Benghazi, Putin. How's Obama doing?

@ehBeth,

I'd give him and Congress a D- on reforms and accountability for the Wall Street, housing, and investment banking fiasco. Another bubble of corruption is forming in the rental housing/bond markets as we speak.

I'd give him and Congress an F for limiting the influence of money in politics.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

How about this: Can we ignore the pull to protect a politician and analyze facts and events dispassionately.

You want to have a "dispassionate" discussion by focussing on events that Obama has little or no control over.

Quote:

No need to bring up Bush or what McCain might have done...and use your mammoth brains to discuss reality?

That's very convenient, it ignores the fact that Obama has to deal with Bush's legacy. The vote in the House of Commons refusing military action in Syria was all to do with Bush's disastrous handling of Iraq. It also means the West has no moral authority in dealing with Russia's annexation of part of another sovereign nation. Bush was president when Putin annexed Nagorno Karabach, and unlike Obama was foolish enough to encourage Georgia to fire on Russian troops, thus playing into Putin's hands.

It's amazing that instead of looking at what is going on in Ukraine, the American far right uses it to attack the president instead of seeing it as an outside threat to American interests. That has not happened over here, Cameron has been criticised for domestic action, not international threats, in which the country should speak with one voice. No wonder Putin feels he can take liberties.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Well done, engineer. Great post.

I, too, agree with most of your assessments. As to the NSA scandal, I've wondered the same thing about Obama not coming out with a stronger position given his background. I'm reminded of a General Patraeus quote during his tenure where he stated, "The White House doesn't know who they're ******* with", and did a number of end arounds to get what he wanted (a surge in Afghanistan a la Iraq, neither of which was effective). We sometimes assume that the President as Commander in Chief calls the shots with the military, and as the Chief Executive calls the shots with the the Intelligence Community. Given that the IC is headed by former military (a mistake imo), I suspect that isn't the case. I was very disappointed in his public statements on the NSA exposures, particularly the one where he said something like, "Look, I understand why this is concerning to people who aren't inside. If I wasn't inside I'd be concerned too. You have to trust me…" erm, No, Mr President, we don't have to trust you. I was also disappointed in his reaction to the report from his own special review panel. So, yes, I join you in that "F". Whatever his reasons are for his public reaction they're fully insufficient for this member of the public.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

You don't think the governments of the world didn't note our pathetic handling of Benghazi? Do you not think that astounding weakness didn't embolden some?

What was pathetic was the way Romney marched onto a stage in the middle of the night politicizing a tragedy. Also pathetic was the way the media on the right tried to influence an election cycle using the tragic deaths of public servants. It was beyond pathetic, it was disgusting. What, precisely, would you have suggested be a more appropriate response? Mine would have been to stay away from the Sunday news shows entirely and get the facts straight before making any statements, unlike that idiot Romney. But, then, it was weeks before an election and they felt they had to respond to his charges. THAT was what was pathetic.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

You don't think the governments of the world didn't note our pathetic handling of Benghazi? Do you not think that astounding weakness didn't embolden some?

Could you elaborate on why you thing the handling of Benghazi was pathetic? Other than the strange political melodrama it induced in the US what should have been done differently?

0 Replies

I feel I am about to go out on a limb, every time I do, I end up falling flat on my face but...

I think the whole scandal mongering from the right to the Benghazi tragedy stemmed from Obama's support of the Arab Spring's revolution (right word) and they saw Libya as part of it and they thought Obama got what he asked for in supporting it which is why they focused so much on whether Obama used the words terrorist act in connection with Obama. They feel that in Obama's desire to support the fledging democracies that were cropping up he ignored any terrorist threats. So from the beginning they had their minds made up and searched for evidence to back it up. Least that is my take on it, could be wrong.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Benghazi mattered. Had we handled it correctly and responsibly, Mr Putin would likely not be where he is right now.

I'm curious as to what you thought he did wrong with Benghazi, Lash. State has a limited budget. Most of the request for more resources are turned down as a matter of course because of those limits on spending.

1. The request for an increase in ongoing security was for Tripoli, not Benghazi. The request for Benghazi was only for a run up through the June elections.
2. The attack did not last hours. It was actually 2 separate attacks on 2 different compounds.
3. No military could have made it to Benghazi in 8 hours, let alone the 2 hours which the first attack lasted.
4. No one was told to stand down by the President.
5. The people involved in the attack have stated that the video was part of the reason for the attack.

If this had been a different President, what would he have done differently?

0 Replies

It is fascinating seeing the disconnect about Benghazi. The scandal is not whether or not it was a terrorist act or whether Obama said "is" or not. The scandal is that it happened just before the election and the administration tried desperately to brush it under the rug for the few weeks during the run up so as not to affect the election. They made political hay over a disaster so as not to disrupt their chances to win re-election!

You guys would have lost your freaking minds if Obama was Bush and you know it! Just like I would be playing your role.

To brush off Benghazi as though it meant nothing is a disservice to both the victims and honesty.

So far as Ukraine goes, they have a split country and it seems that Russia is going to just kind of claim Crimea and I doubt we interfere much beyond making a formal protest. We aren't going to go to war over it. Ukraine may fall into a civil war of East v. West and we will support the west with lawyers, guns and money...

3 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I think if you try to get your American burr out of your butt for a minute and think about it logically, you wouldn't have much to argue about.

I'm struggling to understand how that's anatomically possible.

Apart from that, your post is full of unsupported assumptions about the mindset of people who disagree with you. They have their heads stuck up their butts, are in it to argue, naive, etc. . . . If you had better substantive arguments you wouldn't insinuate that people disagree with you because there's something wrong with them.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Moving on to the substance of your response:

Lash wrote:

Whether you or I like it or not, the world does look to the US as a major arbiter in most of the **** that happens.

I think that's an overstatement. But even if it wasn't, 'the world' would be wrong.

Lash wrote:

So, it's not in American interests to hop up in everything that happens. The less, the better, in my opinion. But after our experience with some of these same players under the auspices of the USSR, you can bet your ass we're watching closely how far this former KGB asshole extends himself into the Ukraine; it is in our interest; and it is well within our power...unless Obama delivers the deathblow he promised to our military.

Don't bet on that happening now either.

I won't, but why are your expectations on Obama so unrealistically high? When Putin had Russian troops invade Georgia and G.W.Bush did little about it but talk, we had a thread about that, too. I didn't see you jump to the suspicion that Bush might have failed. More revealingly, none of the A2K liberals in that thread accused Bush of failure, including some who had been quite willing to do so on other occasions. The notion that America should be swinging its dick around in Ukraine, and that failing to do so constitutes a failure of the Obama administration, has no basis in reason and evidence. This is a purely partisan charge, whipped up by the Republican leadership in Congress and conservative 'news' channels.

Lash wrote:

You don't think the governments of the world didn't note our pathetic handling of Benghazi? Do you not think that astounding weakness didn't embolden some?

There's an assumption there: The Obama administration's handling of Benghazi was pathetic and reflects astounding weakness. I disagree with this assumption: I think Benghazi was a pretty average snafu in the overall scheme of things, And no, I don't think it had much impact on the motivation of Putin, or other world leaders, or whoever it is you mean by "some". Rather, I think, the rest of the world had more realistic expectations than the audience of conservative American TV about America's competence and strength in the first place. It didn't need Benghazi to disabuse it of its illusions.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

What cover up? In which way did they cover up? The infamous talking points which came from the intelligence reports of which turned out to have truth to them?

0 Replies

@engineer,

Hard to disagree with any of that.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

So, the scandal is the GOP was using it to make political points and the administration was defending itself from politics?

When you look at the actual incident, there isn't a scandal there. That leads us to it only being politics in how both sides attempted to play it.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

When you look at the actual incident, there isn't a scandal there.

The ineptitude of the president is the scandal. And the covering of his ass and Hillarys' is more than clear. The whining and dismissal follows what is now a pattern when anything is that involves failed policies are questioned.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Whether you or I like it or not, the world does look to the US as a major arbiter in most of the **** that happens. I have grown to hate it. It's costly, young men and women die, and even when the involvement benefits others more than us, we're never appreciated. I wish people could handle their own shite.

So, you don't like it and I damn sure don't like it - but, no matter what our opinions are about it, the fact exists. We are asked to step in. We are expected to step in. When we do, we're criticized; when we don't, we're criticized.

So, you don't want the US to be a major arbiter in most of the world's shite. What's more, you're a former "strong on defense person" but despite this all, you think Obama's been a wuss because he's not a "strong on defense person," and the cuts to defense he's proposing are a "deathblow."

Talk about disconnect.

Quote:

Remember when the Eastern European countries broke free? How exciting that was - and we stood with them literally and figuratively as they set out to find their own brand of freedom? We made promises to them. There are some treaties floating around. I hope we carefully and judiciously honor those promises.

Most of those countries have assh*le leadership and dysfunctional governments on the model of Russia's. The US' dysfunctional government is in a league of its own.

Quote:

You don't think the governments of the world didn't note our pathetic handling of Benghazi? Do you not think that astounding weakness didn't embolden some?

In the eyes of the world, the outpost attack in the boonies of Libya that Benghazi is was a snafu blip on the geopolitical map. The political brouhaha was, at most, a humorous distraction, if any of the world actually bothered to pay any attention to it. Benghazi wasn't even in the back of Putin's mind when he made the decision to take back Crimea.

In regard to Crimea, Benghazi is immaterial.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

It is fascinating seeing the disconnect about Benghazi. The scandal is not whether or not it was a terrorist act or whether Obama said "is" or not. The scandal is that it happened just before the election and the administration tried desperately to brush it under the rug for the few weeks during the run up so as not to affect the election. They made political hay over a disaster so as not to disrupt their chances to win re-election!

You guys would have lost your freaking minds if Obama was Bush and you know it! Just like I would be playing your role.

To brush off Benghazi as though it meant nothing is a disservice to both the victims and honesty.

One thing is the political scandal that was made of the attack in Benghazi, another thing is the attack in Benghazi itself.

I don't know anyone who is brushing off Benghazi as though it meant nothing. Do you?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

I don't know anyone who is brushing off Benghazi as though it meant nothing. Do you?

The administration and the Democratic are doing exactly that. And as you can see the majority of these posters would rather settle for that. The truth is the last thing they want.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

The administration has taken measures in Lybia to counter the Islamists there since the attack that was perpetrated in Benghazi.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Who cares? The administration is a joke.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Who cares? The administration is a joke.

uh-huh.

0 Replies

Benghazi, Putin. How's Obama doing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know