or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Blood on His Hands: Our President is Getting Americans Killed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blood on His Hands: Our President is Getting Americans Killed

post #1 of 242
Thread Starter 

While Hands and company slam Mitt Romney for daring to criticize Obama, the latter's failure is now complete.   He began with an Apology Tour™.  He apologized for the Iraq War.  He said we had been arrogant.  He said we had dictated our terms instead of listening.  He gave a speech in Cairo, promising a new beginning with the Muslim world.  He wanted the U.S. to be on of many voices, not the global superpower we had become.  He lost Egypt and Libya to extremists.  He's hung Netanyahu out to dry.  

 

And now we see the results of weakness...of retreat...of kowtowing:

 

 

 

Death.  Destruction.  Anti-American violence.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is your Hope and Change.  This is the Reset Button.  This is the biggest disaster of a Presidency in our lifetimes.  

This is what your President's weakness, incompetence and radical views have gotten us.  

 

 

This is Barack Obama.    

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 242

Who really gives a shit about Americans getting killed abroad? And who gives a shit about US troops getting killed in Afghanistan? More US troops have been killed and wounded in Afghanistan under Obama's one term so far than under both Bush terms! But, like I said, who gives a shit? Certainly not the media. I bet that if you asked the average ignorant Obama voter that question on the street, they would not know that fact, as the media has intentionally censored and toned down such news for years now.

 

There are far more important issues to talk about today than about Obama's total failure and his foreign policy blunders.

 

It's far more important to attack Romney for daring to bring up and question Obama's foreign policy fiasco, than actually talking about Obama's foreign policy fiasco.

 

The current Prez, who has trouble using an iPhone, who can't spell Ohio correctly and who believes that there are 57 states, has a policy of appeasement, and America's standing in the world has only emboldened terrorists and dictators everywhere.

 

What we are seeing in the mideast is a result of appeasement, weakness and a cowardly stance from the US. I read a report which stated that Marines at the Cario embassy are not allowed to have live ammo? WTF!  This is truly amateur hour, but what else can you expect from the administration of a community organizer? The administration is so cowardly and weak now that they are using the Pentagon to make phone calls to private citizens and begging them not to support a movie? WTF! Obama is also the one who instructed NASA that they should make reaching out to the Muslim world one of their priorities? WTF? What does NASA have to do with Muslims, and why should they be reaching out? Are they looking for future rocket scientists among the crowds of savages and murderers that are storming various embassies?

 

Are we going to see a repeat of 1979? Obama seems like a slightly darker version of Carter.

post #3 of 242
Thread Starter 
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 242

This isn't the first time the U.S. government knew about a threat to its citizens and did nothing. It won't be the last.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #5 of 242

If Bush/Cheney didn't like someone, they had them waterboarded.

 

If Obama/Biden doesn't like someone, they murder them with a drone.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #6 of 242

Common on Bush and Cheney had them killed to. You never knew about it that is why. To many secrets in his administration.
 

post #7 of 242

Perhaps Obama is part of this Arab Spring with Clinton and Powers also.Trying to provoke trouble in the Middle East and against Israel.

post #8 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This isn't the first time the U.S. government knew about a threat to its citizens and did nothing. It won't be the last.

 

A specific threat?  I can't recall that happening.  You can't compare this to the pre-9/11 warnings.  Hijacking planes had a different meaning pre-9/11.  No one put together "flying planes into buildings" with hijacking passenger planes.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 242

Only a democrat president can successfully go to war in contemporary times, because he can get the media to cover up anything.  Unfortunately, instead of using this unique advantage to send the CIA to start assassinating North African extremists and heads of anti-US political parties, one by one, he is doing ... ?

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #10 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

While Hands and company slam Mitt Romney for daring to criticize Obama, the latter's failure is now complete.   He began with an Apology Tour™.  He apologized for the Iraq War.  He said we had been arrogant.  He said we had dictated our terms instead of listening.  He gave a speech in Cairo, promising a new beginning with the Muslim world.  He wanted the U.S. to be on of many voices, not the global superpower we had become.  He lost Egypt and Libya to extremists.  He's hung Netanyahu out to dry.  

 

And now we see the results of weakness...of retreat...of kowtowing:

 

 

 

Death.  Destruction.  Anti-American violence.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is your Hope and Change.  This is the Reset Button.  This is the biggest disaster of a Presidency in our lifetimes.  

This is what your President's weakness, incompetence and radical views have gotten us.  

 

 

This is Barack Obama.    

Gee where were you when we had Bush for a President?lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #11 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Gee where were you when we had Bush for a President?lol.gif

I think he was writing posts about how he thought it was a disgrace that US troops were getting killed in Iraq due to ridiculous rules-of-engagement.

 

So, there's consistency on both sides.  SDW being against overseas american casualties, and most democrat posters being against foreign casualties.

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #12 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

A specific threat?  I can't recall that happening.  You can't compare this to the pre-9/11 warnings.  Hijacking planes had a different meaning pre-9/11.  No one put together "flying planes into buildings" with hijacking passenger planes.  

So because no instances come to your mind, they never happened?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #13 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


So because no instances come to your mind, they never happened?

Just for the record, WWI started over something about the same as what just happened, although not with an american.

 

It appears that, indeed, western diplomats and politicians are getting targeted and sometimes assassinated by Islamic fundamentalists and their unlikely allies in the leftist "new world order."  Pim Fortuyn is a fine example of the involvement of the latter.  I'm pretty sure there have been a few other European politicians (one Austrian guy, I seem to recall) who have also been assassinated by the same groups.

 

Will there be a big war in the future?  Yeah, probably.  There's only so far this can go.  At some point, we will have to remove their embassies.  

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #14 of 242

Islamists are like Africanized bees or fire ants. If you stir up their nest they will attack you with all of their venom until their last dying breath. The christian right have stirred up that nest and now are trying to accuse the Democrats of negligence for not issuing beekeeper suits to the embassies. You republicans are a disgrace to Americans. Take your hate, lies and cult religion and get the hell out of our country. If there was such a thing as conservative Democrats I would be their chief supporter. Radical christian rednecks should be institutionalized along with other dangerous sociopaths. Freaking loose cannons shooting their mouths off at the least opportune moment. Yeah, your candidate is electable. Not! If Romney is elected I will sell my house in the US and take up residency in the country of my other citizenship until his presidency is terminated. I almost never get angry at anything but republicans are the exception.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #15 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Islamists are like Africanized bees or fire ants. If you stir up their nest they will attack you with all of their venom until their last dying breath. The christian right have stirred up that nest and now are trying to accuse the Democrats of negligence for not issuing beekeeper suits to the embassies. You republicans are a disgrace to Americans. Take your hate, lies and cult religion and get the hell out of our country. If there was such a thing as conservative Democrats I would be their chief supporter. Radical christian rednecks should be institutionalized along with other dangerous sociopaths. Freaking loose cannons shooting their mouths off at the least opportune moment. Yeah, your candidate is electable. Not! If Romney is elected I will sell my house in the US and take up residency in the country of my other citizenship until his presidency is terminated. I almost never get angry at anything but republicans are the exception.

 

Wow. I'm trying to figure out if you are serious or a caricature of some kind.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Islamists are like Africanized bees or fire ants. If you stir up their nest they will attack you with all of their venom until their last dying breath. The christian right have stirred up that nest and now are trying to accuse the Democrats of negligence for not issuing beekeeper suits to the embassies. You republicans are a disgrace to Americans. Take your hate, lies and cult religion and get the hell out of our country. If there was such a thing as conservative Democrats I would be their chief supporter. Radical christian rednecks should be institutionalized along with other dangerous sociopaths. Freaking loose cannons shooting their mouths off at the least opportune moment. Yeah, your candidate is electable. Not! If Romney is elected I will sell my house in the US and take up residency in the country of my other citizenship until his presidency is terminated. I almost never get angry at anything but republicans are the exception.

 

Wow. I'm trying to figure out if you are serious or a caricature of some kind.

 

That's an interesting comment; I'm sure that you realize that many liberals have exactly the same reaction when they read some of the comments earlier in the thread, including #1.

post #17 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That's an interesting comment; I'm sure that you realize that many liberals have exactly the same reaction when they read some of the comments earlier in the thread, including #1.

 

I suppose so.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Wow. I'm trying to figure out if you are serious or a caricature of some kind.

I apologize. I am a bit impatient. I can't wait for evolution to cull the human genome of religious bigotry.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #19 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That's an interesting comment; I'm sure that you realize that many liberals have exactly the same reaction when they read some of the comments earlier in the thread, including #1.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I apologize. I am a bit impatient. I can't wait for evolution to cull the human genome of religious bigotry.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Islamists are like Africanized bees or fire ants. If you stir up their nest they will attack you with all of their venom until their last dying breath. The christian right have stirred up that nest and now are trying to accuse the Democrats of negligence for not issuing beekeeper suits to the embassies. You republicans are a disgrace to Americans. Take your hate, lies and cult religion and get the hell out of our country. If there was such a thing as conservative Democrats I would be their chief supporter. Radical christian rednecks should be institutionalized along with other dangerous sociopaths. Freaking loose cannons shooting their mouths off at the least opportune moment. Yeah, your candidate is electable. Not! If Romney is elected I will sell my house in the US and take up residency in the country of my other citizenship until his presidency is terminated. I almost never get angry at anything but republicans are the exception.

 

Your vitriol and insults against all Republicans and Conservatives aside, the simple fact remains that you're just...completely wrong.  The notion that somehow radical Christians (a term which you believe is synonymous with Republicans) are stirring up a hornets' nest is straight out of bizarro world.  You, in fact, demonstrate the same basic misunderstanding of what drives violence and hatred in the Middle East as our President does.  We will not improve the situation by simply being nice to them and retreating, nor is there any evidence that "radical Christian rednecks" have caused the violence.  The problems in the region (for lack of a better term at the moment) are certainly complex and go back a minimum of 60 years.  That said, radical Islamists understand only one thing: power.  Showing weakness and lack of leadership has led to violence and catastrophe before.  It is leading to it now.  And it will lead to turmoil again.  

 

They attack us, and we apologize in the hopes it calms the situation.  We retreat, and we hope that they'll forget their evil ways and learn to love us.  History is replete with examples of this kind of thinking being utterly wrong-headed, not to mention dangerous.  While vastly different situations, we saw the same idiotic approach with the Soviets.  Our kowtowing only emboldened them...and that was with a secular, rational (though clearly brutal) power which simply had a different governmental and value system.  It was only when we had a President who insisted on negotiating from a position of strength that we overcame the regime.  In this respect, radical Islam is no different.  This time, it won't require a Cold War-style arms race.  And this time, our enemy is one that doesn't wish to avoid death...it seeks death.  Our actions, at present, embolden them.  This position of weakness also cause trouble and uncertainty with our allies.  We are proving to the world that we are not serious about dealing radical Islam.  We won't even call it radical Islam.  We won't even acknowledge that we are in a war with radical Islam.  Meanwhile, they advance, and the world continues burning.  A weak America, a contrite America, an American that refuses to lead and act as the superpower it is...this only causes more violence.  

 

This conflict has nothing to do with Christianity vs. Islam.  Do you see Muslims burning crosses and effigies of Jesus Christ?  Of course not.  They are protesting America itself.  We've apologized for a movie that "we" had nothing to do with.  The administration allowed these attacks to happen.  They allowed the black flag of AQ to be raised above our embassy.  Where was Obama...before and after? Our response to Americans dying (including our ambassador) is to send 50 marines and attack Mitt Romney for daring criticize our pathetic actions.  The President should have given a national address and committed hundreds of troops to each and every threatened American interest.  He should have vowed to crush the radicals.  He should have promised to go on the offensive and stated that America will not stand for these acts.  But he won't, because this is a man who honestly believed that by virtue of his election and personal charm, the Middle East would be transformed into a peaceful Democratic region.  His failure has been laid bare, as has yours.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 242

I came back on AI due to the iPhone release, and I read a lot of PO.  What do you leftists really want?  I dare even call you liberals.  Do you seriously think it's justified for the mob to kill an ambassador?  Are you going to make excuses for that?  Really? You people are disgusting.  At least I am comforted to know that all the guns in this country are owned by your opposition, if it ever came to that.

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #21 of 242

Blame it on the Liberals once again. Romney will be our next president and let us see what his foreign policy includes with the Arab Spring and the whole Middle East region as a leader.
 

post #22 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

I came back on AI due to the iPhone release, and I read a lot of PO.  What do you leftists really want?  I dare even call you liberals.  Do you seriously think it's justified for the mob to kill an ambassador?  Are you going to make excuses for that?  Really? You people are disgusting.  At least I am comforted to know that all the guns in this country are owned by your opposition, if it ever came to that.

 

I can't speak for the leftists / liberals or whatever label you might choose, but it does appear to me that on this issue at least, you and others may be missing even what the disagreement is actually about. It's not about freedom of speech, not about whether the violence is acceptable, and not about appeasing radical Islam. SDW gives a perspective (#19) on radical Islamic thinking that I believe many people on both right and left will mostly agree with. This started with a nasty little anti-Islam production, that (almost) no one is defending. It led to violent protest - not surprising for the reasons SDW explained. But the political fight here began when Romney went after Obama. That was seen by many as a cheap shot, and not even a very accurate one, and that is the only substantive disagreement that I can see. The subsequent mudslinging looks to me just like an attempt to deflect attention from that, as well as score a few more broader political points.

 

Obama was not responsible for the Embassy statement that distanced the US from the film. Blaming him for a policy of appeasement overall, just because he has, in the past, attempted to explain that the US respects Islam (not radical, violent Islam), is fatuous in the context of this administration's continued pursuit of the "war on terror", that he also gets criticized for by the same people. It's simple diplomacy, and previous administrations have made similar, reasonable statements. You can disagree on the detail of Obama's counter-terrorism strategy, but not on whether he is actively pursuing one.

 

Where, exactly, does the accusation that anyone has indicated they think that the mob murders in Libya are OK come from? That is a completely transparent strawman argument, since no one has said that, and if you can't make a better case than that then you would be better off saying nothing at all; it just comes across as ignorant.

post #23 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That's an interesting comment; I'm sure that you realize that many liberals have exactly the same reaction when they read some of the comments earlier in the thread, including #1.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I apologize. I am a bit impatient. I can't wait for evolution to cull the human genome of religious bigotry.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Islamists are like Africanized bees or fire ants. If you stir up their nest they will attack you with all of their venom until their last dying breath. The christian right have stirred up that nest and now are trying to accuse the Democrats of negligence for not issuing beekeeper suits to the embassies. You republicans are a disgrace to Americans. Take your hate, lies and cult religion and get the hell out of our country. If there was such a thing as conservative Democrats I would be their chief supporter. Radical christian rednecks should be institutionalized along with other dangerous sociopaths. Freaking loose cannons shooting their mouths off at the least opportune moment. Yeah, your candidate is electable. Not! If Romney is elected I will sell my house in the US and take up residency in the country of my other citizenship until his presidency is terminated. I almost never get angry at anything but republicans are the exception.

 

Your vitriol and insults against all Republicans and Conservatives aside, the simple fact remains that you're just...completely wrong.  The notion that somehow radical Christians (a term which you believe is synonymous with Republicans) are stirring up a hornets' nest is straight out of bizarro world.  You, in fact, demonstrate the same basic misunderstanding of what drives violence and hatred in the Middle East as our President does.  We will not improve the situation by simply being nice to them and retreating, nor is there any evidence that "radical Christian rednecks" have caused the violence.  The problems in the region (for lack of a better term at the moment) are certainly complex and go back a minimum of 60 years.  That said, radical Islamists understand only one thing: power.  Showing weakness and lack of leadership has led to violence and catastrophe before.  It is leading to it now.  And it will lead to turmoil again.  

 

They attack us, and we apologize in the hopes it calms the situation.  We retreat, and we hope that they'll forget their evil ways and learn to love us.  History is replete with examples of this kind of thinking being utterly wrong-headed, not to mention dangerous.  While vastly different situations, we saw the same idiotic approach with the Soviets.  Our kowtowing only emboldened them...and that was with a secular, rational (though clearly brutal) power which simply had a different governmental and value system.  It was only when we had a President who insisted on negotiating from a position of strength that we overcame the regime.  In this respect, radical Islam is no different.  This time, it won't require a Cold War-style arms race.  And this time, our enemy is one that doesn't wish to avoid death...it seeks death.  Our actions, at present, embolden them.  This position of weakness also cause trouble and uncertainty with our allies.  We are proving to the world that we are not serious about dealing radical Islam.  We won't even call it radical Islam.  We won't even acknowledge that we are in a war with radical Islam.  Meanwhile, they advance, and the world continues burning.  A weak America, a contrite America, an American that refuses to lead and act as the superpower it is...this only causes more violence.  

 

This conflict has nothing to do with Christianity vs. Islam.  Do you see Muslims burning crosses and effigies of Jesus Christ?  Of course not.  They are protesting America itself.  We've apologized for a movie that "we" had nothing to do with.  The administration allowed these attacks to happen.  They allowed the black flag of AQ to be raised above our embassy.  Where was Obama...before and after? Our response to Americans dying (including our ambassador) is to send 50 marines and attack Mitt Romney for daring criticize our pathetic actions.  The President should have given a national address and committed hundreds of troops to each and every threatened American interest.  He should have vowed to crush the radicals.  He should have promised to go on the offensive and stated that America will not stand for these acts.  But he won't, because this is a man who honestly believed that by virtue of his election and personal charm, the Middle East would be transformed into a peaceful Democratic region.  His failure has been laid bare, as has yours.  

 

I don't disagree with your characterization of radical Islam and its goals - they are plainly stated. Your characterization of US response is inaccurate though. You have selectively focussed on a few diplomatic statements by the President as indicating a policy of appeasement that is clearly contradicted by this administration's actions. It is somewhat ironic that they are also criticized for too aggressively pursuing that very same fight in the middle east.

 

The cold war analogy is inappropriate though. The Soviet motivation was quite different - not world domination but just survival - not surprising in view of their past experiences but not recognized well at the time.  And we didn't win that one by being tough - we won it by out-spending them and bankrupting their economy when they tried to keep up in the arms race. I doubt you are going to argue for that strategy this time.

post #24 of 242

As usual, the news media have failed to provide the context that would make sense of the fierce anti-US protests sweeping the Muslim world. For decades, US imperialist policy has imposed autocratic, repressive quisling regimes on these countries for two reasons: to extract their oil cheaply and to support Israel's territorial ambitions. The United States has funded Israel's ongoing colonization of Palestinian lands and the savage repression of the Palestinian people. Invasions and occupations that never end. Decades of frustration, humiliation and rage are boiling over, all at once. In this kind of incendiary situation, it takes only the slightest of sparks -- in this case, an obscure amateur film -- to start a conflagration.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #25 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

As usual, the news media have failed to provide the context that would make sense of the fierce anti-US protests sweeping the Muslim world. For decades, US imperialist policy has imposed autocratic, repressive quisling regimes on these countries for two reasons: to extract their oil cheaply and to support Israel's territorial ambitions. The United States has funded Israel's ongoing colonization of Palestinian lands and the savage repression of the Palestinian people. Invasions and occupations that never end. Decades of frustration, humiliation and rage are boiling over, all at once. In this kind of incendiary situation, it takes only the slightest of sparks -- in this case, an obscure amateur film -- to start a conflagration.

 

Now I think you have gone too far the other way. Yes - there have been imperialist factors involved, and there are legitimate grievances in place, but this is not popular revolt - the film provided an excuse for organized rioting more than a spark for general discontent. There is direction behind these protests.

 

This is an interesting perspective on the issue: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19609951


Edited by muppetry - 9/15/12 at 9:12am
post #26 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Now I think you have gone too far the other way. Yes - there have been imperialist factors involved, and there are legitimate grievances in place, but this is not popular revolt - the film provided an excuse for organized rioting more than a spark for general discontent. There is direction behind these protests.

This will unlikely turn into a "popular revolt", as you put it, because the object of anger and resentment - the United States, or rather its government and Middle East policy set - lies across the other side of the globe and won't be affected/changed regardless of how many people get in the streets in these Mid East nations - anyway most people in these affected nations are aware of this and therefore stay at home... its only the feisty ones and activists who are out there demonstrating.  The focus is the presence of the US in those countries, namely its embassies. Popular revolt, as we saw in the so-called Arab Spring, materialized because it was directed at something tangible - their own autocratic governments (many US installed and maintained).... and not a government/nation faraway... and as such, they were aware that they could do something about it, rather than juts getting angry. (What they've now got is just as bad, or worse as what they had to start, especially in Libya -.but thats a different issue).

 

It will come to a head very quickly and then die down... but it wont be forgotten. They have much longer attention spans that we do here.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #27 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Now I think you have gone too far the other way. Yes - there have been imperialist factors involved, and there are legitimate grievances in place, but this is not popular revolt - the film provided an excuse for organized rioting more than a spark for general discontent. There is direction behind these protests.

This will unlikely turn into a "popular revolt", as you put it, because the object of anger and resentment - the United States, or rather its government and Middle East policy set - lies across the other side of the globe and won't be affected/changed regardless of how many people get in the streets in these Mid East nations - anyway most people in these affected nations are aware of this and therefore stay at home... its only the feisty ones and activists who are out there demonstrating.  The focus is the presence of the US in those countries, namely its embassies. Popular revolt, as we saw in the so-called Arab Spring, materialized because it was directed at something tangible - their own autocratic governments (many US installed and maintained).... and not a government/nation faraway... and as such, they were aware that they could do something about it, rather than juts getting angry. (What they've now got is just as bad, or worse as what they had to start, especially in Libya -.but thats a different issue).

 

It will come to a head very quickly and then die down... but it wont be forgotten. They have much longer attention spans that we do here.

 

Don't disagree with most of that, but just to clarify - by popular revolt I meant spontaneous action by the populace, as opposed to violence orchestrated by political or neo-political groups. Also notice that they are taking the opportunity to include many other western nations as targets, which devalues their claim just to be protecting their prophet from US attacks.

post #28 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I can't speak for the leftists / liberals or whatever label you might choose, but it does appear to me that on this issue at least, you and others may be missing even what the disagreement is actually about. It's not about freedom of speech, not about whether the violence is acceptable, and not about appeasing radical Islam. SDW gives a perspective (#19) on radical Islamic thinking that I believe many people on both right and left will mostly agree with. This started with a nasty little anti-Islam production, that (almost) no one is defending. It led to violent protest - not surprising for the reasons SDW explained. But the political fight here began when Romney went after Obama. That was seen by many as a cheap shot, and not even a very accurate one, and that is the only substantive disagreement that I can see. The subsequent mudslinging looks to me just like an attempt to deflect attention from that, as well as score a few more broader political points.

 

Obama was not responsible for the Embassy statement that distanced the US from the film. Blaming him for a policy of appeasement overall, just because he has, in the past, attempted to explain that the US respects Islam (not radical, violent Islam), is fatuous in the context of this administration's continued pursuit of the "war on terror", that he also gets criticized for by the same people. It's simple diplomacy, and previous administrations have made similar, reasonable statements. You can disagree on the detail of Obama's counter-terrorism strategy, but not on whether he is actively pursuing one.

 

Where, exactly, does the accusation that anyone has indicated they think that the mob murders in Libya are OK come from? That is a completely transparent strawman argument, since no one has said that, and if you can't make a better case than that then you would be better off saying nothing at all; it just comes across as ignorant.

 

1.  It was no cheap shot.  It was a completely accurate statement.  But hey, how dare he speak out.  He should have just kept his mouth shut, right? 

 

2. Yes, Obama was responsible.  He is the Chief Executive and the statement came from the State Department/Embassy.  If he disagreed, he should have condemned the statement immediately and issued his own.  He is also responsible for much of the violence we are seeing right now.  From day one, he has positioned us in a weak posture.  Sure, he's he's blown some folks up with drones and not totally withdrawn our forces.  But he's also pushed out both Khadaffi and Mubarak without really understanding what the alternative was.  He openly embraced the Arab Spring and hoped for the best.  The result was an Islamist government in Egypt who knows what in Libya.  Add that to the apology tour (which is exactly what it was) and it's clear that this is on him.  This is unmitigated failure based on arrogance and naive thinking, not to mention a complete lack of previous executive or foreign policy experience.  

 

3.  I was about to agree that one is making that argument.  But in reality, that's exactly what Obama is doing.  They are claiming that these attacks are "not directed at the United States."  They are condemning those who would insult this "great religion" and calling the movie disgusting.  WHERE IS THE CONDEMNATION OF THE ATTACKS?  Where is the outrage?  A fucking black flag is flying over our embassy in Tunisia, and you're out there saying you have "profound respect" for all religions?  Holy shit.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

1.  It was no cheap shot.  It was a completely accurate statement.  But hey, how dare he speak out.  He should have just kept his mouth shut, right? 

 

2. Yes, Obama was responsible.  He is the Chief Executive and the statement came from the State Department/Embassy.  If he disagreed, he should have condemned the statement immediately and issued his own.  He is also responsible for much of the violence we are seeing right now.  From day one, he has positioned us in a weak posture.  Sure, he's he's blown some folks up with drones and not totally withdrawn our forces.  But he's also pushed out both Khadaffi and Mubarak without really understanding what the alternative was.  He openly embraced the Arab Spring and hoped for the best.  The result was an Islamist government in Egypt who knows what in Libya.  Add that to the apology tour (which is exactly what it was) and it's clear that this is on him.  This is unmitigated failure based on arrogance and naive thinking, not to mention a complete lack of previous executive or foreign policy experience.  

 

3.  I was about to agree that one is making that argument.  But in reality, that's exactly what Obama is doing.  They are claiming that these attacks are "not directed at the United States."  They are condemning those who would insult this "great religion" and calling the movie disgusting.  WHERE IS THE CONDEMNATION OF THE ATTACKS?  Where is the outrage?  A fucking black flag is flying over our embassy in Tunisia, and you're out there saying you have "profound respect" for all religions?  Holy shit.  

 

1. False dichotomy, and I can't believe that you don't know that.

 

2. It would be appallingly bad form for a President to condemn a statement issued by a US Embassy. He made his position clear however, and it was an appropriate one. And, as I pointed out earlier but you dismissed, presumably since it doesn't fit your bizarre construct, Romney and other Republicans supported the action in Libya.

 

3. I have no idea who "they" are in the context of this rant. Where is the condemnation of the attacks? What kind of rock are you living under? You want to invade Egypt and Libya perhaps? That would show them who's boss.

 

There isn't a cogent argument in your entire post, which is unfortunate. There are plenty of reasonable criticisms to be made of this administration, including in the area of foreign policy, but in what appears to be a rabid desire to discredit it you just come across as another ill-informed fanatic.

post #30 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Don't disagree with most of that, but just to clarify - by popular revolt I meant spontaneous action by the populace, as opposed to violence orchestrated by political or neo-political groups. Also notice that they are taking the opportunity to include many other western nations as targets, which devalues their claim just to be protecting their prophet from US attacks.

Sounds pretty much as I see it as well...although there is definitely a (limited) spontaneous element, and (IMHO) it will die down almost as quickly as it broke out. What has happened in the last decades, especially the last 22 years - has caused so much resentment, anger and bitterness towards the west, and the US and UK in particular - but an amateur movie is not enough to break things completely. I do agree with you that I exaggerated the gravity of this situation in my first post; this will never be more than limited spotty unrest, directed against specific targets.

 

However, if the US (or Israel) attacks Iran, that will more than likely have infinitely more severe repercussions globally... with a lot of violence and civil unrest, most especially in Muslim nations - where any US (or other nations' and businesses') assets and facilities will be regarded as hostile and liable to be attacked. 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #31 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I can't speak for the leftists / liberals or whatever label you might choose, but it does appear to me that on this issue at least, you and others may be missing even what the disagreement is actually about.... It's simple diplomacy, and previous administrations have made similar, reasonable statements. You can disagree on the detail of Obama's counter-terrorism strategy, but not on whether he is actively pursuing one.

So, I've taken the two, central sentences of your post.  The rest is extra.  I am trying to reinforce the point that diplomacy has failed (which is pretty obvious) and that leftists are detached from reality.  I also make the subtle point that I don't like lumping-in normal democrats, here, with the leftist new world order types, but that is secondary.

 

Answer me this: What action should a country take when a diplomat of theirs is killed in cold blood in a nation that is supposedly an ally?  How does the USA prevent it from happening again?  As a finishing remark for philosophical introspection: Is there any point in continuing peace-time diplomacy with these countries when there's little evidence that diplomats are safe?

 

The Obama administration has really, really bungled this.  This is high up in the list of poorly-managed foreign affair crises, of all time.  Bush made a lot of blunders, but probably none quite so flagrantly mismanaged (and seemingly ignored) as this.  You can pretend that it isn't a blunder, which would indicate that you're just another new-world-order zombie.  In that case, your only tactic, really, can be to try to derail the conversation by pointing fingers and saying "where were you on this during Iraq, hammering Bush?"  Of course, that is the standard line here on PO, and thankfully you haven't stooped to that one (moreover, personally, I never supported or liked Bush, so it would be a baseless tactic).

 

So, to wrap things up, I am aware that Obama has a diplomatic and counter-terrorism agenda, but in so many instances it seems to be in-name-only.  There were similar questions raised about the killing of Bin Laden.  There is evidence to suspect that Obama did not want it to happen, and Leon Panetta had to "pull the trigger" without explicit authorization, but for that we'll never really know.  There is hard evidence, however, that "The War on Terror" is resulting in more casualties now that it had during the Bush administration.  All we can conclude for sure is that Obama's foreign policy is resulting in more americans killed per month abroad than Bush's, and more Islamic theocratic regimes allowed to proliferate.  In other words, Bush's foreign policy was not great; Obama's is as bad or worse, and it is impossible to deny this unless you eschew reality.

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #32 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I can't speak for the leftists / liberals or whatever label you might choose, but it does appear to me that on this issue at least, you and others may be missing even what the disagreement is actually about.... It's simple diplomacy, and previous administrations have made similar, reasonable statements. You can disagree on the detail of Obama's counter-terrorism strategy, but not on whether he is actively pursuing one.

So, I've taken the two, central sentences of your post.  The rest is extra.  I am trying to reinforce the point that diplomacy has failed (which is pretty obvious) and that leftists are detached from reality.  I also make the subtle point that I don't like lumping-in normal democrats, here, with the leftist new world order types, but that is secondary.

 

Answer me this: What action should a country take when a diplomat of theirs is killed in cold blood in a nation that is supposedly an ally?  How does the USA prevent it from happening again?  As a finishing remark for philosophical introspection: Is there any point in continuing peace-time diplomacy with these countries when there's little evidence that diplomats are safe?

 

What action should be taken? I think that still depends on the circumstances. It especially depends on whether the government of the state in question encouraged or was complicit in the event. If it was, then historical diplomatic precedent indicates closing the Embassy, ejecting that country's diplomats from the US and severing diplomatic relations. After that there can be anything from economic penalties to invasion. If the government was not involved, as appears to be the case here, then the usual course of action is to maintain pressure on that government to apprehend and prosecute the offenders. Of course if the government is not really in control, then there are only limited options.

 

 

As to whether it is useful to continue diplomatic relations, that's a tougher question. Severing relations has generally been an action of last resort, but if the diplomatic staff are at risk then they should be recalled in my opinion.

 

 

Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

 

The Obama administration has really, really bungled this.  This is high up in the list of poorly-managed foreign affair crises, of all time.  Bush made a lot of blunders, but probably none quite so flagrantly mismanaged (and seemingly ignored) as this.  You can pretend that it isn't a blunder, which would indicate that you're just another new-world-order zombie.  In that case, your only tactic, really, can be to try to derail the conversation by pointing fingers and saying "where were you on this during Iraq, hammering Bush?"  Of course, that is the standard line here on PO, and thankfully you haven't stooped to that one (moreover, personally, I never supported or liked Bush, so it would be a baseless tactic).

 

Now you have lost me - in what way have they bungled it? What blunder are you referring to? Are you still talking about the statements issued or something else? Do you think this situation would have developed differently under the previous administration? I can't see how or why it would have, and that is not a criticism of Bush either. I'm simply not sure that anyone foresaw, or should have foreseen, such sudden violence.

 

 

Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

 

So, to wrap things up, I am aware that Obama has a diplomatic and counter-terrorism agenda, but in so many instances it seems to be in-name-only.  There were similar questions raised about the killing of Bin Laden.  There is evidence to suspect that Obama did not want it to happen, and Leon Panetta had to "pull the trigger" without explicit authorization, but for that we'll never really know.  There is hard evidence, however, that "The War on Terror" is resulting in more casualties now that it had during the Bush administration.  All we can conclude for sure is that Obama's foreign policy is resulting in more americans killed per month abroad than Bush's, and more Islamic theocratic regimes allowed to proliferate.  In other words, Bush's foreign policy was not great; Obama's is as bad or worse, and it is impossible to deny this unless you eschew reality.

 

 

So some counter-arguments: In the absence of actual evidence that he did not approve of the Bin Laden action, I'm afraid that just sounds like more FUD from those who are just desperate to be able to accuse Obama of failure. To assert that the CT program is in name only is a similar tactic. The focus has shifted, as Obama said it would. I happen to think the shift was appropriate. The casualty numbers are up (if you disregard the war), but that does not, per se, indicate failure. Many of the US forces are operating in more hostile and less controlled environments than previously. The middle east is unstable at present, and to blame US foreign policy as being responsible for the establishment of a couple more theocracies is not a supportable conclusion - it could well have happened anyway since that is the current trend over there.

 

My summary would be that it is really easy to say, from the comfort of your home, that it could all be done better, but without anything approaching the complete picture, no knowledge of the operational strategy and no knowledge of the intelligence and diplomatic negotiations driving the strategy, that criticism is largely worthless. And in the context of the fact that the US has avoided any foreign-sponsored terrorist actions since 9/11, my opinion is that both Bush and Obama had a reasonable handle on the situation.

post #33 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

1. False dichotomy, and I can't believe that you don't know that.

 

2. It would be appallingly bad form for a President to condemn a statement issued by a US Embassy. He made his position clear however, and it was an appropriate one. And, as I pointed out earlier but you dismissed, presumably since it doesn't fit your bizarre construct, Romney and other Republicans supported the action in Libya.

 

3. I have no idea who "they" are in the context of this rant. Where is the condemnation of the attacks? What kind of rock are you living under? You want to invade Egypt and Libya perhaps? That would show them who's boss.

 

There isn't a cogent argument in your entire post, which is unfortunate. There are plenty of reasonable criticisms to be made of this administration, including in the area of foreign policy, but in what appears to be a rabid desire to discredit it you just come across as another ill-informed fanatic.

 

1.  False dichotomy?  You know full well that Romney can't win with the press.  He would have been attacked for any statement he made, meaning the dichotomy was, in fact, real.  That said, he'd have likely been savaged for staying silent as well, so in an odd way you may be correct.  

 

2. So it would be bad if the statement didn't represent our position?  The problem is that the statement DID represent our position.  That position was reiterated by both Hillary Clinton and Press Sec Jay Carney.  They both blamed the movie trailer, and the latter said the attacks and protests were not directed at the United States.

 

3.  And you're accusing me of a false dichotomy.  Wow.  I've said nothing about "invading" Egypt or Libya.  I'm asking again: Where is the strong condemnation of the attacks?  Where is the statement that an anti-Islamic movie is no excuse for this, and that we will not stand for it?  Where is the statement about using force against those who destroy and/or trespass on our Embassies, which are the same as sovereign  U.S. soil?   

 

Oh, thanks for sharing your opinion regarding my argument.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

1. False dichotomy, and I can't believe that you don't know that.

 

2. It would be appallingly bad form for a President to condemn a statement issued by a US Embassy. He made his position clear however, and it was an appropriate one. And, as I pointed out earlier but you dismissed, presumably since it doesn't fit your bizarre construct, Romney and other Republicans supported the action in Libya.

 

3. I have no idea who "they" are in the context of this rant. Where is the condemnation of the attacks? What kind of rock are you living under? You want to invade Egypt and Libya perhaps? That would show them who's boss.

 

There isn't a cogent argument in your entire post, which is unfortunate. There are plenty of reasonable criticisms to be made of this administration, including in the area of foreign policy, but in what appears to be a rabid desire to discredit it you just come across as another ill-informed fanatic.

 

1.  False dichotomy?  You know full well that Romney can't win with the press.  He would have been attacked for any statement he made, meaning the dichotomy was, in fact, real.  That said, he'd have likely been savaged for staying silent as well, so in an odd way you may be correct.  

 

2. So it would be bad if the statement didn't represent our position?  The problem is that the statement DID represent our position.  That position was reiterated by both Hillary Clinton and Press Sec Jay Carney.  They both blamed the movie trailer, and the latter said the attacks and protests were not directed at the United States.

 

3.  And you're accusing me of a false dichotomy.  Wow.  I've said nothing about "invading" Egypt or Libya.  I'm asking again: Where is the strong condemnation of the attacks?  Where is the statement that an anti-Islamic movie is no excuse for this, and that we will not stand for it?  Where is the statement about using force against those who destroy and/or trespass on our Embassies, which are the same as sovereign  U.S. soil?   

 

Oh, thanks for sharing your opinion regarding my argument.  

 

1. The false dichotomy to which I referred were the options you presented - condemn Obama or say nothing. False, because those were not his only two options; he could, of course, have taken the more appropriate (IMO) position of many other Republicans that was not criticized by the press.

 

2.  Correct. It did not represent the US position, and Obama pointed that out, without "condemning" the statement.

 

3.  I did accuse you, because you used one. My question about invasion was not a dichotomy, false or otherwise, but I can see that it could be interpreted that way, so withdrawn. What I was trying to ask was what, exactly, you would approve of as a course of action, and I threw in an extreme example. And what do you want as a condemnation, beyond what he said:

 

 

 

Quote:

Remarks by President Barack Obama
Subject: The Attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya
Location: The Rose Garden of the White House, Washington, D.C.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Good morning.

Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often they are away from their families. Sometimes they brave great danger.

Yesterday four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake; we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths . We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence, none.

The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens' body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi, because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Gadhafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy. And I think both Secretary Clinton and I have relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.

And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it and, in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families. But let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you, may God bless the memory of those we lost, and may God bless the United States of America.

 

post #35 of 242

Re: Obama bungling foreign affairs.

 

When was the last time a US ambassador was brutally murdered?

 

I would consider this an epic fail in foreign policy.  If you don't think so, then I suppose we need to "agree to disagree."  

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #36 of 242

I cannot remember the time an official of the government was killed only in Obama's cabinet this happened.
 

post #37 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I cannot remember the time an official of the government was killed only in Obama's cabinet this happened.
 

1979, Afghanistan was the last time that a US Ambassador was killed.

 

Obama's foreign policy is a joke. Remember, this is the same admin that introduced us to such idiotic and cowardly phrases such as "overseas contingency operation" and "man-caused disasters" instead of terrorist attack. They're afraid to call a spade for a spade and sucking up to terrorists is what they prefer to do.

post #38 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

1979, Afghanistan was the last time that a US Ambassador was killed.

 

Obama's foreign policy is a joke. Remember, this is the same admin that introduced us to such idiotic and cowardly phrases such as "overseas contingency operation" and "man-caused disasters" instead of terrorist attack. They're afraid to call a spade for a spade and sucking up to terrorists is what they prefer to do.

What are you talking about? The system worked!

post #39 of 242

Obama let this terrorist go and rejoin the battlefield.

 

 

Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say

post #40 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Obama let this terrorist go and rejoin the battlefield.

 

 

Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say

 

The more we learn, the more it looks like yet another false flag attack.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Blood on His Hands: Our President is Getting Americans Killed