Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go and hug those angry Muslim militants. That's all the need. Hugs and flowers in their gun muzzles. Typical flower child stuff.

Given that we don't have a flower child in the presidency right now, I don't see how you expect that to happen. Obama promoted the surge in Afghanistan (pissed the peace movement off, that one did) and made the call to kill Bin Laden. He failed to close Guantanamo and he has authorized drone strikes in other countries for the purpose of assassination. About the furthest thing from a flower child!

But, hey, he has a foreign last name, so he must be either a dangerous plant or weak-wristed wimp. It's amazing how deluded some people are.

Hilary has bigger stones than "um-um-um" apologetic Obama.
Too bad she didn't get the nomination. It's clear Michele wears the pants in that marriage, but it's embarassing that the president is such a doormat. He also did not "kill bin Laden." The Navy Seals did that, and under an operation clearly pushed by an official other that Weak, Ineffectual Barack.

Yeah and Bush didn't hunt down Saddam either. It was the military that did that. Weak, stupid George Bush was probably off reading a children's book somewhere.

Anonymous wrote:for President Obama to actually walk to a podium and say something about our ambassador and other workers being murdered by an angry Libyan mob? I realize it took a while for all in the administration to get their stories straight. But, as head of state, is he going to take a minute from campaigning to say something to the American people himself? Will he at least get around to it this morning?

Wow, that was just like forever.

Moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go and hug those angry Muslim militants. That's all the need. Hugs and flowers in their gun muzzles. Typical flower child stuff.

Given that we don't have a flower child in the presidency right now, I don't see how you expect that to happen. Obama promoted the surge in Afghanistan (pissed the peace movement off, that one did) and made the call to kill Bin Laden. He failed to close Guantanamo and he has authorized drone strikes in other countries for the purpose of assassination. About the furthest thing from a flower child!

But, hey, he has a foreign last name, so he must be either a dangerous plant or weak-wristed wimp. It's amazing how deluded some people are.

Hilary has bigger stones than "um-um-um" apologetic Obama.
Too bad she didn't get the nomination. It's clear Michele wears the pants in that marriage, but it's embarassing that the president is such a doormat. He also did not "kill bin Laden." The Navy Seals did that, and under an operation clearly pushed by an official other that Weak, Ineffectual Barack.

Romney wasnt politicizing stevens death, he was playing politics with the whole "obama goes around the world apologizing" crap and got egg on his face.

The PP who posted that Salon article which I read earlier this morning along with other things shines the light on the entire strategy.

I'm sure Limbaugh and Hannity are going to yap all day about how Romney was right because his statements came out before the stevens announcement but that does not change the fact that Romney was trying to use the Cairo statement for some cheap political point.

And its funny to me that condemning the movie is somehow shooting down freedom of speech. If you remove stevens death and just isolate the Cairo statement and Romney's response, the back and forth on that is even dumber and such a lame attempt to play "gotcha" on Obama.

The stevens death only highlights the stupidity of it all

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let me guess: "I don't know, but it should be something different than a news conference!"

Is that your best guess? Why are you even here?

Still waiting for the republican suggestions on how they would have handled it.

Probably "Lower capital gains tax rates to 0%. It that doesn't work, then bomb 'em!"

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/

Here was Mitt's response. According to Salon, the embassy in Cairo issued a statement aimed at calming the protesters outside which Mitt has called an apology and which he has accused Obama of issuing. If this report is true, I have nothing but disdain for Romney.

Agreed. I'd like to see what his reponse would have been had he been inside the embassy, with Islamists crawling the walls, and an Egyptian government that was doing NOTHING to help out.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Is this strong enough for you?

Nope. I read the statement. It contains no language about the fact that diplomats are under a different set of rules, and always have been, in all civilizations for all of history. Usually, killing someone's ambassador is a clear and outright act of war. I do not mean to suggest we mobilize the troops, understand.) This statement could have been (and probably has been) applied to the killing of uniformed soldiers in combat zones, or tourists on vacation.

We are dealing with something fundamentally different here, yet the response is the same.

You moved the goalposts. Initially you demanded something more than a verbal condemnation. Now, you are complaining about insufficient verbiage.

I gained more information. I'm capable of learning and adjusting in many situations. My ego doesn't rest on defending a prior position once all the circumstances surrounding it have changed. Does that make me a flip-flopper? I'm sure that's your next accusation. I call it capable of complex and evolving thought.

I maintain, though, that something more than the verbal condemnation that was issued is required, and that action must be public on both sides. Libyans need to know (thought seeing) that the world doesn't tolerate the killing of diplomats. Americans need to know (through seeing) that the Libyans are our allies in this.

Why were my Putin pics deleted? He's a man of action!

Anonymous wrote:Let's go and hug those angry Muslim militants. That's all the need. Hugs and flowers in their gun muzzles. Typical flower child stuff.

Given that we don't have a flower child in the presidency right now, I don't see how you expect that to happen. Obama promoted the surge in Afghanistan (pissed the peace movement off, that one did) and made the call to kill Bin Laden. He failed to close Guantanamo and he has authorized drone strikes in other countries for the purpose of assassination. About the furthest thing from a flower child!

But, hey, he has a foreign last name, so he must be either a dangerous plant or weak-wristed wimp. It's amazing how deluded some people are.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go and hug those angry Muslim militants. That's all the need. Hugs and flowers in their gun muzzles. Typical flower child stuff.

Ask Bin Laden how he is enjoying the hugs and flowers.

He got loads from Bush/Cheney. Not so much from O.

Anonymous wrote:Let's go and hug those angry Muslim militants. That's all the need. Hugs and flowers in their gun muzzles. Typical flower child stuff.

Ask Bin Laden how he is enjoying the hugs and flowers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let me guess: "I don't know, but it should be something different than a news conference!"

Is that your best guess? Why are you even here?

Still waiting for the republican suggestions on how they would have handled it.

Probably "Lower capital gains tax rates to 0%. It that doesn't work, then bomb 'em!"

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/

Here was Mitt's response. According to Salon, the embassy in Cairo issued a statement aimed at calming the protesters outside which Mitt has called an apology and which he has accused Obama of issuing. If this report is true, I have nothing but disdain for Romney.

Let's go and hug those angry Muslim militants. That's all the need. Hugs and flowers in their gun muzzles. Typical flower child stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Is this strong enough for you?

Nope. I read the statement. It contains no language about the fact that diplomats are under a different set of rules, and always have been, in all civilizations for all of history. Usually, killing someone's ambassador is a clear and outright act of war. I do not mean to suggest we mobilize the troops, understand.) This statement could have been (and probably has been) applied to the killing of uniformed soldiers in combat zones, or tourists on vacation.

We are dealing with something fundamentally different here, yet the response is the same.

Oh fer cripes' sakes, it's only been a few hours since this happened. For all you know, things are moving forward behind the scenes to accomplish your desired objective. Or they're not. I have no idea. But, sorry, I don't expect the president in the first 24 hours to run everything by the public through a speech! International diplomacy sometimes involves not announcing stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let me guess: "I don't know, but it should be something different than a news conference!"

Is that your best guess? Why are you even here?

Still waiting for the republican suggestions on how they would have handled it.

Probably "Lower capital gains tax rates to 0%. It that doesn't work, then bomb 'em!"

Seriously what do the PPs (are there really more than one?) believe should be done that has not yet been done? If you advocate military action, please be specific about the precise forces to be used, on what time frame, against which targets?