Obama/Clinton and Libya...W....T.....F

[Ddawg]

Sno - I agree with you 210%. I am so angry over the ineptitude, deceit, and dereliction of duty from this Administration. Anyone with a brain knew that Libya is still a dangerous place. Kinda like the old west before it was settled - only worse. There are lots of lawless, angry people armed to the teeth among the populace. They are militant, Jihadist, and they hate the U.S. govt. We are the great Satan.

To not have a Marine security presence - it is unconscionable. Instead, to hire 4 local Libyans, that allowed the Jihadists into the compound, then pointed out where the Safe House was, enabling the Jihadists to capture, torture, rape, and murder the Ambasador. It is mind numbing. At a min. these Libyan security frauds were sympathetic to the Jihadists. More than likely, they are part of the Jihadists.

Look what has happened in Afghanistan repeatedly: Local Afghani police and Afghani army turn on U.S. troops and gun them down. It does not take a brain surgeon to know we need U.S. Marine's guarding U.S. property, and Embassy diplomats in hostile territory.

Benghazi and Cairo are shining examples of the wrong headed, ill conceived ideas, faulty conclusions of Liberals. "Can't we all just get along?" It is epic failure of leadership.

[snoscythe]

But hey--the WH stories give the media cover to start dinging Romney for his "wrongheaded" stance towards China, so it's working.

[Ddawg]

Sno - if you want to read a very interesting "op-ed" piece that was posted this last week in the Wall St Journal - by the Wall St. Journal - I am providing the link.

I am posting 2 lines from the article.

From the 1st paragraph:
"but our term for it is political sociopathy."

(The WSJ's term for Obama's conduct in running election ads ' "political sociopathy")

Sociopath: Selfish, no conscience, a serial liar.

The last paragraph:
"We (WSJ) want nothing to do with that agenda, but readers who see our name (WSJ) exploited in a TV ad should take it as one more sign of the Obama campaign's serial dishonesty."

The Obama campaign's "serial dishonesty." Unbelievably stunning!!! Not one mention of this article in the Main Stream Media.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1 ... left_email" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[snoscythe]

If nothing else, these recent events have provided a great barometer for determining which media outlets are in the sack with Obama, and which ones have some semblance of respectability.

If the media outlet is leading with "Should Google Censor Islam Video?" or "Should Video Producer be Prosecuted?" they are promoting an Obama agenda. If the outlet is leading with "Libyan Ambassador: US Warned of Al Qaeda Attacks Three Days in Advance," you've got someone who has found the abundance of stray yarns and is starting to unravel them.

[Ddawg]

+1. Ding - Ding - Ding!! Agreed.

(Meanwhile, I am nauseated from the dishonest, partisan coverage of events)

[hawkwing]

But guys, obviously this is a vast right wing conspiracy..!

[tww]

But guys, obviously this is a vast right wing conspiracy..!

I am not sure it is a vast right wing conspiracy. I think it is maybe only half-vast.


Yeah, between football and world events my brain is about fried.

[hawkwing]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 44712.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An article about Mormons, Muslims, and the Liberals.

[CougarClaw]

great article hawkwing...here's another that I thoroughly enjoyed

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/1 ... to-choose/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[hawkwing]

Interesting article, Claw, I wonder if Brian D. McLaren has seen the Book of Mormon play, and if he finds it 'tawdry, pathetic, even pornographic.' But either way, surely he supports the creator's rights to say those things?