attack in Benghazi was not “premeditated,” even as she must have known top Libyan officials were already declaring that the attacks were planned.

The Administration’s response to Benghazi drew even more scrutiny in the following days, as the President delivered a muddled speech to the U.N. General Assembly that appeared more focused on placating anti-American sentiment than expressing outrage over a terrorist attack on American citizens.

By the end of the week, it was clear that the White House was taking more heat for its handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack than it wanted. And that was when the ODNI statement suddenly appeared, stating that it had initially informed senior officials that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously.” Only later, the statement adds, did it receive additional evidence pointing to a deliberate attack.

Clearly, acknowledging that terrorism is alive and well looks bad for the Obama Administration’s rhetoric, which has portrayed Obama as having vanquished Osama bin Laden and thus ending the “war on terrorism.” The chaotic handling of the Libya attack points to one of two culprits: incompetence or dishonesty. The American people deserve the truth, whatever that may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent treatment of Barack Obama's continued employment of appeasing, anti-free-speech rhetoric, in his speech at the United Nations:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/president-obama-says-we-must-condemn-tho

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent treatment of Barack Obama's continued employment of appeasing, anti-free-speech rhetoric, in his speech at the United Nations:

http://reason.com/bl...ust-condemn-tho

Robert Campbell

Yes, but the people who vote for him don't read, think or care about any such except they agree with and support their tribal leader.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, now we know that there was no—repeat, no—street demonstration in Benghazi over the craptastic video.

All there was on September 11, 2012 was an assault on the virtually undefended consulate, by 400 heavily armed men.

So much for blaming Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and his equally low-rent associates for the work of Al Qa'eda and Ansar al-Shari'a.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now