Us Ambassador to Libya killed by Militants

[BigRedBuster]

One example is the entire WMD issue.

 

Now, we can sit here and talk about if we should have gone into Iraq or not and hind site...I may very well agree with you.

 

However, before we went in, absolutely every Democrat in power and every intelligence agency around the world was claiming they had WMDs. Clinton, Gore....everyone...said they had them. Heck, France, Germany and Russia actually even said they had them.

 

What happened when they weren't found? All the Dems turned around and acted like they never said they had them. Meanwhile, there are quotes from them exactly saying that. They made it political. The way it should have been handled is to say WE were wrong and then discuss making sure it doesn't happen again and how to exit Iraq. BUT, the Dems turned it around and acted like they had nothing to do with it.

 

Another one is the prison camp in Cuba. Gee.....when did Obama say he was going to have that closed down? Here we have people that we captured on the battle field. The Dems making it political supports the enemy. Sorry if you probably don't agree with that but don't you think that all those quotes from the campaign about how horrible it is that we have Gitmo made it into enemy ears? NOW...if you really think it is that horrible, then when you get into office close the friggen thing down. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!

 

Obviously Obama all of a sudden doesn't think it's all that horrible. No...he used it politically against the Republicans for his own quest for the office and doesn't do anything about it after the fact.

[carlfense]

One example is the entire WMD issue.

 

Now, we can sit here and talk about if we should have gone into Iraq or not and hind site...I may very well agree with you.

 

However, before we went in, absolutely every Democrat in power and every intelligence agency around the world was claiming they had WMDs. Clinton, Gore....everyone...said they had them. Heck, France, Germany and Russia actually even said they had them.

 

What happened when they weren't found? All the Dems turned around and acted like they never said they had them. Meanwhile, there are quotes from them exactly saying that. They made it political. The way it should have been handled is to say WE were wrong and then discuss making sure it doesn't happen again and how to exit Iraq. BUT, the Dems turned it around and acted like they had nothing to do with it.

So where did they say that George W. Bush sympathized with the 9/11 terrorists or the people who kill our troops? Or anything even close to that level of offensiveness?

 

Another one is the prison camp in Cuba. Gee.....when did Obama say he was going to have that closed down? Here we have people that we captured on the battle field. The Dems making it political supports the enemy. Sorry if you probably don't agree with that but don't you think that all those quotes from the campaign about how horrible it is that we have Gitmo made it into enemy ears? NOW...if you really think it is that horrible, then when you get into office close the friggen thing down. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!

 

Obviously Obama all of a sudden doesn't think it's all that horrible. No...he used it politically against the Republicans for his own quest for the office and doesn't do anything about it after the fact.

You do remember that he tried . . . right? Congress (mostly GOP but with DNC votes as well) blocked it.

 

I trust that if he had managed to close Gitmo solely through executive orders you wouldn't be howling about him ruling by fiat.

[knapplc]

 

Do you now agree that they had been helpful?

 

I'll have to get back to you later on the rest.

 

Have you done any searches on Iran's outreaches to the US?

 

Also you mentioned Iran backed attacks on British troops. have you researched US/UK support of terrorism inside Iran?

 

If you want to do that, start with our support for MeK and PJAK.

 

Define "helpful." If you're implying that Iran, by intent, worked hand-in-hand with America to successfully invade Afghanistan, I've already shown you the answer is no. If by "helpful" you mean that they weren't openly hostile while we were in the instant process of invasion you may have a point, but you're not supporting such a stance.

 

What Iranian outreaches are you talking about? Examples would be helpful. This method of lobbing stuff against the wall to see what sticks doesn't help a conversation much.

 

I didn't "mention" Iranian terrorist support, I provided one example of hundreds of articles out there, and specifically one regarding Afghanistan.

 

If you have a point to make about The People's Mujahedin of Iran and/or the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan then I invite you to make it.

[BigRedBuster]

The question wasn't did the Dems claim Bush sympathized with the terrorists. (even though they did indirectly through Mikey Moore's movie during the campaign)

 

The question was about politicizing the efforts of the administration.

 

Also, the guy had two years of Democrat controlled congress. For how passionate he was about closing GITMO, he couldn't get it done in those two years with his own party in power?

[carlfense]

The question wasn't did the Dems claim Bush sympathized with the terrorists. (even though they did indirectly through Mikey Moore's movie during the campaign)

 

The question was about politicizing the efforts of the administration.

You seem to be implying that all politicization is the same. That's not correct.

 

Saying that the president sympathizes with the terrorists who killed our ambassador isn't equivalent to saying that Bush should have known that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

 

Also, the guy had two years of Democrat controlled congress. For how passionate he was about closing GITMO, he couldn't get it done in those two years with his own party in power?

Yeah . . . there wasn't much going on in those two years . . . right?

[knapplc]

The question wasn't did the Dems claim Bush sympathized with the terrorists. (even though they did indirectly through Mikey Moore's movie during the campaign)

 

Michael Moore isn't and never has been a Democratic mouthpiece. Implying he is or was shows a massive ignorance of Democrats.

 

Also, the guy had two years of Democrat controlled congress. For how passionate he was about closing GITMO, he couldn't get it done in those two years with his own party in power?

 

We've covered this

[sd'sker]

The question wasn't did the Dems claim Bush sympathized with the terrorists. (even though they did indirectly through Mikey Moore's movie during the campaign)

 

i agree with the others that it is odd to compare statements made by moore to those of romney, but i am curious as to what you are referencing specifically in moore's movie.

[carlfense]

Compare these quotes:

I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment– the good judgment– not to be– not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing.

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

 

Mitt Romney thinks that the latter shows that the speaker “sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” The former are his own words from earlier today.

 

Does he really think that the people are this stupid? Does he believe that he can lie to us about something that happened only hours earlier? Does he believe that we won’t notice that he said today virtually the same thing that he had condemned yesterday as sympathizing with terrorists? Does he think that we won’t notice or care? Is he right?

 

 

 

 

 

First quote: http://abcnews.go.co...nd-mitt-romney/

Second quote: http://www.washingto...954e1_blog.html

Third quote: http://www.washingto...954e1_blog.html

[knapplc]

Does he really think that the people are this stupid?

 

I think he (or his handlers) know that many will take it at face value without any critical thought about it.

[carlfense]

Does he really think that the people are this stupid?

 

I think he (or his handlers) know that many will take it at face value without any critical thought about it.

They must not think much of their supporters.

[zoogs]

All politicians seek to play the 'politics game' whenever they can, to move the needle. Romney seized at this opportunity when he shouldn't have, because it was distasteful and very insensitive. And wrong. A terrible gaffe that reflects very poorly on the campaign he's running.

 

OK, are we all agreed? Can we then also agree that this really doesn't matter?

 

We want our politicians to discuss the issues. But what incentive is given to them to talk about the issues, when plainly people would much rather chatter about the meaningless? Our interest in jumping on these things to tear down one candidate or another's character is precisely the reason why 'the game' is the focus of those campaigns.

[carlfense]

All politicians seek to play the 'politics game' whenever they can, to move the needle. Romney seized at this opportunity when he shouldn't have, because it was distasteful and very insensitive. And wrong. A terrible gaffe that reflects very poorly on the campaign he's running.

 

OK, are we all agreed? Can we then also agree that this really doesn't matter?

I think that it does matter. The character and tendencies of the man who would be president are always relevant.

 

We want our politicians to discuss the issues. But what incentive is given to them to talk about the issues, when plainly people would much rather chatter about the meaningless? Our interest in jumping on these things to tear down one candidate or another's character is precisely the reason why 'the game' is the focus of those campaigns.

Again, I don't think that it's meaningless.

[BigRedBuster]

All politicians seek to play the 'politics game' whenever they can, to move the needle. Romney seized at this opportunity when he shouldn't have, because it was distasteful and very insensitive. And wrong. A terrible gaffe that reflects very poorly on the campaign he's running.

 

OK, are we all agreed? Can we then also agree that this really doesn't matter?

I think that it does matter. The character and tendencies of the man who would be president are always relevant.

 

We want our politicians to discuss the issues. But what incentive is given to them to talk about the issues, when plainly people would much rather chatter about the meaningless? Our interest in jumping on these things to tear down one candidate or another's character is precisely the reason why 'the game' is the focus of those campaigns.

Again, I don't think that it's meaningless.

 

 

But, yet you are NEVER willing to admit when your side does the same thing (as wrong as both sides are for doing it) (wish I had a rolling eyes emoticon).

[sd'sker]

All politicians seek to play the 'politics game' whenever they can, to move the needle. Romney seized at this opportunity when he shouldn't have, because it was distasteful and very insensitive. And wrong. A terrible gaffe that reflects very poorly on the campaign he's running.

 

OK, are we all agreed? Can we then also agree that this really doesn't matter?

I think that it does matter. The character and tendencies of the man who would be president are always relevant.

 

We want our politicians to discuss the issues. But what incentive is given to them to talk about the issues, when plainly people would much rather chatter about the meaningless? Our interest in jumping on these things to tear down one candidate or another's character is precisely the reason why 'the game' is the focus of those campaigns.

Again, I don't think that it's meaningless.

 

 

But, yet you are NEVER willing to admit when your side does the same thing (as wrong as both sides are for doing it) (wish I had a rolling eyes emoticon).

this is not a sport. tit for tat does no good. plus, i am not entirely convinced carlfense has a 'side'.

[zoogs]

I just don't think it says that much about their character. They were mistaken about Obama's comments and messed up. It is pretty damn hard to maintain proper decorum at all times and I'm not surprised by slip-ups, even egregious ones.Ultimately I don't think they are very meaningful talking points. What I think is revealing is the effort people engaged in politics make at finding things that might be used as justification for subsequent character assassination of candidates they don't support.

 

And my point is, the level of fascination and interest people have in this regard is exactly why campaigns pull these moves (or try to) all the time. Because it gets people all worked up and motivated. And then at the end of the day many of those same of us look around and wonder why the candidates aren't talking about important things, and why they would much rather target character at every half-available opportunity.