Parsing “terror attack”


Mitt Romney was correct, Obama and Candy Crowley were lying during the 2nd Presidential debate. How convenient that Crowley had a transcript in front of her. It is almost as if she was given the transcript to use, just in case there was a question and the Doofus needed some help.

A few points to consider here:

1. Obama is obfuscating. He is spinning his wheels to the point that they are not moving at all. He is not gaining traction. The Benghazi incident is sinking him. More and more information is coming to light about the real security situation in Benghazi.

The latest piece that I have read on the subject is a news story concerning an interview with 2 of the Libyans who had been hired to help with security at the consulate. These are very honest and forthright individuals. They agree that there were some within their ranks who have Islamist leanings. That is not the real issue here but what is the real issue is the fact that they had no heavy weapons to help in a situation of a heavy armed attack.

You can read their story here. It is from the LA Times!!  Basically, what they are saying is that they were provided with very little in the way of training, although the American security did give them training that was useful for a situation that would be a lot lighter. They had no heavy weapons, and they were not given any equipment to protect themselves. From what I can understand, they did well to make it to the roof and to survive the attack.

2. The terrorism attack at Benghazi has not been politicized by Republicans. It already was political. The attack itself is a political statement. Yet Obama wants to sweep it under the carpet. The reaction and the spinning from the White House is a foolish mistake.

Moving on to some of the other issues, I think it is time that Obama stopped blaming George Bush. The US economy was not in such a bad state when Obama took over. In fact the stimulus was not necessary. There was a blip, and if left alone it would have been self-correcting. Obama seized the opportunity to do things like interfering in the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcies. He then played favourites, ripped off millions from the bondholders and gave everything to his union cronies. I hope that the teachers’ union that had its super funds ripped apart will remember who did the damage.

The real lie happens to be the one about Romney supposedly wanting to send Detroit bankrupt. It already is bankrupt because of corruption.

4. The behaviour of Obama continues to be weird. During debate one he stood there and closed his eyes. His body language was really terrible. I do not think that there was much improvement in body language, at least not from the pictures that I have seen. He spent his time glowering. It was not in the slightest bit Presidential to behave in such a fashion.

Mitt Romney made many good points, and I do think that he has a firmer grasp of the economy. With Paul Ryan he has a big task ahead in that he must attempt to save a sinking ship. It is not going to be an easy task. There is one area where he might be naive, but I am open minded on the subject and that area relates to trade and China.

Advertisements

10 responses to “Parsing “terror attack”

  1. I can’t imagine what triggered this, but it just sort of popped out of my brain and onto the paper as a completely finished whole piece.

    The Elephant in the Room

    Lately (since the Benghazi incident) The Obama has been on a tear of religious toleration. Either via Hillary, Susan Rice, or hisself, like at the UN speech, have very forcefully disavowed and disparaged, over and over again, ad nauseum, the disrespect, denigration, or blasphemy of other people’s religions.

    To which I say “hurrah hurrah!” Let us start here:

    What about “There is but one god, Allah, and his prophet is Mohamed”? Does that sound very ecumenical to you? Does this sound like the recognition or tolerance of other religions? This says exactly “we are right and you are wrong”. This likely rises to blasphemy, and certainly is extremely disrespectful and denigrating. It is really throwing down the gauntlet (of, if you will, showing the bottom of your shoe) at the other guy’s religion.

    In fact, this is the strongest and most belligerent such statement of any major world religion. So, let’s start with this one. Clean it up first, then we can sit back and analyze ourselves and other such elements of Western Civilization and see if we need minor adjustments here and there.

    Does that sound OK to you Mr. Obama? Mr. “fair and equal”. Mr. “all play by the same rules, on a level playing field”.

    In any case, apologizing seems way premature.

    Like

    • Actually you are wrong regarding the “religious tolerance”. The lectures that you have heard since the riots in Cairo and the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi have addressed tolerance re one religion only. He only ever refers to Islam.

      On the other hand, Mitt Romney is a great example of religious tolerance. I listened to his speech at the dinner in New York. He was very funny with the quips and the comments. Yet what impressed me was his tolerance towards other religions. He was not preaching tolerance… no he showed in a few words the real meaning of tolerance, when he stated his own respect for the Catholic faith. The Catholic Cardinal of New York was present at the dinner. He then went on to tell a little joke incorporating St. Peter… and it was hilarious based upon “you didn’t build that.”

      I have read most of those Obama speeches. I cannot stand listening to his voice, so I only hear snippets (even that is hard to tolerate where he is concerned). I read parts of what he said in the UN. Not once did he mention being tolerant towards Jews or Christians. He did not bring up the blasphemous Piss Christ and the Virgin Mary set in dung. No. He only ever referred to the koran (no capitalization is deliberate) in his speeches. He did not make any reference to Christian Scripture or to the Torah. Nope…. he referred only to Islam.

      Lots of people have woken up because certain things have filtered through the system. For example the fact that he is gay has permeated through to the blacks… one lot reads about it, and passes it on to family in far flung places within the country…. they are less likely to vote for Miss Thang.

      After listening to Mitt Romney I more or less cannot wait until the day that he takes over as President. He is more Presidential, and he maintains eye contact, whereas the doofus cannot look people in the eye and he cannot look directly into the camera.

      Like

  2. Is THIS the October Surprise? Is THIS the big reason seems to not care if he wins debates? Is THIS how Obama KNOWS that he will win election? Is THIS is key part of the ‘anything and everything’ I frequently mention? Has THIS been the over-arching mega-purpose of this administration all along? Is THIS why nothing was done to assist Iranian demonstrators in 2009? Is THIS the foreign influence / puppet master who controls Obama? Who is Valerie Jarrett and what does she want?

    This was first reported some days ago as a ‘heads up’. It is now looking like The Plan is instantly ready to give birth. All this comes from a largely reputable source and author/reporter – but since the information relies on various insiders and informants, there is always the possibility that it is misinformation or disinformation. Stay tuned. The endgame will be known within the next very few days. Likely by this or next weekend’s weekly news shows (or in time to overshadow the final debate).

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obama-cuts-deal-with-iran-over-nukes/

    Like

  3. I doubt that the story is true. That kind of deal is not going to stop Mittmentum at this point in time.

    What people are seeing from those debates is that the man has no policies.

    Like

  4. Carlyle
    I have to think clearly about what you are trying to say. Personally, I stay away from WND because I do not like conspiracy theories and indulgence in the same.

    There are many other things to consider regarding any deal such as how people would see it as similar to what Neville Chamberlain did back in the 1930s. Such a deal would be seen as appeasement, and if we have learned anything, it is that such deals are not worth the paper they are written on.

    Arabs and Middle Eastern types do not like weakness. That is why they had contempt for Jimmy Carter. They appreciated the strength of Ronald Reagan. Such a deal, if it really has been done, will be regarded as yet another sign of weakness.

    It is a deal that will not be applauded.

    Like

  5. I don’t know whether to trust this rag or this informant or not. That is why I phrased everything as questions. BUT IT WOULD BE SO TYPICAL. The usurper/fraud to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute.

    (Remember the unexplained and essentially inexplicable ‘economic explosion’ conveniently just prior to the 2008 election? I don’t believe in coincidences.)

    And, it is not ‘appeasement’. The story reads as a planned tit for tat. i.e. the specific diplomatic strategy played out as planned. We squeezed them with sanctions until they were ready to make a deal! IT WORKED!!

    With Iran widely perceived as THE largest global threat (or for those who don’t grasp that, the MSM would have easy time of convincing them), and if this were SOLVED by The Obama and his foreign policy, then ALL would be forgiven. Even large amounts of domestic policy failures. The Obama could explain (with MSM help) that all his suspicious foreign policy up to now was a spectacular and clever strategy directed to this very purpose. But we were all too stupid and/or too faithless to trust him. Failure here, failure there, leading from behind, seeming to abandon Israel to the wolves, lack of support for Iran and Syria rebels, etc. etc. – are/were all ploys and feints to achieve this MOMENTOUS ACHIEVEMENT.

    All the MSM needs is a wee bit of successful foreign policy to spin the most enchanting tale of Blessings From The Brilliant Messiah. Something as big as this would be through the roof.

    90%+ of all Americans would buy this story. MANY would change there votes from Romney to Obama.

    As I continue to say – if this fraud (“con”) is as big as we believe, it cannot be allowed to fail. I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either Obama is just another (perhaps rather extreme) swing of the political pendulum and can therefore lose, OR he is the biggest fraud perpetrated in the history of the universe and a foreign agent and a domestic enemy. In which case ‘they’ cannot allow him to fail. NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES.

    My question(s) then – is this IT – or is there another even bigger shoe to drop???

    Like

  6. Here is a little news item from “examiner.com” that ought to get your juices flowing. The Obama juggernaut seems alive and well.

    The Salt Lake Tribune is receiving national media attention for its endorsement of the reelection of President Barack Obama. News organizations including CNN, the Washington Post and POLITICO all seem shocked that the state’s leading newspaper is endorsing the incumbent, not the “favorite son.”

    In an editorial published Friday, the Tribune acknowledged the popularity of Mitt Romney in Utah, but said “Obama has earned another term” because he inherited a “deepening crises” and somehow pulled us back from the brink. While his level of success may have been varied, we have slowly and steadily recovered from the “worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression.”

    The newspaper is headquartered in the most Republican state in the nation and in the same city as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Republican nominee Mitt Romney is the first Mormon to receive a major party’s nomination for President. Romney also rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from huge losses and scandal which made him hugely popular within the state.

    However, the Tribune cites Romney’s “courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination” and his ability to be the “shape shifting nominee,” that has forced people to ask “Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe.”

    Like many of us, the Tribune has no answer. They too are confused by Romney’s constant changing of positions, back-tracking, and saying anything he believes his audience wants to hear. His anti-forty seven percent has become support for the 100 percent, and he now says he’s a champion of the middle class.

    The paper also points out Romney’s inability to share policy specifics that Democrats say simply don’t add up. The Tribune states, “Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.”

    The editorial makes a strong argument for Obama’s handling of foreign policy, the importance of the Affordable Health Care Act (based on legislation signed by Romney while governor of Massachusetts), getting out of Iraq and de-escalating the war in Afghanistan. They call Obama “a competent leader” who led us through a “catastrophe” and is “pointing toward a brighter day.”

    Like

  7. One of my correspondents was hoping that Romney would clean up the floor on Foreign Policy against The Obama. Especially in light of recent Benghazi events and potential Iran monkey business. Here is what I wrote him:

    There are indeed a number of things that Romney can do to crush Zero, but in the spirit of “likeablilty” and “taking the high road”, and “no personal attacks”, he will not do any of them.

    The best question of all is:

    Since we are war on several fronts – and our adversaries all seem to be some slice of Muslims – this is of UTMOST foreign policy consideration. It seems well understood that you were raised a Muslim and were once a devout Muslim. We MUST understand how you stand with respect to Muslims and their various branches and factions. We also are told by Muslim scholars that apostasy is a punishable capital crime. How and when, exactly, did you become Not A Muslim? What process was used? Why are there no outstanding fatwas against you? Why is not the entire Arab Street rioting?

    PS – will you stand here and tell us unequivocally that if or when the SHTF, you will stand strong and tall with Israel?

    Like

  8. Carlyle, Romney did in fact get in a good punch. It is only because Candy Crowley shifted the talk that made any difference. The damage was already done and people are now looking more closely at the parsing from the White House.

    Maybe some people are expecting too much from debates that are set up to favour Duh Won.

    Like

  9. Carlyle you might want to read this from MyPetJawa:

    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/213958.php

    I am not sure about the source of the rumor but it seems that there is a plausible denial coming from the White House.

    Like