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 - Page 3

post #81 of 242

What ever Obama does if he farts wrong you will criticize him for that.LET IT GO!
 

post #82 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

One thing I can tell you is that it is clear that you, and many others, have a tendency to impose the clarity of hindsight on your judgement of past events and then, in the light of that judgement, presume motives for the actions that were taken. Another thing I can tell you is that you will almost certainly reject that assertion.

I weigh the evidence that I have and attempt to explain it. With insufficient evidence I wait for more. I have insufficient evidence on this issue and so at this stage I have no more to add to the discussion.

1.  To be fair, everyone does that to an extent.  It's human nature.  

2.  I notice that you do that, and I appreciate your polite, thoughtful posts.  However, I simply don't understand how you look at what we know and conclude anything other than, at best, the White House spun this event to make themselves look better a month before a close election.  Or, at worst, they lied.  I'd ask you to look at what we know: 
  • The State Dept saw the attack in real time via video.  
  • None of the evidence released indicates anything about an anti-Muslim video, a protest gone wrong, etc.  
  • The President's Press Sec claimed that they had seen "no evidence" it was a pre-planned attack, nor was it directed at U.S. policy, the Administration or America in general.  
  • The President, SecState and U.N. Ambassador all blamed the video and a spontaneous demonstration gone bad---for two weeks.
  • E-mails prove that the White House was aware within hours this was an armed attack, not a protest.   


Now looking at the above, you're claiming we just don't know what happened?  Come on.  It doesn't pass the smell test.  

We now know a lot about what happened. How much they knew then, as opposed to suspected or had contradictory evidence for, I am uncertain.

I've no doubt that you are right in assuming that there is some degree of spin in everything that gets released, especially with an election looming, but given the counter-productive nature of the handling of the announcements about this event, I still see confusion as a bigger driver than conspiracy to deceive.
post #83 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What ever Obama does if he farts wrong you will criticize him for that.LET IT GO!
 

 

You have got to be kidding, right?!?!?  If the shoe were on the other foot the left would be screaming for impeachment.  This would have been the leading story for the past month on MSNBC, CNN, and several other channels.  This isn't some minor or trivial issue which I could concede your point if we were still talking about Solyndra or something similar.  This is the death of Americans and what is blatantly obvious at this point as utter failure on the part of the administration to provide adequate security.

post #84 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What ever Obama does if he farts wrong you will criticize him for that.LET IT GO!

 

You have got to be kidding, right?!?!?  If the shoe were on the other foot the left would be screaming for impeachment.  This would have been the leading story for the past month on MSNBC, CNN, and several other channels.  This isn't some minor or trivial issue which I could concede your point if we were still talking about Solyndra or something similar.  This is the death of Americans and what is blatantly obvious at this point as utter failure on the part of the administration to provide adequate security.

That's probably not a well-supported assertion. There was no such "screaming for impeachment" after the much more significant events of 9/11, despite the serious actionable intelligence failures that preceded those events.
post #85 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The right have been pushing and twisting this issue purely for political gain. Even in a forum that hardly anyone reads, these views are still pushed. The only reason I can see for that is to annoy Democrats or to vent some deeply troubling personal animosity towards the left. 

 

Obviously Hands, and the Left at large, will defend Obama regardless of the situation.  They could have a video of him drop kicking a 6 month old baby into a basketball hoop and the Left would simply say, "Wow what incredible athletic ability".  I'm beginning to wonder if there is absolutely ANYTHING at all that Obama could do to draw serious criticism from the Left.

 

Apparently those on the Right can't criticize the President in any way, shape, or form without it being either racism or a partisan attack.  Ideally for the Left, if we aren't going to speak out in support of Obama, we shouldn't be allowed to speak at all.

post #86 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I was thinking that a mob reaction would more clearly suggest a continuing public dislike or distrust of the US, which would more obviously represent a failure of the attempts to engage with moderate Islam. Terrorists with extreme views have always existed, and are never going to be our friends, but do not generally represent public opinion.

 

The second point is not presented as a dilemma, false or otherwise - I just think that when one has a clear and simple case (in this case the security lapse), it is a mistake to complicate it with more complex and possibly contentious issues (in this case what Obama was referring to when he said "acts of terror) that allow your opponent to deflect from the harder question.

 

This reminds me of something I learned as a child...  Having gotten in trouble for various things growing up, as we all do, and now being on the other end of this as a parent, sometimes it's not the fact that you screwed up but the fact that you lied about it.  I've caught my son in this only a couple of times and I think I have adequately impressed upon him that no matter how bad he messes up, lying about it is going to be much worse than simply stepping up and taking his punishment.  I'm a LOT more forgiving of mistakes if they are owned up to up front rather than trying to cover them up or lie about them.  I don't think I'm unique in this matter.

 

Perfect example of this is the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.  What did Clinton get in trouble for, the affair?  Yeah, I'm sure he caught hell from Hillary on that, but it was the lying that nearly cost him the Presidency.

post #87 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


That's probably not a well-supported assertion. There was no such "screaming for impeachment" after the much more significant events of 9/11, despite the serious actionable intelligence failures that preceded those events.

 

There is a significant difference there.  The "actionable intelligence" pertaining to 9/11/2001 was very general and vague at best.  The intelligence indicated that bin Laden wanted to strike within the US, and that there were sleeper cells within the US.  There may have been a bit more, and some specifics, but nothing to indicate a specific target, date, or method, at least nothing that I recall.  The difference is that 9/11 is now a date that should be known every year as a likely time for an attack.  Our embassies and consulates in countries such as Lybia should always be considered likely targets given the current situation there.  If this attack had occurred in say Australia or Germany on March 5th (to pick a random date), then I would be less critical of the administration as it would be really out of the blue short of specific intel.

post #88 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


That's probably not a well-supported assertion. There was no such "screaming for impeachment" after the much more significant events of 9/11, despite the serious actionable intelligence failures that preceded those events.

 

There is a significant difference there.  The "actionable intelligence" pertaining to 9/11/2001 was very general and vague at best.  The intelligence indicated that bin Laden wanted to strike within the US, and that there were sleeper cells within the US.  There may have been a bit more, and some specifics, but nothing to indicate a specific target, date, or method, at least nothing that I recall.  The difference is that 9/11 is now a date that should be known every year as a likely time for an attack.  Our embassies and consulates in countries such as Lybia should always be considered likely targets given the current situation there.  If this attack had occurred in say Australia or Germany on March 5th (to pick a random date), then I would be less critical of the administration as it would be really out of the blue short of specific intel.

 

The point is that it was actionable back in 2001, and it wasn't acted upon. These things happen. If you are saying that because this was a 9/11 anniversary then this target should have been so obvious that this constitutes a different level of negligence then your recollection is failing you or you are employing confirmation bias, or both. Some indicators were stronger this time (e.g. the date, and possibly some locally-generated intelligence that was ignored or lost in the greater flood of information) while some were stronger before 9/11. But that event occurred on US soil and killed thousands of civilians - an event in a completely different league. There are countless potential targets every 9/11 - every day in fact - and while this may have been an intelligence failure, to suggest that it is an impeachable level of negligence is just partisan nonsense. Impeachment is a process to deal with unlawful activity by elected officials, not errors of judgement.  

post #89 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

The point is that it was actionable back in 2001, and it wasn't acted upon. These things happen. If you are saying that because this was a 9/11 anniversary then this target should have been so obvious that this constitutes a different level of negligence then your recollection is failing you or you are employing confirmation bias, or both. Some indicators were stronger this time (e.g. the date, and possibly some locally-generated intelligence that was ignored or lost in the greater flood of information) while some were stronger before 9/11. But that event occurred on US soil and killed thousands of civilians - an event in a completely different league. There are countless potential targets every 9/11 - every day in fact - and while this may have been an intelligence failure, to suggest that it is an impeachable level of negligence is just partisan nonsense. Impeachment is a process to deal with unlawful activity by elected officials, not errors of judgement.  

 

I never said that the failures related to Lybia were impeachable.  Bad judgement is not a crime, but unfortunately in this case it did cost 4 Americans their lives.  Now, intentionally misleading the American people, that is a different matter altogether.  IF there were to be an impeachable offense related to Lybia, it would have to do with the apparent cover-up of what happened in Lybia and what/when the White House and State Dept knew about it.  As of this point, I don't think it actually warrants impeachment, but I also could see things playing out where this would warrant impeachment.

 

I'm not saying this occurred, just putting out a hypothetical to illustrate a point.  IF there were a hidden video, similar to the Romney 47% video, that showed Obama, Hillary, and other high ranking administration officials discussing the ongoing attack at the time it happened AND they were discussing putting out a story that this was a protest turned violent because it would be bad for this imagery to become public prior to the election.  Would that constitute an impeachable offense?  To me, this would indeed be an impeachable offense if this sort of proof existed that the administration intentionally lied to the public about the nature of the attack.  Again, I'm not saying this happened or anything similar, I'm just trying to express my opinion as to how this COULD be construed as an impeachable offense.

post #90 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


We now know a lot about what happened. How much they knew then, as opposed to suspected or had contradictory evidence for, I am uncertain.

 

I don't see how that's possible (you being uncertain).  The point is we now know a lot of what they knew at the outset, from watching the attack in real-time, to e-mails that the WH situation room would have received.  In fact, there has not been once piece of evidence offered supporting their initial claim that it was the result of the video and/or protest.   

 

 

Quote:
I've no doubt that you are right in assuming that there is some degree of spin in everything that gets released, especially with an election looming, but given the counter-productive nature of the handling of the announcements about this event, I still see confusion as a bigger driver than conspiracy to deceive.

 

Given different circumstances, that would probably make sense. For example, if they had initially claimed that their information made it appear the attack was spontaneous, only to reverse position shortly thereafter, that would be different.  They could have said "right now it appears to be a spontaneous event," but we are still investigating.  Then, when they changed position, they could have held a press conference and said  "based on our continued investigation, we now believe this was, in fact, terrorism."   There would still be questions about the real-time video, etc...but those could probably be explained away with the "confusion" meme you are putting forward. 

 

The point is that those circumstances did not occur.  We know for a fact that they had multiple sources of intelligence and that none of them pointed to a protest getting out of hand, nor an offensive video.  The State Dept saw the attack in real-time.  At no time was there ANY indication of a protest, so the notion that they got conflicting intelligence is utterly bogus.  Additionally, there had already been coordinated and planned attacks in recent months, so this was nothing new.  The only way the confusion meme works is if they release intelligence that backs up their initial claims.  

 

Regardless, none of this explains the inconsistency in the President's, SecState's and PresSec's statements over the video and whether or not it was terrorism.  Obama is claiming he called it "terrorism" on 9/12, but went on the View and to the U.N. and told a different story.  Meanwhile, Sec Clinton called it "an act of terror" while the PressSec and President refused to label it as such.  The complete disarray itself is a major problem, and reeks of incompetence.   

 

By the way, don't you think Occam's Razor applies here?  The simplest explanation is that the Administration lied and spun this story to benefit them politically. It makes the most sense by far.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


That's probably not a well-supported assertion. There was no such "screaming for impeachment" after the much more significant events of 9/11, despite the serious actionable intelligence failures that preceded those events.

 

So now this is just an intelligence failure?  Come on. You know it's a lot more than that.  And his assertion might not be supportable, but it certainly is correct.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

I never said that the failures related to Lybia were impeachable.  Bad judgement is not a crime, but unfortunately in this case it did cost 4 Americans their lives.  Now, intentionally misleading the American people, that is a different matter altogether.  IF there were to be an impeachable offense related to Lybia, it would have to do with the apparent cover-up of what happened in Lybia and what/when the White House and State Dept knew about it.  As of this point, I don't think it actually warrants impeachment, but I also could see things playing out where this would warrant impeachment.

 

I'm not saying this occurred, just putting out a hypothetical to illustrate a point.  IF there were a hidden video, similar to the Romney 47% video, that showed Obama, Hillary, and other high ranking administration officials discussing the ongoing attack at the time it happened AND they were discussing putting out a story that this was a protest turned violent because it would be bad for this imagery to become public prior to the election.  Would that constitute an impeachable offense?  To me, this would indeed be an impeachable offense if this sort of proof existed that the administration intentionally lied to the public about the nature of the attack.  Again, I'm not saying this happened or anything similar, I'm just trying to express my opinion as to how this COULD be construed as an impeachable offense.

 

Actually, covering it up and lying about it would not likely be impeachable, because while wrong, they're not crimes per se.  Impeachment is reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors."  Neither spinning, covering it up, nor outright lying to the public fits the bill, depending on the nature of the cover-up.  Now, if they destroyed/hid documents, misled Congress, lied under oath, or otherwise obstructed the investigation, that might be impeachable as Obstruction of Justice.  The aforementioned hypothetical video would not raise anything impeachable on its own.  It would just be a death knell politically.  

 

Let me be clear:  I think the President, Secretary of State, WH Press Secretary all lied and spun...without question.  I also think it's likely that the U.N. Ambassador and Vice President Biden were in on the lie.  The evidence seems clear that they made a calculated decision to blame this on the video and a non-existent protest because 1) It was sellable given the Egypt demonstrations and 2) It was less damaging to their re-election campaign narrative of "AQ is on the run and bin Laden is dead."   However, I don't believe there is anything remotely impeachable here, at least not that I've seen.   Incompetence, lies, spin, cynicism?  Absolutely.  But no crimes.  

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 #91 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

By the way, don't you think Occam's Razor applies here?  The simplest explanation is that the Administration lied and spun this story to benefit them politically. It makes the most sense by far.  

 

We really are going round in circles, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, while your explanation certainly has simplicity going for it and may turn out to be wholly or partially true, it does not, for the reasons I have explained several times, makes sense to me.  Occam's Razor is one of my favorite tools, but in this case, for me, it is outweighed by Hanlon's Razor.

post #92 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

We really are going round in circles, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, while your explanation certainly has simplicity going for it and may turn out to be wholly or partially true, it does not, for the reasons I have explained several times, makes sense to me.  Occam's Razor is one of my favorite tools, but in this case, for me, it is outweighed by Hanlon's Razor.

 

I'd love to just agree to disagree, but your position frankly doesn't make any sense.  You're saying you're leaning towards the explanation that "confusion" was what resulted in blaming the video and protests, but there has been no evidence of conflicting intelligence whatsoever.  Now, perhaps some exists.  But none has been presented.  Given the flak the WH is taking, don't you think we would have?  

 

I had to look up Hanlon's razor.  It's an interesting point, though doesn't it mean in this case that the Administration was either utterly incompetent or intentionally misleading the public?  

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 #93 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What ever Obama does if he farts wrong you will criticize him for that.LET IT GO!
 

 

Yeah, let's just let it go, marv.  We've got four dead Americans and an administration that appears to be lying through its teeth.  But hey, poor Obama...cut him a break.  

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 #94 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

We really are going round in circles, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, while your explanation certainly has simplicity going for it and may turn out to be wholly or partially true, it does not, for the reasons I have explained several times, makes sense to me.  Occam's Razor is one of my favorite tools, but in this case, for me, it is outweighed by Hanlon's Razor.

 

I'd love to just agree to disagree, but your position frankly doesn't make any sense.  You're saying you're leaning towards the explanation that "confusion" was what resulted in blaming the video and protests, but there has been no evidence of conflicting intelligence whatsoever.  Now, perhaps some exists.  But none has been presented.  Given the flak the WH is taking, don't you think we would have?  

 

I had to look up Hanlon's razor.  It's an interesting point, though doesn't it mean in this case that the Administration was either utterly incompetent or intentionally misleading the public?  

 

No - I said I have inadequate information to lean in the direction that you lean. And yes - it does appear that those are the options, although bear in mind that, even if it is unlikely, it is possible that "intentionally misleading" could have a justification based on national security issues or other factors that we are unaware of.

post #95 of 242

Condi Rice comes out in defense of the Obama Administration regarding Benghazi.  How interesting.  She went on Fox News and downplayed all the criticism.  Perhaps you should listen to your favorite former Secretary of State.  Or is she persona non grata because you are trying to pretend the Bush years never happened?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #96 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Condi Rice comes out in defense of the Obama Administration regarding Benghazi.  How interesting.  She went on Fox News and downplayed all the criticism.  Perhaps you should listen to your favorite former Secretary of State.  Or is she persona non grata because you are trying to pretend the Bush years never happened?

 

 

 

That and supporting the other side, especially Obama, is a no-no.

 

It must be racially motivated, like Sununu said of Powell's endorsement. 1rolleyes.gif

 

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/sununu-on-powell-obama-when-you-have-somebody-of-your-own-race-that-youre-proud-of-i-applaud-colin-for-standing-with-him/


Edited by Bergermeister - 10/26/12 at 12:43am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #97 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

 

That and supporting the other side, especially Obama, is a no-no.

 

It must be racially motivated, like Sununu said of Powell's endorsement. 1rolleyes.gif

 

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/sununu-on-powell-obama-when-you-have-somebody-of-your-own-race-that-youre-proud-of-i-applaud-colin-for-standing-with-him/

 

Does anyone really doubt that Powell's endorsements were racially motivated?  

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 #98 of 242

Getting paranoid again Dave.
 

post #99 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

That and supporting the other side, especially Obama, is a no-no.

It must be racially motivated, like Sununu said of Powell's endorsement. 1rolleyes.gif

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/sununu-on-powell-obama-when-you-have-somebody-of-your-own-race-that-youre-proud-of-i-applaud-colin-for-standing-with-him/

Does anyone really doubt that Powell's endorsements were racially motivated?  

Evidence?
post #100 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Evidence?

 

Powell admitted he "probably wasn't colorblind" in his 2008 endorsement.  How's that?  

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 #101 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Evidence?

 

Powell admitted he "probably wasn't colorblind" in his 2008 endorsement.  How's that?  

 

How about you go back and look at the entirety of what Powell said in 2008, rather than picking an individual fragment from a much longer explanation, and then take a look at the actual reasons he quoted this time? If you still feel the same after doing so then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but to ask whether anyone else really doubts that your view is correct is presumptuous and provocative.

post #102 of 242

Powell's former chief of staff (a white guy, BTW) blew his lid:

 

"Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/lawrence-wilkerson-colin-powell-sununu_n_2027721.html

 

 

Ouch.


Edited by Bergermeister - 10/26/12 at 9:15pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #103 of 242

Not racist a lot of bullshit on the GOP Party. Most of them are racists especially from the South.This whole campaign is all about racial in differences pertaining to Obama from the crack about Kenya to a food stamp president.It is never ending and plain gross!
 

post #104 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

How about you go back and look at the entirety of what Powell said in 2008, rather than picking an individual fragment from a much longer explanation, and then take a look at the actual reasons he quoted this time? If you still feel the same after doing so then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but to ask whether anyone else really doubts that your view is correct is presumptuous and provocative.

 

Fair enough, but I don't see how you walk that back.  "I wasn't totally colorblind when endorsing Obama" (that's not the exact quote) speaks for itself.  If you have the total context that changes the meaning, please post it.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Powell's former chief of staff (a white guy, BTW) blew his lid:

 

"Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/lawrence-wilkerson-colin-powell-sununu_n_2027721.html

 

 

Ouch.

 

OMG!  One angry former aide (to a black man, nonetheless) says that his party is racist.  And libs like you eat up the narrative.  Shocker.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Not racist a lot of bullshit on the GOP Party. Most of them are racists especially from the South.This whole campaign is all about racial in differences pertaining to Obama from the crack about Kenya to a food stamp president.It is never ending and plain gross!
 

 

Frankly, I've had enough of you indicting the entire GOP (of which I'm a member) as racist.  In addition to being insulting, you have no support for your comment. 

 

1.  There are many thousands of Republicans who live outside "the South"

2.  The vast majority of people in this country are not racist, including those in the South.  This is another slur on your part.

3.  The whole campaign is about the economy.  I've seen no racial attack on Obama whatsoever.  

4.  There are more whites on food stamps than blacks, so that makes no sense.  

5.  Obama admitted doing cocaine.  There is also some evidence he dealt it as a young man.  People will decide whether or not that's relevant, but it's not a racial issue.

6.  The birthplace issue has nothing to do with race, whether or not one thinks he may have been born outside the U.S.  It has to do with Constitutional eligibility.  

 

Really, marv.  How about you focus on the issues of the campaign?  Instead, it is in fact YOU who are making the campaign about race, because it's all you have left.  We elected our first Black president, which is a great thing.  It is not, however, a qualification that trumps all others when it comes to re-electing him.     

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 #105 of 242

Sadly, racial bias has increased over the past four years according to AP:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/27/racial-views-new-polls-sh_n_2029423.html

 

 

A gender bias study would be interesting, too.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #106 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

How about you go back and look at the entirety of what Powell said in 2008, rather than picking an individual fragment from a much longer explanation, and then take a look at the actual reasons he quoted this time? If you still feel the same after doing so then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but to ask whether anyone else really doubts that your view is correct is presumptuous and provocative.

 

Fair enough, but I don't see how you walk that back.  "I wasn't totally colorblind when endorsing Obama" (that's not the exact quote) speaks for itself.  If you have the total context that changes the meaning, please post it.  

 

 

Quote:
I didn’t endorse him simply because he was black. I felt this was, you know, something to take into consideration. But I also had, on the other side of — of the issue, a dear friend of 30 years, John McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran who I had known for many years.
 
And I spoke at length with John McCain about his campaign and I watched Mr. Obama and his campaign. And at the end, I cannot say I was totally colorblind. But at the end, I convinced myself, based on the facts as I saw it, that he was the better choice for this time in our nation’s history.

 

Note that his statement is in response to the accusation that his endorsement was racially motivated, and he was explaining why that was not the case, as opposed to an admission that it was true. He also made it clear this time around that his endorsement is related to taxes, the economy and foreign policy, not race.

 

Note also that Sununu has withdrawn the accusation:  "Colin Powell is a friend and I respect the endorsement decision he made and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the President's policies", so presumably he was not willing to stand behind an apparently racist observation of that kind.

 

post #107 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

 

 

Note that his statement is in response to the accusation that his endorsement was racially motivated, and he was explaining why that was not the case, as opposed to an admission that it was true. He also made it clear this time around that his endorsement is related to taxes, the economy and foreign policy, not race.

 

Note also that Sununu has withdrawn the accusation:  "Colin Powell is a friend and I respect the endorsement decision he made and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the President's policies", so presumably he was not willing to stand behind an apparently racist observation of that kind.

 

 

Pardon me, but what the hell are you talking about?  He makes it clear that part of the reason for his decision was Obama's race.   

 

 

 

Quote:
I didn’t endorse him simply because he was black. I felt this was, you know, something to take into consideration. But I also had, on the other side of — of the issue, a dear friend of 30 years, John McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran who I had known for many years.

 

Can you even imagine the response if any white man said the same of Romney?  Racism is racism.  You either consider race as a factor, or you don't.  Race should not be any factor in determining nearly anything.  Any other scenario is racial discrimination.  

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 #108 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Note that his statement is in response to the accusation that his endorsement was racially motivated, and he was explaining why that was not the case, as opposed to an admission that it was true. He also made it clear this time around that his endorsement is related to taxes, the economy and foreign policy, not race.

 

Note also that Sununu has withdrawn the accusation:  "Colin Powell is a friend and I respect the endorsement decision he made and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the President's policies", so presumably he was not willing to stand behind an apparently racist observation of that kind.

 

 

Pardon me, but what the hell are you talking about?  He makes it clear that part of the reason for his decision was Obama's race.   

 

What part of this sentence is not clear to you: "But at the end, I convinced myself, based on the facts as I saw it, that he was the better choice for this time in our nation’s history"? If that is what he felt, and I, for one, am willing to believe him, how could he have acted any differently than to endorse Obama? Had he concluded the opposite (that McCain was the better choice for the country) and then endorsed Obama because of his race, then that would have been a racist decision. But he didn't, so it wasn't.

 

And why do you think Sununu withdrew the allegation?

 

post #109 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

What part of this sentence is not clear to you: "But at the end, I convinced myself, based on the facts as I saw it, that he was the better choice for this time in our nation’s history"? If that is what he felt, and I, for one, am willing to believe him, how could he have acted any differently than to endorse Obama? Had he concluded the opposite (that McCain was the better choice for the country) and then endorsed Obama because of his race, then that would have been a racist decision. But he didn't, so it wasn't.

And why do you think Sununu withdrew the allegation?

Did he or did he not admit race was a factor? And if so, is that an OK thing to do?
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 #110 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

What part of this sentence is not clear to you: "But at the end, I convinced myself, based on the facts as I saw it, that he was the better choice for this time in our nation’s history"? If that is what he felt, and I, for one, am willing to believe him, how could he have acted any differently than to endorse Obama? Had he concluded the opposite (that McCain was the better choice for the country) and then endorsed Obama because of his race, then that would have been a racist decision. But he didn't, so it wasn't.

And why do you think Sununu withdrew the allegation?

Did he or did he not admit race was a factor? And if so, is that an OK thing to do?

 

I'll happily address that question if you will first address mine rather than ignoring it: 

 

"But at the end, I convinced myself, based on the facts as I saw it, that he was the better choice for this time in our nation’s history"? If that is what he felt, and I, for one, am willing to believe him, how could he have acted any differently than to endorse Obama?

post #111 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'll happily address that question if you will first address mine rather than ignoring it: 

 

"But at the end, I convinced myself, based on the facts as I saw it, that he was the better choice for this time in our nation’s history"? If that is what he felt, and I, for one, am willing to believe him, how could he have acted any differently than to endorse Obama?

 

If he thought Obama would be a better President, so be it.  But he's openly stating that race was a factor.  This sort of blows his "based on the facts" narrative out of the water.  And what about today?  How a man like Colin Powell can conclude that, on the merits, Obama is more qualified than Romney is staggering.  Since I don't think Powell is a stupid man, it's pretty clear that race was again a factor.  

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 #112 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'll happily address that question if you will first address mine rather than ignoring it: 

 

"But at the end, I convinced myself, based on the facts as I saw it, that he was the better choice for this time in our nation’s history"? If that is what he felt, and I, for one, am willing to believe him, how could he have acted any differently than to endorse Obama?

 

If he thought Obama would be a better President, so be it.  But he's openly stating that race was a factor.  This sort of blows his "based on the facts" narrative out of the water.  And what about today?  How a man like Colin Powell can conclude that, on the merits, Obama is more qualified than Romney is staggering.  Since I don't think Powell is a stupid man, it's pretty clear that race was again a factor.  

 

OK - and he is exactly stating that he thought then, and thinks now, that Obama would be the better president for reasons other than race. Your judgement that race must have been the deciding factor for him because you believe that Obama is not the better candidate, and that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or racist does not deserve a response, and I will not dignify it with one.

 

To answer your earlier question, I thought at the time, and I still think, that in the context of being asked whether he had endorsed Obama because of his race, he was trying to convey that while he accepted that it would be disingenuous to try to claim that was blind to the race distinction, he reached his decision based on other factors. Just my opinion, but either way, unless you believe that he was lying when he stated his reasons for the endorsement, the race issue is moot since he stated that it was not the basis for his decision.

post #113 of 242

 This argument about who knew what and whether the President of the US is lying is horrifying. Obama, Clinton, Patraus (and others) watched this attack in real-time. it was streamed from a drone to the State Dept, the Pentagon, and the WH situation room. It was up to Obama to give the order to rescue Amb. Stevens and the others and he didn't give it. 

 

This is a outrage! The media is covering this up and the Obama supporters refuse to see what is going on just to re-elect this incompetent. What if you had a family member in the foreign service? How can any of you live with yourselves.

post #114 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lesismor View Post

 This argument about who knew what and whether the President of the US is lying is horrifying. Obama, Clinton, Patraus (and others) watched this attack in real-time. it was streamed from a drone to the State Dept, the Pentagon, and the WH situation room. It was up to Obama to give the order to rescue Amb. Stevens and the others and he didn't give it. 

 

This is a outrage! The media is covering this up and the Obama supporters refuse to see what is going on just to re-elect this incompetent. What if you had a family member in the foreign service? How can any of you live with yourselves.

 

It might not have been just incompetence. As Mark Steyn explains masterfully, it looks like Benghazi threatened to derail the "Obama's dead and we're safe" talking point - and elevate National Security in the campaign - and that simply could not be allowed.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #115 of 242
Thread Starter 

Retired Lt. Col:  Obama watched the attack personally.  

 

 

If this is true, I am beyond disgusted.  

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 #116 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Retired Lt. Col:  Obama watched the attack personally.  

 

 

If this is true, I am beyond disgusted.  

No crowing photo op this time? Well at least we wont have to photoshop Hillary out.

post #117 of 242
Thread Starter 

Petraeus testifies he knew it was terror; Rice's talking points changed to downplay it.  

 

This, after Obama admitted the White House sent Rice on the Sunday talk shows.  Obama's chauvinistic defense of Rice at his presser may have actually proved that his White House told Rice to lie.  The CIA and FBI knew it was terror within hours.  The President claims he called it terror the next day.  But Susan Rice (who "had nothing to do with Benghazi") was sent (by the White House) on five shows to claim it was not a preplanned attack.   Hmmmm.  

 

Washington Guardian:  Obama was told within 72 hours it was terrorism.


Edited by SDW2001 - 11/16/12 at 3:59pm
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 #118 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Petraeus testifies he knew it was terror; Rice's talking points changed to downplay it.  

 

This, after Obama admitted the White House sent Rice on the Sunday talk shows.  Obama's chauvinistic defense of Rice at his presser may have actually proved that his White House told Rice to lie.  The CIA and FBI knew it was terror within hours.  The President claims he called it terror the next day.  But Susan Rice (who "had nothing to do with Benghazi") was sent (by the White House) on five shows to claim it was not a preplanned attack.   Hmmmm.  

 

Washington Guardian:  Obama was told within 72 hours it was terrorism.

 

Petraeus also stated that the terrorist angle was edited out to avoid alerting suspect groups, and that the statements were made for intelligence, not political reasons. That is not implausible; I'm sure that we will be hearing more on the subject.

post #119 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Petraeus also stated that the terrorist angle was edited out to avoid alerting suspect groups, and that the statements were made for intelligence, not political reasons. That is not implausible; I'm sure that we will be hearing more on the subject.

 

Uh, he also stated he didn't know who edited the talking points, correct?  So how could he know why they were changed?  

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 #120 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Petraeus also stated that the terrorist angle was edited out to avoid alerting suspect groups, and that the statements were made for intelligence, not political reasons. That is not implausible; I'm sure that we will be hearing more on the subject.

 

Uh, he also stated he didn't know who edited the talking points, correct?  So how could he know why they were changed?  

 

He could certainly be aware of the strategy without knowing who executed it if that happened outside his agency.

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