REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Democrats abandon defense of civil liberties

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Friday, October 26, 2012 11:53
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3086
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, October 19, 2012 6:20 AM

CANTTAKESKY


http://www.mediaite.com/online/surprise-democrats-abandon-defense-of-c
ivil-liberties-in-party-platform
/

Quote:

Remember several weeks ago when we took a look at all the wonderful civil liberties promises the Democrats made in their 2008 platform, back when hope was coursing through everyone’s veins and the era of George W. Bush‘s post-9/11 war-fest had supposedly come to a close? And remember how the party has clearly failed to follow through on nearly all those promises?

Looks like the Democrats want you to forget those promises ever happened.

Based on their 2012 platform, it seems they would prefer we forget they ever made such overtures towards pesky things like “protecting civil liberties” and “closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay.”

Mother Jones reports that the party that was once eager to paint itself as leading the fight to end the post-9/11 national security state has now largely retreated from its promises, with several planks of the civil liberties platform being entirely erased from the record.

On indefinite detention, in 2008 the Democrats wrote: “We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus.”

But in 2012, the platform says nothing about it. That’s not surprising, given how the Obama administration has continued the practice and even signed the National Defense Authorization which gave his executive branch the right to indefinite detention.

And remember the PATRIOT Act, that knee-jerk post-9/11 civil liberties trainwreck that liberals cited for eight years as a prime example of Bush’s malfeasance? In 2008, the Democrats were gung-ho about reforming the law and protecting civilians from its abuses: “We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. [...] We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. [...] We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years.”

Since then, President Obama signed a PATRIOT Act extension, which Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) lamented “does not include a single improvement or reform.” And now the 2012 DNC platform says… nothing. Taken literally, the platform indicates the Democrats no longer have a problem with illegal surveillance and executive overreach now that they are in power.

In 2008, the party platform promised to close the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, or as they called it, “the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years.” But as everyone now knows, that promise has not been delivered.

So what do the Dems say about Gitmo in 2012? “We remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.” So basically: “Most of our party voted against funding to close it, but we are definitely working to get it closed!”

And what about the use of torture? In 2008, the party was terse in their position: “We reject torture,” the platform read.

Today the platform contains a meek passage that tip-toes its way to justifying the administration’s policies: “Advancing our interests may involve new actions and policies to confront threats like terrorism, but the President and the Democratic Party believe these practices must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people’s privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well. That is why the President banned torture without exception in his first week in office.”

But as Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer notes: “Despite Obama’s executive order banning torture, Americans who allege they have been detained abroad by foreign governments at the United States’ request say they have been abused while in custody. It does not appear as though anyone will face charges over the Bush administration’s torture program.”

Of course, the Democrats could have saved themselves from all this criticism if only they had made those 2008 civil liberties promises with a disclaimer at the end: “…Unless there’s a Democrat in the White House.”


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 19, 2012 6:55 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


How can this be? I'm assured by conservatives that there's been no torture in this country, only a few "hazing pranks".



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 19, 2012 6:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yes, this sickens me. Reinforced the thing about what one President puts into place, another will continue (and/or make it WORSE!). One of the big shames of the Democratic party, in my opinion--that and the drone strikes. I decry them both loudly.

It's probably too much to hope Obama would reverse some of the more abhorrent things Dubya did, but I'd like to have thought it possible. And the increased use of drones; I get that the idea is to save American lives, but it's no damned excuse.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 19, 2012 7:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
How can this be? I'm assured by conservatives that there's been no torture in this country, only a few "hazing pranks".



The hazing was just during the Bush administration. Looks like the Obama administration took the ball and ran with it, raising the stakes from what you agree was just 'hazing' to full-fledged torture, based on reports by those Americans who've been tortured. Sort'a like Obama's stepped up and done almost 6 times as many drone strikes as Bush (in half the time), with way more children and civilians killed. Four more years?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 19, 2012 7:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Sort'a like Obama's stepped up and done almost 6 times as many drone strikes as Bush (in half the time), with way more children and civilians killed.
C'mon Geezer, let's put things in perspective. Drone strikes are terrible, but they're far less lethal (overall) than the "shock and awe" campaign and the invasion of Iraq which caused anywhere from an estimated 100,000 - 600,000 direct war deaths, up to 1,000,000,000 deaths overall as a result of the invasion.

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

That's not counting the horrific aftereffects of the munitions used in Fallujah, which was a civilian massacre (ring the city, shoot anyone inside)



So although I'm against the use of drones, I'm proportionately more against massive airstrikes and the use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium.

Quote:

Looks like the Obama administration took the ball and ran with it, raising the stakes from what you agree was just 'hazing' to full-fledged torture, based on reports by those Americans who've been tortured
I know you're trying to sound clever, but you're not really achieving your goal. Bush had people tortured, here and in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram AFB, and it went beyond waterboarding all the way to death. And when he REALLY wanted to get serious he sent people to dark sites in Poland, Egypt, the 'Stans, and yes- even Syria. What Obama does is torture, but certainly no worse than Bush.

This is not an excuse, just to bring perspective. If you're going to castigate Obama for human rights failings... and you should... just recognize that the same goes for Bush, and more.

Quote:

Four more years?
Is Romney offering a better alternative?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 19, 2012 8:01 AM

HKCAVALIER


I'm sorry, is there somewhere in the article that says we're currently waterboarding people? That detainees say they've "been abused" doesn't necessarily mean Geneva Convention violations. Shoving folk against the wall is abuse, but it happens every day and twice on Sundays in this country. Just lookin' for clarification: if Obama is signing off on waterboarding I'd like to know.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 19, 2012 8:04 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Four more years?
Is Romney offering a better alternative?

Yeah, seriously, wtf? This is the hilarity of Romney's strategy. "Obama broke his promises! Vote for me and I promise I won't do a damn thing about it!"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 19, 2012 11:40 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
How can this be? I'm assured by conservatives that there's been no torture in this country, only a few "hazing pranks".



The hazing was just during the Bush administration. Looks like the Obama administration took the ball and ran with it, raising the stakes from what you agree was just 'hazing' to full-fledged torture, based on reports by those Americans who've been tortured. Sort'a like Obama's stepped up and done almost 6 times as many drone strikes as Bush (in half the time), with way more children and civilians killed. Four more years?




So where exactly did I agree it was "just hazing"?


And do you have any cites for that claim about "Americans who've been tortured"?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 3:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So where exactly did I agree it was "just hazing"?



You profess shock ("How can this be?") that there is alleged torture because you've been assured that it's "just hazing". If you didn't believe that it was "just hazing", why would you be shocked?

Then again, you might be lying.

Quote:

And do you have any cites for that claim about "Americans who've been tortured"?


From the article posted at the top of the thread.

"But as Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer notes: “Despite Obama’s executive order banning torture, Americans who allege they have been detained abroad by foreign governments at the United States’ request say they have been abused while in custody.""

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 3:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm sorry, is there somewhere in the article that says we're currently waterboarding people? That detainees say they've "been abused" doesn't necessarily mean Geneva Convention violations. Shoving folk against the wall is abuse, but it happens every day and twice on Sundays in this country. Just lookin' for clarification: if Obama is signing off on waterboarding I'd like to know.


And they would either call "National Security" or just flat deny it.
And would you believe them if they did ?
SHOULD you believe them if they did ?

For me this goes back to 2002, when all those fuckers we installed to Congress suddenly forgot why they were there cause folks breathed a sigh of relief and went home INSTEAD OF KEEPING THE PRESSURE ON.
And yeah verily, I handed out some I-told-you-so's about that one, some of you well remember.

Same thing now, I don't think much of Obama or his administration, not for a minute even - but the obvious, blatant and undeniable threat coming from the sack full of insanity, intolerance and hate that the GOP has become *must* be addressed... it is not enough to simply bounce them in November and then wash our hands of it only for them to slither and sleaze back covertly till we're fighting this one all over again, and again, and again, and again...
Anyone with half a lick of sense oughta make sure to put the boot in and FINISH THE GODDAMN JOB this time around, instead of handing down naught more than the sum of our FAILURES to future generations.

Should we put the screws to Obama and his administration ? hell yes.
Not a half bad idea to shove a few pins in during an election season to get at least a modicum of progress on that front started, I'll not deny.
But compared to the looming brownshirted hate-horde, and the threat they represent, whatever bullshit the Obama administration indulges in is kind of petty by comparison when you're looking down the barrel of a bunch of shit throwing howler monkeys who wanna start WWIII *and* an internal civil war at the same goddamn time, cause they've made NO secret of their hateful agendas.

And frankly, I am sick of fighting this same goddamn fight every two years, and never getting back all the ground lost, this is like worrying about the cook shaving portions while vikings bash your gate in.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 3:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
C'mon Geezer, let's put things in perspective. Drone strikes are terrible, but they're far less lethal (overall) than the "shock and awe" campaign and the invasion of Iraq which caused anywhere from an estimated 100,000 - 600,000 direct war deaths, up to 1,000,000,000 deaths overall as a result of the invasion.



Up to a billion deaths? Looks like a few to many zeros in there.

And as noted elsewhere, at least Bush was attacking a country we were at war with, instead of remotely killing people, including lots of innocent folk and children, in countries that are supposed to be our allies.

Quote:

I know you're trying to sound clever, but you're not really achieving your goal. Bush had people tortured, here and in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram AFB, and it went beyond waterboarding all the way to death. And when he REALLY wanted to get serious he sent people to dark sites in Poland, Egypt, the 'Stans, and yes- even Syria. What Obama does is torture, but certainly no worse than Bush.


But Mike tells us he was assured it was 'just hazing'. Or maybe he's the one trying to be clever. I'm aware that Bush had folks tortured, and that Obama does as well. Explain that to Mike.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:09 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
And frankly, I am sick of fighting this same goddamn fight every two years,

Have you noticed that they've been taking turns being the lesser of two evils every 8 years?

Lesser of two evils is getting old. We need to start choosing between the better of two goods, which is what elections are SUPPOSED to be about.

-----

Don’t waste your life not making amazing things with equally amazing people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Crush one to dust, support the wave of popular resentment against the other, then crush that one.

Problem solved.

But barfight rules, as I have been saying - finish the one on the ground in front of you FIRST, or don't be surprised when you get shanked as you turn to face the other.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:48 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So where exactly did I agree it was "just hazing"?



You profess shock ("How can this be?") that there is alleged torture because you've been assured that it's "just hazing". If you didn't believe that it was "just hazing", why would you be shocked?

Then again, you might be lying.



Then again, I might be being sarcastic.

Or then again, I might actually BELIEVE that, in which case, according to you, I couldn't possibly ever be lying.

Or did you forget all that in your demented state?

Besides which, you still haven't shown where I agreed with the idea that it's just hazing, only that I said that's what the Republicans have been calling it for years.

Quote:


Quote:

And do you have any cites for that claim about "Americans who've been tortured"?


From the article posted at the top of the thread.

"But as Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer notes: “Despite Obama’s executive order banning torture, Americans who allege they have been detained abroad by foreign governments at the United States’ request say they have been abused while in custody.""



So if Americans have been detained at our request, and they have subsequently been tortured, that's the Obama administration's fault?

If Israel commits war crimes with the weapons we sell them, are we the war criminals?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:55 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

But Mike tells us he was assured it was 'just hazing'. Or maybe he's the one trying to be clever. I'm aware that Bush had folks tortured, and that Obama does as well. Explain that to Mike.




But I actually have been told - repeatedly, and by quite a few conservatives here on this very site - that the U.S. does not torture, no how, no way, never happened, couldn't possibly, and that what was happening in Gitmo and other sites was nothing more than the kinds of simple pranks you'd see at a fraternity hazing.

Are you saying I was lied to when I was assured of those things?

And while we all know Bush had people tortured, at the orders of the White House, you still haven't provided any cites as to how it is you're "aware that... Obama does as well." Can you show us where Obama has signed off on such abuses?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:56 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Well, it's been a while. I don't think Geezer will be coming back with cogent answers.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:09 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Oh BTW CTS - this is no news to us 'libruls'. Us 'libruls' have been posting about this and criticizing it for some time now - even the article you posted was from a 'librul' publication. Meanwhile 'cornservatives' seem to criticize Obama for his birth certificate, his mannerisms, his (falling) jobless rate, and pretty much everything but his civil liberties record.

Odd that - us 'libruls' criticized infringement on civil liberties under both Bush and Obama, while 'cornservatives' remained silent.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:15 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oh BTW CTS - this is no news to us 'libruls'. Us 'libruls' have been posting about this and criticizing it for some time now - even the article you posted was from a 'librul' publication. Meanwhile 'cornservatives' seem to criticize Obama for his birth certificate, his mannerisms, his (falling) jobless rate, and pretty much everything but his civil liberties record.

Odd that - us 'libruls' criticized infringement on civil liberties under both Bush and Obama, while 'cornservatives' remained silent.





Exactly.

Say, the GOP has been in charge of the House for a couple years now - where are all those bills to curb the power of the government to detain and torture people? Where's that repeal of the Patriot Act?

Heck, I was told that "tea party conservatives" would never stand for such abuses.

So why haven't they done anything to stop them? Why won't they even utter a peep against such measures?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:51 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Yes, this sickens me. Reinforced the thing about what one President puts into place, another will continue (and/or make it WORSE!). One of the big shames of the Democratic party, in my opinion--that and the drone strikes. I decry them both loudly.

It's probably too much to hope Obama would reverse some of the more abhorrent things Dubya did, but I'd like to have thought it possible. And the increased use of drones; I get that the idea is to save American lives, but it's no damned excuse.





I hear Gitmo is set to close any day now...





" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


GEEZER: Yep, a few too many zeroes! Still, my point remains: If you're criticizing Obama for this, then you should have even LESS inclination to vote for Romney. So, are you advocating a vote for Gary Johnson then? Are you going to vote third-party yourself? Or are you criticizing something that you'll just wind up voting for anyway? (in other words, being a hypocrite)

RAPPY
Quote:

I hear Gitmo is set to close any day now...
Yes, Rappy, I understand that Mittens has made restoring civil liberties a top priority! of his candidacy (NOT). I'm dropping you into the same "hypocrite" dumpster as GEEZER, as you have absolutely no interest in civil liberties. And we all realize that you're just pretending it's an issue for you, so stop.


CTS, FREM: I don't know why you think you're going all holier-than-thou. Most of the librul peeps you think you're talking to are voting third party anyway, and the right-wing is voting for Mittens. (see above) My position is still the same: If I lived in a swing state, I would hold my nose and vote for Obama. Since I don't, I can- and will- vote my conscience. Are you suggesting any other option?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
CTS, FREM: I don't know why you think you're going all holier-than-thou. Most of the librul peeps you think you're talking to are voting third party anyway, and the right-wing is voting for Mittens. (see above) My position is still the same: If I lived in a swing state, I would hold my nose and vote for Obama. Since I don't, I can- and will- vote my conscience. Are you suggesting any other option?


No, in fact I am planning to, as you say, hold my nose (and take a dramamine) and pull the blue lever entire...
And boy howdy am I pissed off at HAVING to, as a self-defense mechanism against jackboot licking enablers who don't realize they'll be the first ones under the bus if them fuckers ever do take power cause their ignorant gullibility makes em too dangerous to leave layin around.
Which is where the foamy ranty part comes from, you see.

It sucks, it sucks hard, but it does buy some time to run these neofeudofascist sumbitches and their enablers outta town on a rail, which we really NEED to be doing, damn quick like - as I said, I am angry as hell at having to endlessly stand on the back foot cause there's not enough push to put these people in rubber rooms where they belong.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ugh.

But thanks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:41 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER: Yep, a few too many zeroes! Still, my point remains: If you're criticizing Obama for this, then you should have even LESS inclination to vote for Romney. So, are you advocating a vote for Gary Johnson then? Are you going to vote third-party yourself? Or are you criticizing something that you'll just wind up voting for anyway? (in other words, being a hypocrite)



Well, actually I am planning on voting for Johnson. It'll be a 'wasted' vote, I know, but I can't stomach either the Democrats or Republicans this time 'round.

As to the "Bush killed this many folks" thing, while the figures are open to dispute, and the reasons are open to dispute, it's true folks got killed. They also got killed by A-Bombs Truman had dropped, and firebombs Roosevelt and Churchill had dropped, and the siege of Vicksburg Lincoln ordered. The difference is, those are all history now, and nothing can be done about then. The drones are still flying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:44 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


LOL @ Sig

You're miffed at ME because Obama promised to close Gitmo with in the 1st year of taking office ?

Crassic!



Quote:

Geezer: The drones are still flying.



Seems they were flying in Benghazi, too. Only Barry opted to NOT kill any militant Muslims that night. He had to jet off to Vegas the next day, ya see...

Drones were circling above U.S. consulate during Libya attack but officials decided NOT to mount a rescue mission

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens repeatedly pleaded with the State Department for additional security personnel

Republicans say the Obama administration denied the request for political reasons
The White House says it had no role in procuring security detail for Stevens

By HAYLEY PETERSON and JILL REILLY


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220153/Christopher-Stevens-Am
bassador-pleaded-extra-security-Libya-hours-killed.html#ixzz29wOtmpzw


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:42 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Seems they were flying in Benghazi, too. Only Barry opted to NOT kill any militant Muslims that night. He had to jet off to Vegas the next day, ya see...

Drones were circling above U.S. consulate during Libya attack but officials decided NOT to mount a rescue mission

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens repeatedly pleaded with the State Department for additional security personnel

Republicans say the Obama administration denied the request for political reasons
The White House says it had no role in procuring security detail for Stevens

By HAYLEY PETERSON and JILL REILLY



First, it has been pointed out that the Security he was talking about was a very small group of people that they had had for awhile. It is unlikely they would have been with him during the attack. Even if they had, they would have also been killed. At no time was Stevens requesting the type of security that would have atopped this attack.

I also wonder how you would mount a rescue mission with drones?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 5:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

First, it has been pointed out that the Security he was talking about was a very small group of people that they had had for awhile. It is unlikely they would have been with him during the attack. Even if they had, they would have also been killed. At no time was Stevens requesting the type of security that would have atopped this attack.



The body guard who was assigned to Stevens wasn't a US soldier. He was a Libyan, who not only bugged out when the attackers showed up, but in fact, he was the one who informed the attackers WHERE Stevens et al were in the 1st place.

Quote:


I also wonder how you would mount a rescue mission with drones?



Trying, would have been a good start. My guess is that the drone wasn't armed, but only a recon drone. But that still is a very valuable asset. Call the friendly Libyan forces ( assuming we had any ) to come assist, and send in what ever the hell support you can spare at the time.

But what did Barack do ? Went to bed. Seems he had to jet off to Vegas the next day.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:15 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The body guard who was assigned to Stevens wasn't a US soldier. He was a Libyan, who not only bugged out when the attackers showed up, but in fact, he was the one who informed the attackers WHERE Stevens et al were in the 1st place.



...and the security folks Stevens was requesting to stay would not have changed anything you just said. While those few people were there Stevens still have Libyans guarding him.

Quote:


Trying, would have been a good start. My guess is that the drone wasn't armed, but only a recon drone. But that still is a very valuable asset. Call the friendly Libyan forces ( assuming we had any ) to come assist, and send in what ever the hell support you can spare at the time.

But what did Barack do ? Went to bed. Seems he had to jet off to Vegas the next day.



What Libyan force? Which group the country is still a massive cluster fuck. If you had any respect for the truth you would know what the President did regarding this well before he flew out.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Once again..

An American guard would not have sold Stevens out, and told the terrorists where the safe house was in the first place. That info doesn't get transmitted, here's no NEED for an armed platoon of soldiers.

Obama knew that Stevens was missing, and upon getting that info, he went to bed, not knowing the fate of the US Ambassador.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:45 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Well, actually I am planning on voting for Johnson.

Geezer! I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Pleasantly.

-----

Don’t waste your life not making amazing things with equally amazing people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:26 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Geezer

I see you haven’t answered Kwicko. Just pointing that out.

"The difference is, those are all history now ..." but you didn't object when sugar-daddy georgie did it, not even once. That's what makes you a hypocrite.

Oh btw, while I looked without success through your old posts to find even ONE objection you posted , I did find many howlers where you criticized the people who said there were no WMDs, where you supported the invasion and sundry other topics. For some reason this one really stuck out as especially funny.


The context
SignyM
... I ... met someone (a lowly illegal housekeeper) whose entire village had been massacred by government troops. They (troops) put out a flyer saying that there was going to be a union meeting at the village church at a certain date and time, and when about 400 people showed up the troops barred the doors and machine-gunned everyone inside.


Terrorists are terrorists, whether they are Muslim, Israeli, Serbian, Russian or American.

Anyone who targets a civilian population for death or injury or who destroys basic civilian infrastructure is a terrorist. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I care about the justification, whether it's as noble as "freedom" or as trivial as "He started it".



And this is Geezer's response

Ah. Here's where we slip into shades of gray. What is an "innocent civilian"? For what purpose are they "targeted for death"?

Yes, that is Geezer being fair and balanced.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:53 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Once again..

An American guard would not have sold Stevens out, and told the terrorists where the safe house was in the first place. That info doesn't get transmitted, here's no NEED for an armed platoon of soldiers.

Obama knew that Stevens was missing, and upon getting that info, he went to bed, not knowing the fate of the US Ambassador.



Give me a solid citation for both of what you just said.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53233

See in this thread you posted and article that explains that the 16 man team Stevens was talking about was based in Tripoli. So had the extension been granted it would have changed nothing.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 21, 2012 2:07 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ah, yes, here comes the precious Gitmo bullshit once again. As with so many other things, our righties just adore to lay that at Obama's feet as a "failure", while having Romnesia about the fact that their beloved leaders have done everything humanly possible to keep Obama from doing ANYTHING:
Quote:

The US Constitution enshrines within it a delicate balance of powers between the branches of government, which includes oversight by Congress of the conduct and continuation of armed conflict through the use, especially, of spending authorisation legislation. This means that the allocation of federal funds to defence spending every year must be approved as a round figure by Congress, and it is in the context of these defence spending authorisation acts that the real political fight over Guantánamo Bay has taken place. During the latter period of the Bush Administration some attempts were made by Democrats to insert provisions in these bills that would force closure of Guantánamo Bay, but those attempts never reached fruition.
In contrast, since the inauguration of Barack Obama these pieces of legislation have been used to make it practically impossible for Obama to close Guantánamo Bay. In the 2011 defence spending authorisation we saw the prohibition of any expenditure of monies in any fashion that might result in closure (including in the purchase of any domestic facility to hold detainees transferred from Guantánamo) as well as the imposition of structural oversight barriers to the transfer of individuals out of Guantánamo Bay and into any other state. Although he did not veto this Act, President Obama did attach what is known as a signing statement to it. This is a statement of presidential interpretation of the legislation being signed into law. In this case Obama did not express the view that the provision in question was unconstitutional, but did signal his dissatisfaction with it and noted that he felt it interfered with his constitutional powers. http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/01/11/why-is-guantanamo-bay-s
till-open
/


So while they love to blame Obama for "breaking his promise" to close Gitmo, they'll do everything in their power to KEEP it from being closed:
Quote:

Several Republican lawmakers have introduced bills that would prohibit the use of federal funds to transfer Gitmo prisoners to facilities in their states. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., introduced a bill to keep them from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and Camp Pendleton San Diego. It specifically prohibits the use of federal funds to transfer combatants to those camps, or to modify or build holding facilities at either base. Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said:
Quote:

"The intent of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats to close Guantanamo Bay severely undermines our nation's detention operations. The terrorists held at Guantanamo present a serious threat to the security of the American people. ... Closing Guantanamo and bringing detention operations to a grinding halt will not help us achieve victory any quicker or make the American people any safer. ...If the plan to close the prison moves forward, then we must have a serious discussion about where to put these terrorists and the judicial complications that will surely arise from their transfer."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., did the same to keep them from coming to Fort Leavenworth. She, along with Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., (who said today is and the community are "absolutely opposed" to having accused terrorists as their neighbors) sent a letter to Obama inviting him to the military base and encouraging him to look elsewhere for a dumping ground.

"Fort Leavenworth is the military training center for the best and the brightest the United States Armed Forces have to offer," she said. "What's more, countries around the world send their military officers to Fort Leavenworth to learn and train alongside our men and women ... transferring suspected terrorists to Fort Leavenworth would jeopardize this vital mission and would severely undermine the education and training of military officers around the world."

Rep. Henry Brown, D-S.C., did the same for the Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, S.C., as did Sen. David Vitter, R-La. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/01/22/republicans-dont-bring-gitmo-d
etainees-to-our-states
/


Sounds to me like they should be tickled PINK Obama and the Dems have had no luck closing it; but of course that would be admitting the truth, wouldn't it? Much more fun to block his efforts, then blame him! Hey, works for them!

There are certainly things Obama COULD have done to fight back. Among them, he could take significant steps to close the prison, or he could issue a so-called signing statement that supersedes the law preventing federal money from being used to transfer prisoners. But the simple fact remains, he couldn't do it all by himself AGAINST the concerted effort by Congress (including some Dems).


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Geezer

I see you haven’t answered Kwicko. Just pointing that out.



Yeah. My modem died and I had to get another.

Why answer Mike? It's more fun watching to see how many different ways he can say "But Bush..."

In three and a half years - the first two with a Democratic Congress, Obama hasn't closed Gitmo, has re-authorized the PATRIOT Act, has also maintained the right of indefinate detention, and the drones are still flying. Yet Mike keeps talking "Bush, Bush, Bush". Sort'a makes you wonder who he thinks is president.


Quote:

Oh btw, while I looked without success through your old posts to find even ONE objection you posted , I did find many howlers where you criticized the people who said there were no WMDs, where you supported the invasion and sundry other topics. For some reason this one really stuck out as especially funny.


Too bad that after doing all that research you didn't include a link to the thread.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Ah, yes, here comes the precious Gitmo bullshit once again. As with so many other things, our righties just adore to lay that at Obama's feet as a "failure", while having Romnesia about the fact that their beloved leaders have done everything humanly possible to keep Obama from doing ANYTHING.



I have to say it's amazing that Obama couldn't do anything in 2009-10 when his party had both houses of Congress, but Bush was able to do, according to the liberal minds here, all sorts of bad stuff in 2007-08 when the Democrats had practical control of both houses of Congress. You sure you want to re-elect such an ineffective President?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 5:50 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I have to say it's amazing that Obama couldn't do anything in 2009-10 when his party had both houses of Congress, but Bush was able to do, according to the liberal minds here, all sorts of bad stuff in 2007-08 when the Democrats had practical control of both houses of Congress. You sure you want to re-elect such an ineffective President?



We don't try and blame Obama for the failings of the party.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:15 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Once again..

An American guard would not have sold Stevens out, and told the terrorists where the safe house was in the first place. That info doesn't get transmitted, here's no NEED for an armed platoon of soldiers.

Obama knew that Stevens was missing, and upon getting that info, he went to bed, not knowing the fate of the US Ambassador.



Give me a solid citation for both of what you just said.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53233

See in this thread you posted and article that explains that the 16 man team Stevens was talking about was based in Tripoli. So had the extension been granted it would have changed nothing.



Ahh yes. Keyword being " solid " citation. That it's been mass reported, is only good enough for some things, like bashing conservatives, ( " it's just a damn piece of paper! " - W on the US Constitution , or " frothy " Santorum. )


http://www.bing.com/search?q=obama+went+to+bed+benghazi&FORM=AWRE

First and foremost, security requests were inexplicably denied.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57536524/before-death-amb-steven
s-warned-of-violent-libya-landscape
/

And as for the 'local' security ...

According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-
in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens
/


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Too bad that after doing all that research you didn't include a link to the thread."

Your problem Geezer is that you're a very small thinker. Why would you think I only looked through one thread, or found things in only one thread? As for the quote that I posted - google know all.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:50 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Too bad that after doing all that research you didn't include a link to the thread."

Your problem Geezer is that you're a very small thinker. Why would you think I only looked through one thread, or found things in only one thread? As for the quote that I posted - google know all.



Post a link, then.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 4:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Oh btw, while I looked without success through your old posts to find even ONE objection you posted , I did find many howlers where you criticized the people who said there were no WMDs, where you supported the invasion and sundry other topics. For some reason this one really stuck out as especially funny- Kiki

[In response to civilians slaughtered in a church]

Ah. Here's where we slip into shades of gray. What is an "innocent civilian"? For what purpose are they "targeted for death"? -Geezer

Yes, because NO civilians are innocent if they're not Republicans.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
See - google is that easy to use.



Thank you.

Now here's my entire post from Sept. 09, 2004, not just the out of context bit you posted.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?




Ah. Here's where we slip into shades of gray. What is an "innocent civilian"? For what purpose are they "targeted for death"?

Is the man in the enemy country who builds the rifles my enemy shoots at me an innocent civilian? Is dropping a bomb on his house to prevent him making more rifles terrorism, or a legitimate act or war? If the bomb kills his wife and child...terrorism or collateral damage?

If the village chief won't willingly provide food, shelter, and men for my insurgency and I torture and kill him in front of the entire village, after doing the same to his family...Terrorism, or a sad but necessary part of the struggle for liberation?

If the village is providing food, shelter, and men for the insurgency that is killing my troops, blowing up buildings, and kidnapping and executing or ransoming foreign aid workers, is razing the village terrorism, or a legitimate act or war?

If I have been taught from youth that only those of my belief are real people, and that everyone else is a fair target, is blowing up a bus full of non-believer school-children terrorism, or the proper way to show my belief?

I could go on to propose scores or scenarios, and every one of us would probably differ on some of them. If we someday had to face those rifles, or those insurgents, our opinions might change.

There aren't just two points on the line:

Non-Terrorist.|.Terrorist

With the deciding factor being "killed a civilian". There's all those points in between where people make hard decisions between humanity and survival.

Making everything black and white simplifies it tremendously, but flies in the face of reality. If you go into battle determined to never harm a civilian, and your enemy does not follow this prohibition, you'll lose. Most countries have rules of engagement that recognize this, but that try to minimize what they consider the necessary evil of civilian casualties. Unfortunately, in some places with long-running, low intensity (relatively speaking, e.g. no big battles) wars, both sides slip over the edge and just want to kill the other side.

I don't have a solution to this. Everyone decides for themselves where the tipping point is, based on what they were taught and what their immediate circumstances are. I would guess, despite current appearances, that in the last couple of centuries it has actually gotten better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:30 AM

BYTEMITE


...In context that doesn't look very good either, Geezer.

In a war that involves winning over public opinion, it's not as simple as which side can be the most brutal. If you field an undisciplined team in a difficult, frustrating situation and they then go on to commit mass murder, I can guarantee you're not going to win that fight either. You're not going to win public support there, and you're going to lose public support here.

There are some who think we could have won Vietnam if we were more ruthless, committed more forces, didn't hold back on account of civilians. We lost Vietnam, because the American people disapproved of our actions and demanded we pull out. Do you think the American people would have stood for WORSE behaviour? Or do you think the American military does not answer to the American people?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
We don't try and blame Obama for the failings of the party.



Why not? It's his party. In 2009-10 when he had a bigger majority in both the House and Senate than Bush ever had, surely he should have been able to reverse stuff Bush got passed with smaller majorities. Maybe his leadership and administrative skills aren't up to the level of his oratorical ones.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:51 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
...In context that doesn't look very good either, Geezer.

In a war that involves winning over public opinion, it's not as simple as which side can be the most brutal. If you field an undisciplined team in a difficult, frustrating situation and they then go on to commit mass murder, I can guarantee you're not going to win that fight either. You're not going to win public support there, and you're going to lose public support here.

There are some who think we could have won Vietnam if we were more ruthless, committed more forces, didn't hold back on account of civilians. We lost Vietnam, because the American people disapproved of our actions and demanded we pull out. Do you think the American people would have stood for WORSE behaviour? Or do you think the American military does not answer to the American people?



Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just let your preconceptions take over again?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 6:16 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Why not? It's his party. In 2009-10 when he had a bigger majority in both the House and Senate than Bush ever had, surely he should have been able to reverse stuff Bush got passed with smaller majorities. Maybe his leadership and administrative skills aren't up to the level of his oratorical ones.



No, it is not his party. Perhaps you don't understand how the party system works in the US. The party can't force its members of vote a certain way. They can apply pressure, they can not support that candidate, but that is about it. They can't even kick that person out of the party.

What the President did do is get health care reform passed which has been a goal of progressives since Teddy Roosevelt. He and the Dems had to hang a few of there own party out to dry to do so.

Bush had an easier time because the Democrats were willing to work with him. Obama did not have that from the GOP. The GOP put party politics ahead of there job of governing and continue to do so.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 6:30 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Once again..

An American guard would not have sold Stevens out, and told the terrorists where the safe house was in the first place. That info doesn't get transmitted, here's no NEED for an armed platoon of soldiers.

Obama knew that Stevens was missing, and upon getting that info, he went to bed, not knowing the fate of the US Ambassador.



Give me a solid citation for both of what you just said.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53233

See in this thread you posted and article that explains that the 16 man team Stevens was talking about was based in Tripoli. So had the extension been granted it would have changed nothing.



Ahh yes. Keyword being " solid " citation. That it's been mass reported, is only good enough for some things, like bashing conservatives, ( " it's just a damn piece of paper! " - W on the US Constitution , or " frothy " Santorum. )


http://www.bing.com/search?q=obama+went+to+bed+benghazi&FORM=AWRE

First and foremost, security requests were inexplicably denied.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57536524/before-death-amb-steven
s-warned-of-violent-libya-landscape
/

And as for the 'local' security ...

According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-
in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/



First off I'm confused. I thought you had been saying over and over there were no protestes, yet here your citation says there were?

Second nothing that you posted disagrees with what I said. Stevens asked for the 16 man security team to remain. That request was denigned. He than asked for a few additional people to fill those spots. The problem is that 16 man team was based in Tripoli not Benghazi. So had Stevens request been filled it would not have made a differce in the attack.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 6:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ahhh, here it comes again; that adored Republican claim that Obama had a majority and why didn't he do anything. Luckily I've saved this for every time their trite little accusation comes up:
Quote:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.

Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:

1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. On top of that, there was a Republican president who would likely veto any legislation the Republicans didn’t like. Not exactly a super majority.

2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority.

3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Teddy Kennedy casts his last vote in April and leaves Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returns, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That leaves the balance in the Senate 58-41, two votes away from a super majority.

4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members is 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.

5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th.

6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority.

7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority.

8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th.

8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected in November of 2009. The Senate was not in session during November and December of 2009. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown was sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010.

Summary: The Democrats only had 24 days of Super Majority between 2008 and 2010.

Discussion: The Democrats had a super majority for a total of 24 days. On top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into one 11-day period and one 13-day period. Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation.

Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor.

Summary:

1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 - 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 - 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 - 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days

Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.


Aaaand I'll keep reposting it every time you guys try to pull that one.

There's also the very valid point that
Quote:

Bush had an easier time because the Democrats were willing to work with him. Obama did not have that from the GOP. The GOP put party politics ahead of there job of governing and continue to do so.
I would also call "party politics" the clearly spoken intention of making defeating Obama their No. 1 priority--to the detriment of the country and its people. Tho' they haven't said THIS outright, the Repubs have made it clear by their actions and voting records that they wanted the economy to either stay bad or get worse so that they could get back in power in 2012. It took me a VERY long time to accept that people would do that, but in the end even I couldn't deny it. I hope their plan fails, but I fear that if Obama is re-elected, they will just go on the way they have.

That's the simple fact...none of the filibuster stuff would have happened if the Repubs had been in the least bit willing to do their job and represent all the people; the Dems did work across the aisle, despite disagreeing. They understood a government only works via compromise.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:24 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
...In context that doesn't look very good either, Geezer.

In a war that involves winning over public opinion, it's not as simple as which side can be the most brutal. If you field an undisciplined team in a difficult, frustrating situation and they then go on to commit mass murder, I can guarantee you're not going to win that fight either. You're not going to win public support there, and you're going to lose public support here.

There are some who think we could have won Vietnam if we were more ruthless, committed more forces, didn't hold back on account of civilians. We lost Vietnam, because the American people disapproved of our actions and demanded we pull out. Do you think the American people would have stood for WORSE behaviour? Or do you think the American military does not answer to the American people?



Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just let your preconceptions take over again?



Interesting. That depends on who you think you're talking to. You might have looked at my Zoe avatar and assumed you were conversing with someone else, but I assure you, I'm all Byte. This is the first I've heard of your views on collateral damage, and I don't know what preconceptions I should have - but others, perhaps, have heard them before.

While your recognition of the terrorist versus freedom fighter dichotomy does you credit, I really do have to object to the rather blase attitude I've seen around here that seems to equate pragmatism and victory with civilian death.

Collateral damage and civilian death is highly inefficient, and I don't care what side of a fight you're on, that's never NOT true.

But, on the other hand, that's not even what this topic of conversation was about, and digging up the old threads to discuss terrorism is neither here nor there. I just felt I had to comment on what you posted in context. Perhaps I simply misread the last paragraph or so of what you said, but even if I didn't, in the very least your reaction has indicated that you do not DEFEND targeting civilians, whether or not warhawks shift the definition.

...I think. Well, but this is why I ask for clarity. As it is not the topic of this thread, you do not have to indulge me.

As a pro-tip, my definition is "anyone who is not a COMBATANT." There is some degree of precedence for this. Because if you expand the definition of combatant to include people who aren't a professional or volunteer part of a military force and who aren't actively trying to kill you, then that... Allow me to calculate... Could be EVERYONE.

Like you said, the world is better about this nowadays than in the past - and it is better because nations have made the effort to not kill civilians. I honestly think we should insist on that mode of conduct. Always. No tipping points. And I hope you agree with me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:16 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Geezer

Your response was to a situation where 400 civilians were tricked into going into a church, locked inside, and machine-gunned to death. I'm curious which shade of gray you think that is. Is that the one where the women and children are combatants? Or the one where being machine-gunned to death isn't quite dead enough to count?

I'm also curious how that squares with your outrage, OUTRAGE! I tell you!, over the lack of fervor you perceive in democrats for civil liberties, as opposed to - what - your own deep respect?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:46 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


* Could SOMEONE fix their post, which is making this page super wide ? I think a link was posted above, which is the cause of all the this.

@ nickerson - yeah, the source says 'protests', because that's the narrative which was first given out as to what took place.

It wasn't a " protest ", but in fact a full blown attacks by armed militants.

Once again, to focus on the facts. There never was a protest which got out of hand, and then turned violent. The WH KNEW this, with in hours, and yet, for over a week, trotted out this false story of angry Libyans, upset over a YouTube video, protesting and then then things getting out of hand, turning violent, and "some how " an ambassador and 3 other Americans end up dead.

On Sept. 11th.

The question is - WHY ?



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL