rigney

I'm going to assume that I'm explaining myself badly rather than that you're deliberately missing my point. I'm saying that the only information we know for sure is that there was a threat of reprisal from the al Qaeda branch that attacked the US Embassy in Libya, but there was nothing in that threat that pointed specifically to the embassy, or really even to Libya. All our forces were obviously on alert around the 9/11 date as they have been every year since the original attack. What I'm failing to get through to you is that whatever intelligence we may have had prior to the attack is not being shared with the public, and while none of us likes being kept in the dark, I do have to admit that it makes sense not to make such things known if they might compromise any investigations or operations we have in place.

 

If you follow any of the stories involving intelligence operations, you know that there are tons of data to sift through, and not all of it is true. And some of that information, if made public, could tip off the enemy as to its source, thus compromising valuable assets in the field. It's clear you're on a witch hunt looking for culpability, but you should at least be asking yourself why al Qaeda would telegraph their plans to attack our embassy, why our own forces would ignore it if they did, and why we would do so in an area like Libya that shows such recent pro-western promise? It seems clear to me at least that this al Qaeda group had a plan in place, and used the confusion surrounding the protest of the anti-Islamic movie to take advantage of security that was temporarily stretched too thin covering too many possible threats.

Do you think the Senate Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence pack up and go home because the Democrats are in the majority? Since the Republicans are on the committee and are known to be looking for opportunities to make Obama look bad, my question is, was there information the Republicans might have know that could have prevented such an attack, but rather than acting on it the Republicans decided to let innocent Americans die, simply for political reasons?

Well, they knew that a damn video was heading out on the internet that would piss people off over there and maybe cause some unrest. But you didn't like them trying to deal with that did you? I guess they were supposed to start carpet-bombing pre-emptively, just in case.

The real question is, Was there information the Republicans knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

And I answered your question. This administration is not compromising an ongoing investigation into the situation by warning suspects of what it's doing or planning to do. If this was poker, I'd say they're playing things close to the vest so they don't tip their hand. Remember, they're spread pretty thin over there, watching so many Middle Eastern countries at once.

 

Of course the Republicans are going to use this against Obama. It's risky though, imo. If they make a huge deal about Obama not doing anything and then suddenly Obama announces that an ongoing, quietly dispatched operation nabbed the perpetrators, the GOP looks pretty stupid.

 

Like I said, I'm a fan of transparency normally, but in military matters, loose lips sink ships, or gives the terrorists time to make their getaway. When it comes to fighting terrorism, let's try using a blowgun since we know a trumpet doesn't work.

When Bush was president, I didn't like all the secrecy surrounding his administration. He was labeled early on as one of the most secretive presidents ever. On the other hand, I thought he was entirely too forthcoming and open about his military procedures in Afghanistan and then Iraq. I understand that he wanted to show the world that he was doing something to retaliate after 9/11, but I thought his military policies put our troops at extra risk just so he could crow about it. The publicity involving military actions further encouraged terrorist recruitment as well, this is known.

 

I was pleased when Obama took a much more low key approach. Suddenly, without a bunch of media hype to sell it, we had killed bin Laden, covertly, with a minimum of expense and fuss, treating him like a coward and a menace and giving him the justice he deserved. On the other hand, a lack of transparency creates situations like these, where the administration doesn't want to let the whole world know what's going on with respect to their situations and options. It's frustrating when the government has to play things close to the vest like this, but I have to believe the military commanders prefer it when as few people as possible know of their plans.

 

I remember complaining when Bush's administration outed our own spies and couldn't wait to tell the press about all our plans, so I guess I have to bite the bullet, so to speak, when we're not told everything about our operations in the Middle East these days. Grudging admiration, given through gritted teeth, for a difficult job in a difficult part of the world, made all the more difficult because of past mistakes.

What has the cabinet said that does not ring of the truth to you?

Who murdered our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? I know he is dead along with 3 of his comrades, but why? It has been a month now and Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth. Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign? i'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue.

Instead of starting a new insane political thread I'm going to post this here, I genuinely hope it is bullshit but if true the campaign has hit new low this election cycle...

 

DVD Claims Obama's Mom Was Porn Star

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXcDj5J39kM

OK, the first one has no context. We don't know which millionaire business owner was called greedy and selfish, we just have the disparity between the salaries. Are the conservatives trying to imply that the more money you make, the greedier you are?

 

The second one seems bogus. Whether or not actors earn every penny they make isn't really a conservative/liberal stance. I think it's more whether you like that particular actor or not.

 

The third one is bogus as well. The First Lady has security requirements that are beyond her control, ordered by the Secret Service. Ann Romney has no such requirements.

 

The fourth one is deceptive. What's the issue, both men served, no one stopped them. What's your point?

 

The fifth one I couldn't find much about in 60 seconds. Dees is a lawyer, so bleh. Even Glenn Beck has suggested the Tea Party is racist.

 

The sixth one is bullshit. It only includes profits from the sale of gasoline and ignores the huge profits from producing and refining crude oil.

 

I'm tired of this now, maybe more later.

http://whoownsbigoil.org/a-note-on-oil-company-earnings

Sorry, what on earth are you on about?

Who are " that guy in the hat, the others and that little girl"?

I take it you mean the folk in the video. Well, actually they aren't generally quoting anyone. They are putting forward a point of view.

As such, the level of proof needed is rather less than on, for example, a scientific web site.

 

As you say, those statements (on the web page you posted) could be researched.

And they must have been, in order to quote them (assuming they didn't just make them up).

 

So why not give a reference for them?

Could it be that, in context, they make a lot more sense that they are portrayed as doing?

 

My guess would be "yes" but perhaps you would like to do the research and check.

Go on- prove me wrong.

Show me that all the things that "liberals say" are actually said by liberals, and in circumstances that don't significantly alter the meaning.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon-118439.html

"I wonder if any of it could be true?"

Quite possibly, but rather a lot of it is not.

It also, as one would expect, doesn't include any context so it's pretty obvious that it's quote mining of the worst type.

Why did you cite it?

A fascinating new online ad. Salty language, so is very NSFW.

 

 

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/david-horowitz/politics-liberal-logic-101/

No, the confusing pact is between the Republicans.

I'm afraid I've lost you. Sorry.

No problem! Just remember that I'm on your team.

 

 

 

Fact: more Americans are unemployed now than 4 years ago.

Aye, there's the rub. You can articulate that you know that folded clothes will be wrinkled, but still prefer that method, but a child can't. You don't have that excuse, yet you act the same way. Why don't you even attempt to articulate your reasoning behind the political statements you make?

A right wing conservative? I asked earlier if we could get back on topic, but it appears that people find it more entertaining when I am getting attacked by a horde of democrats. I'd like to see how one of you fares on a largely republican site, for instance, one discussing only religion.

Worse: What if Godzilla ate the engineers before they could design the airplane !? If there is fire and they manage to stop it from spreading, or they manage to put it out before they all die ... you'll still need to deal with smoke regardless of whether the fire is fatal.

 

By the way, why are people upset that some aren't still discussing the matter of airplane fires anymore? That's actually not the point of the topic. It's politics, specifically regarding careless and inappropriate judgements made by politicians such as Mitt Romney. I'm the one who's off topic!

A right wing conservative? I asked earlier if we could get back on topic, but it appears that people find it more entertaining when I am getting attacked by a horde of democrats. I'd like to see how one of you fares on a largely republican site, for instance, one discussing only religion.

The country needs a bankruptcy attorney? You mean, because of the national debt? It seems like you took the pun differently than I intended. Obama said that we're better off now than we were 4 years ago, and I disagree. Less people have jobs than ever. I was trying to imply that bankruptcy attorneys are getting a lot of work, because we're worse off than we were 4 years ago. I'm humourously disagreeing with potus. Would you care to explain your take on it? People of different generations tend to have different outlooks on humour.

Says all of what? A little more detail would be appreciated.

I know, and we keep asking you why you think it won't work and you can't say specifically.

I'm going through this with my daughter right now. Now that she wants to wear nicer clothes, we want to start putting them on hangers in her closet instead of folding them in drawers. It would save time for everyone (we share laundry duties in my house), be easier to see what's there, and keep her clothes from wrinkling. But she says she prefers them folded, but has no reason other than that, and it frustrates me. She can't tell me why she prefers her clothes folded, it's just her preference, no matter how illogical it is.

I do hope you can realize the cyclical nature of things like bankruptcy, rigney. It takes a while for things to fall apart on a national scale the same as on a personal scale. People rarely lose their jobs and file immediately for bankruptcy. What were seeing here is the result of the Bush years (even though you may not want to hear it). Things ARE picking up now, what Obama has been able to do HAS been effective. Even with so much of Congress blocking his way just to make him look bad. The graphs are heading upwards, now is not the time to switch tactics by opening windows on the plane.

Not to contest your wisdom Phi for All, since you may be absolutely right; but I have my reasoning for believing just as you do. In all honesty I read and listen almost exclusivelly to things from the right simply because I can't stand the hate being spewed by the left. As I'v stated in several of my posts, I don't hate Obama, I just don't believe in his method of trying to change our country will work. Had that approach been taken 200 years ago i might have agreed, but not today. The statements made by Romney about the airplane windows did not earn him an A+ for his effort. But had your wife or mine been on that plane we may have said something equally as stupid, at that particular moment. Here is something you might want to look at that also has nothing to do with windows but may shed some light on my belief in democracy.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_years_did_democrats_control_both_house_and_senate

If five average Americans were to read this joke, 5/4 of them would have no clue what I'm trying to say. Am I bitter? Mmm.. Sometimes. Do I cling to guns? Yup. Do I cling to religion? Mmm.. Not so much.. I'm a bankruptcy attorney, and yes, I am better off now than I was 4 years ago!

I always enjoyed flying into LaGuardia as it felt like the place was about to land in the water on approach. Flying into Hong Kong is pretty cool, too, with the way the mountainsides are nestled throughout the various tributaries.

I've always wondered why they put windows on planes. Kids are the only ones I see that are fascinated for more than a few minutes, and I would think there'd be more concerns about freaking out the acrophobes and the panic flyers. I'm sure they've done studies but I wonder if it isn't just an antique holdover from the early days of commercial flight.

 

I want to fly on AirRigney. Perhaps you could arrange for several different views besides the outside cameras. Driving Route 66 in a convertible, sailboating off the coast of Maui, riverboat down the Mississippi....

How do you ensure that, and at what cost? Why would you need to open the windows, anyway?