« Remembering 11 September 2001 (more updated 12sep12) | Main | Ruminations - 14sep12 »

12 September 2012

Comments

Ryan Mount

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that this was written by a Romney supporter.

Todd Juvinall

You must understand that Romney is thought of as "daddy" by the scofflaw reporters who can never find a good thing to say about him. U truly believe the liberal brain is anti-daddy because "daddy" had to discipline them as kids and this is their payback to "daddy". Misdirected anger issues are a way of life for a liberal. Maureen Dowd is a perfect example.

Ryan Mount

As any breadwinner will tell you, no one likes a manager, even though they're essential: either you're a control freak, or incompetent; you're stingy with supplies and resources, or you let the well run dry on your watch. Lose-lose.

This lack of administrative perspective, IMHO, is generally due to a very strange sense many people have of entitlement. Which, after studying Charles Kesler [thanks George for the introduction], seems to be driven by people clumping into victimized interest groups driven by, in Mr. Kesler's words, a "liberation from Virtue." As an admitted overstated point, you do not have to be responsible for your actions nor be the key ingredient in your success. Someone else, your group/faction or worse the government, is now in charge of managing that.

TomKenworth

So how would Romney handle Lybia any differently?

"On Capitol Hill, House and Senate Republicans mostly steered clear of the political criticism that Romney leveled at Obama over foreign policy, focusing on the lives lost in the Egyptian and Libyan attacks and imploring the two governments to condemn the incidents and protect American diplomatic missions.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who has traveled to Libya and met with Stevens, said: "The Libyan and Egyptian people should understand that the U.S. shares their commitment to building more hopeful and prosperous nations. However, if left unchecked, violent attacks like these against our embassies and diplomats will lead Libya and Egypt down a dark path and rob them of their hopes of a more prosperous and democratic future. "

The president responded with a written statement condemning "this outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi." He said he has directed administration officials "to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe."

Romney said in his earlier statement that he was outraged by the attacks and the administration's early response seemed to sympathize with the attackers. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Obama was heading west Wednesday, to Nevada, where he planned to hit Romney and vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan with charges of secrecy. The Obama campaign says the two Republicans are refusing to tell voters how they could pay for tax cuts that disproportionately help the wealthy without having to gut deductions for middle-class taxpayers."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Romney-criticizes-Obama-in-wake-of-embassy-attacks-3858201.php#ixzz26Gb0X2xd

Gregory

Golly, "TomKenworth", I suspect Romney would have handled "Lybia[sic]" differently in one very real way... attending his national security briefings for the last week or so before the 9/11 anniversary rather than those so very important campaign fundraisers. Might even have found the time to visit with Israel's prime minister when he was in town.

Paul Emery

It's worth recalling now that Obama's Bush attended all the security meetings leading up to 9-11 and ignored direct warnings that an attack was imminent. This story has been well reported but it's worth recalling when our current president attendance to duties is questioned. Ths story goes on with new revelations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1

"On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal...............


The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real."

Paul Emery

sorry for the typos "Obama's Bush" Perhaps I meant to say that since both parties are incompetent

George Rebane

PaulE 857am - was there any evidence that Bush2 discounted or rejected those warnings and instructed his security services to stand down or ignore the warnings? That they would fly hijacked airplanes into buildings was a bit of a surprise to the whole world. Of the uncountable ways an open society can be attacked, should Bush2 have shut down the country? Was there something obvious that he could have done to prevent 9/11?

Rear view mirrors are wonderful devices, I have three of them on each vehicle.

Russ Steele

Paul@08:57

Now the empty chair knows that radical muslims are dangerous, so now it is OK to ignore them and move on to the campaign.

Why is that you keep going back to the past to justify the present, ignoring the future?

Paul Emery

Russ

What is it about Romney that makes you believe he won't have the same tenancies of Bush? Are you saying that we didn't know about the dangers at hand in 2001? That's what the CIA was so futility trying to warn Bush about that he absolutely ignored. What brings it up to the present is that you are supporting a return to the same crew (Republicans) that we had in 2001. Again, please share with me why you think Romney will be different?

Gregory

20/20 hindsight in action.

Paul, how would you compare the inaction over the nebulous warnings about a group wanting to strike the US by the new Bush administration, whose attention had been recovery from the recession they inherited from Clinton, to the inaction by FDR, in the presidency for over a decade, in the face of a very real and known threat to the US in the Pacific by the belligerent Japanese Navy in late 1941?

Russ Steele

More Amateur action by the Obama Department of State. This from Power Line:

WERE WARNINGS IGNORED?

That’s what the London Independent newspaper reports tonight:
Exclusive: America ‘was warned of embassy attack but did nothing’
Kim Sengupta


The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

There’s more.  Meanwhile, the DebkaFile (not always 100 percent accurate) reports that the Benghazi attack was planned with the express purpose of flushing out Ambassador Stevens and other embassy personnel so they could be hunted down and killed:

The operation is rated by terror experts as the most ambitious outrage al Qaeda has pulled off in the last decade. According to our sources, the gunmen split into two groups of 10 each and struck in two stages:
1. They first fired rockets at the consulate building on the assumption that the ambassador’s bodyguards would grab him, race him out of the building and drive him to a safe place under the protection of the US secret service;
2.  The second group was able to identify the getaway vehicle and the ambassador’s armed escort and lay in wait to ambush them. The gunmen then closed in and killed the ambassador and his bodyguards at point blank range.

DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report that the investigation launched by US counter-terror and clandestine services is focusing on finding out why no clue was picked up of the coming attack by any intelligence body and how al Qaeda’s preparations for the attack which took place inside Libya went unnoticed by any surveillance authority.

If these reports are true, Secretary Clinton should be fired.

George Rebane

It is interesting to note the deflections of Obama's amateurish ineptness as the left seek answers to 'what would Romney do or have done?' Nobody wants to talk about the flood of evidence that is now coming out about Obama's embassy statements, the state department walkbacks, the WH denials, the continuing apologies from the SecState. And they continue to back the demonstrably ignorant ideologue, the one who has literally learned nothing from his flood of mistakes, for another four years on some pretext of Romney's presumed actions.

That Romney nailed it with his first criticism of publicly known facts, since corroborated and amplified many times over, is simply astounding to this observer.

Steven Frisch

Well George the vast majority of America seems to disagree with you, including a lot of Republicans...they are seeing steel from Hillary and Barack and weakness in the spine of the Great Dissembler.

THEMIKEYMCD

Obama is proven spineless, again.

Ron Paul is proven wise, again.

Romney's shot at the WH was nixed today by The Bernanke (a.k.a. Chairsatan).

Paul Emery

Even Bill O’Reilly couldn't defend Romney saying on his show last night that “I’m not sure the Governor is correct on that. The embassy was trying to head off the violence. Being conciliatory in that kind of a situation seems logical.”

Nuff said when even O'Reilly dumps him. On this one game Obama

Dixon Cruickshank

Actually I'm sure Romney would have just left the damn place alone. If the rattlesnakes are just laying quietly don't go start poking sticks at them.

Frisch I have to say - honest - "steel" that is absolutely the last adjective that would come to mind from this mealy mouthed bunch - actually in any forum or FB post I have seen thats not the one being noted.

Russ Steele

Obama and his Sec of State thinks that casual mobs carry APGs and Mortars around with them just in case they need to attack the American infidels on any fine afternoon under the Benghazi sun. This steely group with a limp spine has now denied that the Benghazi attack was premeditated, claiming they were clueless.

A U.S. official told POLITICO: “There’s no intelligence indicating that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated.”

Now let me ask Mr Frisch if he thinks this was viable statement, given that even the Libyans themselves are saying it was heavily armed militants.

Heavily armed militants used a protest of an anti-Islam film as a cover and may have had help from inside Libyan security in their deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate, a senior Libyan official said Thursday.

It hard to come up with a group of heavily armed militants without some planning and premeditation! Oh, it was that the Obama and Sec of State just did not have any “actionable intelligence”of premeditation. They only had warnings of possible attacks on diplomatic installations in the Middle East on 9/11, no actionable intelligence. Not even enough to beef up security.

No problem, the spineless ones knew that Marines guarding the diplomatic installations were unarmed, no ammo in their guns, making sure there would be no incidents of US aggression against the protesters. As you can see the how well that worked out for this steely group with the limp spines.

How are Marine with empty guns suppose to defend our diplomatic installations, especially when Sr Management new there were going to be protests. That takes real steel to scare protesters back over the wall with empty guns. One has to ask, why were the Marines unarmed, were they stationed there to protect the installation and the diplomatic staff, or just to provide some pomp and circumstance.

George Rebane

From the 13sep12 WSJ.

'The New World Disorder'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443884104577647282429229736.html?mod=ITP_opinion_2

'Romney Offends the Pundits'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443884104577647830171289116.html?mod=ITP_opinion_2

Russ Steele

My 09:25 CORRECTION

"The Marine Corps has issued a statement regarding its involvement in the recent actions in Egypt and Libya. In Egypt, the Corps says that, contrary to an earlier report on Power Line earlier today, the U.S. Ambassador did not impose restrictions on weapons or weapons status on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group detachment. The Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons."

However, the rules of engagement are classified. For not military vets that means the Marines had rules abut when they could shoot their weapons.

Todd Juvinall

Hell PasulE, if Romney did a Bush2 that is OK with me. Go kick some terrorist ass. Obama and Hillary just yap.

Paul Emery

Sure Todd. Just like Bush he can leave two unfinished wars and trillions in unpaid war debts as well as thousands of casualties. That's pretty great huh?

Steven Frisch

Really Dixon and Todd, Obama has proved he is more than willing to use force, at times against the wishes of some of his strongest constituencies, to achieve the nations ends. To paint him as not having "steel" is utter nonsense. To put it in Todd terms, even if you think that crediting Obama with killing Bin Ladin is a little like "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"; Rance Stoddard went on to marry Vera Miles, and be a Governor, Ambassador, and three term Senator.

THEMIKEYMCD

Obama is a disgrace.

Could the media be any more mute over Obama's inabilities?

Whatever stones Obama had he used throwing them at Bush.

I am embarrassed by our Commander and Chief.

TomKenworth

"DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report that the investigation launched by US counter-terror and clandestine services is focusing on finding out why no clue was picked up of the coming attack by any intelligence body and how al Qaeda’s preparations for the attack which took place inside Libya went unnoticed by any surveillance authority.

If these reports are true, Secretary Clinton should be fired."

~ Russ Steele | 13 September 2012 at 06:20 PM~

Steele,

Same reason led you to call for the firing of Bush after 9/11 I suppose? BTW, your source seems to have the circumstances and cause of death entirely wrong. What eles do they have wrong?

Michael Anderson

I found this little wonder today about Mormonism. You will like it I'm sure: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/why-i-love-mormonism/?hp

TomKenworth

Michael A: I read and skimmed the article. After a long day my response is: Religion is a pastime for those with brains and time on their hands. The rest of us have enough trouble just coping with this place and all the madness, without trying to figure out where it all came from or where it is all going to.

George Rebane

MichaelA 430pm - A remarkable article about Mormonism, one that highlights some astounding precepts of the faith and its cosmology. It all coincides with what my Mormon friends have shared with me over the decades. And it's not what their clean cut missionaries lead with when they come to your door.

But it is what it is. Now what?

Michael Anderson

George asked: "But it is what it is. Now what?"

Nothing, probably. But good info. nonetheless, and its usefulness may present itself in unknown ways. My mother grew up in Utah, then moved on from the faith when she married my heathen (Episcopalian actually) father and moved to the devil's paradise (California). I spent a few weeks each year of my summers and winters in Salt Lake City, listening to my Mormon relatives explain, in a very kindly and loving way, that I was going to hell.

BTW, most of them have since left the faith 40 years later, though they still live in Utah and love its wide-open spaces, fairly decent economy (compared to at least 30 other states doing less well), and happy citizens.

Ryan Mount

I can not that Romney is a Mormon or a Catholic or a Hindu or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, um, follower. Actually, I would vote for him in a heartbeat if he followed the FSM. Anyhow...

But since we raised the LDS specter, the Mormon faith seems to have more in common with that other unique American invention "Scientology" than it does with mainstream religions. Outer Space planets? Magical under wear, I mean temple garment? Come on man!

George Rebane

RyanM 1228pm - Would you have similar reactions to the garments - visible and not - worn by, say, Hasidic Jews or Sikhs? In short, religions have their own peculiar customs, traditions, and ceremonies. I wonder at what point do we say that 'That person's religion is so different from mine, that I would not want him in any position where he either represents or makes decisions for me.'

And what about believing in an ostensibly 'normal religion' in which the clergy call upon the godhead to deliver extreme retributions on something that I love - say, the mullahs and Rev Wright's concurrence on America.

Please don't take this as an ambush or 'gotcha' comment.

Ryan Mount

> Would you have similar reactions to the garments - visible and not - worn by, say, Hasidic Jews or Sikhs?

This is not a yes or no proposition. But let's dissect this into a Great Chain of Religious Clothing Being:

- Turbans aren't as funny as LDS Temple Garments. Generally Sikh turbans aren't funny at all, although I've seen them worn by children in funny ways in my travels.

- Scientology's Xenu is funnier (and weirder) than the Mormon Kolob. But not by much.

- Anything the Pope wears relative to his flock is hilarious: http://a2.img.mobypicture.com/46f0238c8fed990f4819e4b73282a328_view.jpg

- Hasidic Jews' practices are relatively peculiar, but I wouldn't call them laugh-worthy. Except in one place: B&H Photo/Video in Manhattan. If you've been there, you know what I mean.

Oh, BTW...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garments

Anyhow back to the Mormons. The whole temple garments isn't a fraction as ridiculous as the LDS "you get your own planet/Kolob" thing. Again, very Scientology-like. Only in America.

Again, I have no care for the religious practices of our politicians. Is Obama a Muslim or a shitty Christian? I don't care. Does Romney wear temple garments? Why should that even be an issue? (Although I'd pay good money to see him wear them) I'm more interested in his/her policy ideas. IOW, *Romney's* Mormonism is hardly even worth discussing.

George Rebane

RyanM 210pm - Thanks Ryan.

Gregory


For amusing accounts of a couple of the newer religions out there, you can't beat the profane South Park Studios, unless there's just too much profanity to suit your tastes. Doesn't bother me, and the biggest belly laughs I remember my dear departed father, a retired Junior high VP, ever uttering were while watching a South Park with me.

All sing along now... "Joseph Smith was called a prophet, dum dum dum dum dum..."

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons

All About Mormons does a credible job of dividing the nutcase theology from the really nice life most Mormons seem to have.

Scientologists Tom Cruise and John Travolta get Trapped in the Closet when it's discovered the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard is Stan, a child living in South Park:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e12-trapped-in-the-closet

There's a segment in the middle (11:30) that lays out the basics of the bad science fiction at the heart of Scientology, but the funniest section is arguably the "go ahead and sue me" at the end, followed by the credits all changed to variations on John Smith. This episode was also the cause of singer, and Scientologist, Issac Hayes quitting, with his "Chef" character dropped from new episodes.

Be warned, trying to skip forward can cause a deluge of commercials

Ryan Mount

Greg-

If you ever have a chance to make it to B & H Audio/Photo in Manhattan, please do. I had the BEST customer service experience of my life there. And it was stocked, wall to wall with Hasidic Jews on the floor eagerly waiting to answer my idiotic audio questions with polite and informative answers.

It was better than riding the glass elevators in the Marriot...drunk.

Duckie Narveson

Tut tut! Nary a ruminate about your 50-year accomplishment with your lovely, classy wife.

George Rebane

DuckieN 215pm - guilty as charged. I suppose I'll have to make appropriate note of it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad