Reply With Quote
looks like princess is wearing the full tiara.
The event itself isn't important to most Americans, there are some in the SOC community who would take issue with claiming it doesn't affect the lives of Americans when their comrades are dead. What it does do however is show the blatant bias that people have toward a political party that wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. It's like listening to homers talking about refereeing. Chumpdumper doesn't care because GWB isn't in the WH. WC cares because Obama is in the WH. It affects neither of you but both of you are here yammering on about it (as are many others).
looks like princess is wearing the full tiara.
Washington (CNN) - Americans are giving the White House low marks for how it's handled the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus, according to a new national survey.
But according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Tuesday, a majority of the public doesn't believe the Obama administration intentionally tried to mislead Americans on the September attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead....
...On Libya, 54% of the country is dissatisfied with the administration's response to the Benghazi attack, with only four in ten saying they're satisfied with the way the White House handled the matter.
"But that dissatisfaction is not because Americans see a cover-up," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Only 40% believe that the inaccurate statements that administration officials initially made about the Benghazi attack were an attempt to deliberately mislead the public. Fifty-four percent think those inaccurate statements reflected what the White House believed to be true at the time."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...s-resignation/
I would've felt the same way about Bush tbh -- I don't think he is a Muslim either.
I don't recall. How many of you are so happy about the successful changes in Egypt? Remember how well Obama embraced this Arab Spring?
When you say embraced, do you you mean taking an extremely cautious approach and "leading from behind" while only intervening when he had no other option?
what were our alternatives?
What was wrong with leaving it alone? Why did he have to involve us? We had no active threats from them.
So then you oppose the US trying to promote democracy in the Middle East....
It would have served US interests better to leave Hussein, Mubarek and Gaddafi in power.
This is an incredibly callous view that I completely agree with.
It is also not the same thing as saying that we should or shouldn't have helped out the populations there.
What did we do in Egypt?
I know some here think we should have actively helped the dictator in this case.
Wow.
That's incredible.
Really.
So your answer is nothing.
If you say so Bouchumnp...
With Egypt, doing nothing put the US on the right side of history in the region for once.
Given the fact that a lot of our problems around there came from installing and/or propping up dictators, I'm fine with trying something different. We'll have to wait some years to see if the result is any different.
Throwing the backing of the President of the United States behind the protestors and demanding Mubarek step down was hardly "nothing". It told the Egyptian military which way to jump, which resulted in Mubarek being overthrown.
IIRC, Obama didn't say anything until the writing was on the wall already for Mubarak.
The military also did nothing. If they jumped, they jumped with a perfectly perpendicular trajectory relative to the ground.
bingo.
The Egyptians are grownups with their own country. I am neither happy nor upset about the fact they have decided to change their government. It just is.
Should I be unhappy?
If so, why?
You seem to be attached to emotional arguments over dispassionate analysis. You should change that, it leads to bad conclusions based on faulty logic.
He was going down anyway.
Do you think we should have intervened militarily to stop it? What should/could we have done?
No it wouldn't.
That statement ignores why the Al Qaeda ideology has such traction in the muslim world.
Realpolitic that supports immoral dictators is extremely short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating.
Do you understand why the Al Qaeda ideology hates us? Explain it in your own words.
IMHO the military held all the cards. If they had backed Mubarek he would still be in power IMHO. Once the US abandoned him they knew they needed to negotiate a power sharing partnership with the brotherhood.
That is the case. That is also the responsible, smart thing to do.
This places the whackadoodle Obama hating crowd in the position of having to say that, since Obama never does anything right, this must have, by definition, been the wrong course of action. It is good fun to get them to suggest viable alternatives that clearly were dumb ideas. At some level they know that we did about the right thing, but the cognitive dissonance is funny to watch play out, as they try to hold the idea that "Obama never does anything right" with the subconscious realization that the administration made the only call they could in the cir stances. Hedging your bets is a time honored diplomatic tactic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
