Benghazi

[B-Man]

WaPo: Obama’s wishful thinking won’t win war on terror

 

The Washington Post’s editorial on the embassy closings and the worldwide terror alert is worth noting for a couple of reasons. First, the Post’s editors call out Barack Obama for his naïveté in dealing with terrorism, especially on the issues of captured terrorists and the administration’s utter lack of preparation of dealing with that issue in the future:

 

THE STATE Department

has shuttered 19 embassies for a week

, fearing terrorist attacks. Hundreds of prisoners, including senior al-Qaeda operatives, have busted loose in

prison breaks in Iraq, Libya and Pakistan

. At Bagram air base in Afghanistan,

The Post’s Kevin Sieff reports

, U.S. forces are holding 67 non-Afghan prisoners, many of whom can’t be tried in court but are too dangerous to release.

 

Meanwhile

President Obama says

he wants to “refine and ultimately repeal” the mandate Congress has given him to fight the war on terror. What’s going on here?

 

Good question. The forces of AQ have just exploded over the last three-plus weeks, thanks to the eleven jailbreaks that seem to have been coordinated in correlation, at least, to the current threat. What will the US do with them if we capture those escapees in order to end the threat? Er … no one really knows:

From the beginning of his tenure, the president has been reluctant to build a legal framework that would assume that the fight against al-Qaeda and like-minded groups might go on for a long time. He not only proposed closing the prison at Guantanamo, rightly given its poisonous effect on the United States’ image, but he also opposed options to hold prisoners taken in future operations. That may be one reason

so many alleged terrorists

have been

killed

during his time in office and

so few captured

.

 

This President has been reluctant to even use the terminology of war, preferring anodyne euphemismslike “overseas contingency operations,” “kinetic military operations” (applied to Libyan intervention), and my favorite, “man-caused disasters.” All of those replacements intended to downplay the threat of terrorism and the actions needed to address it. That’s either explicitly dishonest or a case of wishful thinking, although I’d bet that it’s the latter more than the former.

 

{snip}

 

Finally, the editors express amazement that Obama is talking about ending the war as AQ is obviously expanding it. John Kerry made a commitment to end drone strikes in Pakistan “very, very soon,” based on a “very real timeline” from Obama himself, who said in May that “This war, like all wars, must end.” A refusal to fight a war is not the same as ending it, the Post reminds the President:

But like all wars,

this one will end only if one party is defeated or both agree to lay down their weapons. Neither appears likely any time soon, and the president’s eagerness to disengage, while understandable and in sync with U.S. public opinion, may in the end lengthen the conflict

. His hope of fighting the bad guys as antiseptically as possible, with drone strikes and a minimal presence, may prove as forlorn as President Clinton’s similar effort in the 1990s, when the equivalent weapon at his disposal was cruise missiles.

 

That’s exactly correct. The question will be whether this week’s events will change the calculus in the White House. If ever there was a wake-up call on the danger of al-Qaeda that doesn’t involve a successful terrorist attack, this should be it.

[Nanker]

This isn't the first time we've faced a fanatic enemy that would rather die than surrender. WWII would have been lost if the clowns in office now were running the country back then. They're gutless and clueless about anything but how to live the high life which they do with ease and impunity and with little regard for the American people.

[dayman]

But like all wars, this one will end only if one party is defeated or both agree to lay down their weapons. Neither appears likely any time soon, and the president’s eagerness to disengage, while understandable and in sync with U.S. public opinion, may in the end lengthen the conflict.

His hope of fighting the bad guys as antiseptically as possible, with drone strikes and a minimal presence, may prove as forlorn

as President Clinton’s similar effort in the 1990s, when the equivalent weapon at his disposal was cruise missiles

 

 

What the hell is this?

[DC Tom]

Call me old fashioned, but I remember a day long long ago when a President would go on TV and explain to the citizens residents why we bombed some random country. Now it's just Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select Start, and in go the Drones

 

That's when it used to be a rare event.

[DC Tom]

This isn't the first time we've faced a fanatic enemy that would rather die than surrender. WWII would have been lost if the clowns in office now were running the country back then. They're gutless and clueless about anything but how to live the high life which they do with ease and impunity and with little regard for the American people.

 

Of course, with the Japanese it helped that their God explicitly gave up.

 

I don't really see Allah doing that any time soon.

[B-Man]

 

Al Qaeda Scoops American Media On Fact They Are Not Decimated

 

FTA:

It is all well and good that Chuck Todd, the Washington Post and others in media are now waking up to the fact that Obama was either exaggerating about having al Qaeda "on the run," or was simply oblivious to their franchising efforts. But now that it is America "on the run" throughout the Middle East and North Africa, Americans don't really need the media to report what is glaringly obvious.

 

And does the media feel even a hint of shame now that a terrorist organization has scooped them on the rather important headline that al Qaeda is still viable, organized, a real threat, and apparently still led by longtime #2, Al Zawahiri (but-but-but Obama said al Qaeda's leadership had been vaporized!) -- especially when the media spent the last two years stenographing and applauding Obama's repeated boasts?

 

Where was the skepticism about Obama's brags? Where was the investigative reporting? Where was the pressing for details and answers and facts and figures from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney?

 

Obviously, there was none of that -- or at least nowhere near enough of it -- especially during an election year. But of course, there were other pressing issues during the 2012 campaign that the media felt were more important than verifying a sitting president's election year fibbing about the status of al Qaeda.

 

Top Ten Things the Media Found More Important Than Verifying Obama's Claims About 'Decimating' al Qaeda...

10. Michele Obama's biceps.

9. What about your gaaaaaafffffes....?

8. The cost of Ann Romney's blouse.

7. The dog on Romney's roof.

6. Sarah Palin's emails.

5. A rock on a ranch that is NOT owned by Rick Perry.

4. A hapless filmmaker hunted down by Hillary Clinton top avenge her criminal indifference to consulate security.

3. A fifty year-old haircut.

2. The ObamaSharpton race hoax surrounding George Zimmerman.

and the number one........

1. Who would pay for Sandra Fluke's sexual activity.

 

My God, not even a successful terror attack committed by al Qaeda affiliates in Libya could get the media to push the issue. In an obvious effort to pretend a statement about a successful terror attack was a bigger blunder than Obama not adequately protecting an American outpost, after four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, all the media did was to attack Mitt Romney for ten days

 

Last week the Boston Globe was sold at a 93% loss. Yesterday the Washington Post was sold for 13% of what it was worth a decade ago.

 

That is because another word for useless, is worthless.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

 

No, our president is a thug and the media is too afraid of him and/or in love with him to hold his feet to the fire. In his 4 1/2 years in office he's presided over a half dozen scandals each every bit as serious as Watergate was. Today's "journalists" covering the White House are a discredit to the people that came before them that could actually be called journalists.

 

They are only journalists when its a republican, then they trip over each other digging up anything that has the slightest chance that might end up in a scandal.

[CosmicBills]

They are only journalists when its a republican, then they trip over each other digging up anything that has the slightest chance that might end up in a scandal.

Tell that to Michael Hastings' family...

[OCinBuffalo]

I'll take, Biggest Lie Ever Told on PPP for 200, Alex.

Ahh....and yet again we see the difference between you and I, and most libertarians and liberals as well:

 

I'm not a hateful prick. Or, I don't see Obama losing = me winning.

 

Unlike Bushbad people, like yourself, I see this entire thing as terrible for all of us. And, if he was able to accomplish things/had his approach, on pretty much everything, actually worked? I'd be the first to give him credit. I wanted the guy to succeed, because I wanted the country to succeed, and, I wanted liberals to succeed as well. For about 9 months, I thought we might be seeing a historical event happening in real time.

 

They had a great chance to get a lot of things done that were important to them, and us as well. Rather than taking the opportunity and being practical, they squandered it on...perhaps the single biggest act of masturbation in human history.

 

It's all terribly sad, really.

 

That doesn't mean I won't laugh at liberals for being stupid. On the contrary, subjecting them to ridicule is not only appropriate, apparently it's the only way they will ever learn something.

Edited August 7, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[CosmicBills]

Ahh....and yet again we see the difference between you and I...

 

(Yaaaawwwwwwn)

The difference between you and me is I have a fully functioning frontal lobe. We've been over this.

[OCinBuffalo]

The difference between you and me is I have a fully functioning frontal lobe. We've been over this.

Hilarious.

 

Thanks for proving my point. Nah, you're not a hateful prick at all.

 

The only thing we've been over is: you make my point for me, or make easy for me to ridicule you, in 8/10 threads.

[CosmicBills]

Hilarious.

 

Thanks for proving my point. Nah, you're not a hateful prick at all.

 

The only thing we've been over is: you make my point for me, or make easy for me to ridicule you, in 8/10 threads.

That ratio is more than a little off... and if you think I'm hateful that's a you problem. I'm actually quite pleasant. Charming some say. I just refuse to suffer fools which explains why we don't get along.

 

...That and my fear of people who use emoticons as a crutch.

[OCinBuffalo]

That ratio is more than a little off... and if you think I'm hateful that's a you problem. I'm actually quite pleasant. Charming some say. I just refuse to suffer fools which explains why we don't get along.

 

...That and my fear of people who use emoticons as a crutch.

Dude, you...suffering fools?

 

Let's clarify: on this board? You are the fool, and we decide if we will suffer you.

 

You are a somewhat amusing toy to play with, but that's about it. That's because: just like right now, you never provide anything worth discussing....

 

If you actually has a history of posting insight here? Then you could talk about who is a fool, and who isn't.

 

You're merely a parrot. And parrots suffer everything, and everybody, because all they can do is repeat.

[DC Tom]

That ratio is more than a little off... and if you think I'm hateful that's a you problem. I'm actually quite pleasant. Charming some say. I just refuse to suffer fools which explains why we don't get along.

 

I call bull ****. You work in television.

 

...That and my fear of people who use emoticons as a crutch.

 

That's a fair point, though.

[OCinBuffalo]

I call bull ****. You work in television.

 

That's a fair point, though.

Tom tries to troll. The trouble though?

 

Emoticons are a troll. And if there's anything anybody's been over on this board, it's me going over why I use them. All it takes is one poster copping to demanding that I use them, and even telling me how many to use ...but...it's been years, and nothing.

[DC Tom]

Tom tries to troll. The trouble though?

 

Do you even know what "trolling" means? I do not think that you do.

[OCinBuffalo]

Do you even know what "trolling" means? I do not think that you do.

If I did, would I describe, out in the open?

 

Look, Goooogle, you tried to propagate what you thought was a cripple fight argument, for your own peronsal enjoyment. That's obvious enough, isn't it?

 

Unfortunately for you, it wasn't. Tgreg is basically useless as a poster here. He never posts anything thoughtful. The reason why is also obvious: he can't. Everthing is an extension of BushBad. Or, an extension of whatever Media Matters is pushing today. Summed up: it's always "somebody else's ideas", cut down and reformatted in commericial jingle format. Yes, he is a TV guy, and: there you have it.

 

Bridog has more credibility.

Edited August 8, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

If I did, would I describe, out in the open?

 

Look, Goooogle, you tried to propagate what you thought was a cripple fight argument, for your own peronsal enjoyment. That's obvious enough, isn't it?

 

Unfortunately for you, it wasn't. Tgreg is basically useless as a poster here. He never posts anything thoughtful. The reason why is also obvious: he can't. Everthing is an extension of BushBad. Or, an extension of whatever Media Matters is pushing today. Summed up: it's always "somebody else's ideas", cut down and reformatted in commericial jingle format. Yes, he is a TV guy, and: there you have it.

 

Bridog has more credibility.

 

I made a joke, for tgreg's amusement and benefit. Good job blowing it WAY the hell out of proportion, you self-important gasbag.

[OCinBuffalo]

I made a joke, for tgreg's amusement and benefit. Good job blowing it WAY the hell out of proportion, you self-important gasbag.

Ok, Gooogle.

 

[DC Tom]

Ok, Gooogle.

 

 

Hey, talk to my coworkers. They call me Google. I argued against it (I suggested they call my Wikipedia - oft cited but shouldn't be, and occasionally wrong).