The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Regardless, I find it a stretch to call it an act of war in this situation. And by stretch, you'd have to pull that thing all the way to Pluto. Especially not knowing all of the details yet.

How about an act of war by those engaged in and supportive of those involved in the attacks (if not the ineffectual transition government)?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

It would depend how much our government supports and tolerates the crips and bloods. Or whether the crips and bloods really held the power in the U.S. Libya's in transition so it's tough to answer those questions with regard to them. Edit: I actually have confidence in Obama to sort that out and act appropriately though.

Here's what those currently in charge in Libya have to say:

Libyan Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abu Shagour condemned the killing of the U.S. diplomats as a cowardly act. The head of Libya's national assembly vowed to bring the killers to justice.

Doesn't sound like they are supporting these guys:

The attack was believed to have been carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, an al Qaeda-style Sunni Islamist group that has been active in Benghazi, a Libyan security official said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88B0EI20120912

[cartman]

I bet those involved will develop a healthy fear of remote controlled planes.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here's what those currently in charge in Libya have to say:

Doesn't sound like they are supporting these guys:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88B0EI20120912

I don't think we should start bombing Libyan government buildings or anything but I think its relevant that they don't have any control over the forces there that actually matter. Who's really in charge, who's will is really being exercised? If a couple of government voices who have no real power over anything express disagreement with the greater trends and actions, is that just the end of it? The Libyan government seems irrelevant, though I defer to the people in charge who know a lot more about it than me.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

How about an act of war by those engaged in and supportive of those involved in the attacks (if not the ineffectual transition government)?

Did they say they supported or endorsed the killings though? I haven't read anything about this, but, I would be surprised if the Libyan government says they do, as that would be splashed all over the headlines here.

EDIT:

Just read 3 different articles:

Chris Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in rocket attack, served as envoy during revolution | The Lookout - Yahoo! News No mention of Libya supporting the attack in any way. Mentioned that a Marine counter terrorism unit is being deployed to Libya. I would think if Libya wanted to declare war on the US, it would deny that unit entry to the country.

American who risked life to stop Gadhafi killed in Libya - CNN.com
Libyan prime minister apologizes.

Obama vows to 'bring justice' to killers in US Embassy attack in Libya | Fox News
No mention of anything about the Libyan government supporting the attacks. The article mentions that some Libyans tried to help repel the attackers.

Still not convinced this is anything close to being an 'act of war'.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Did they say they supported or endorsed the killings though? I haven't read anything about this, but, I would be surprised if the Libyan government says they do, as that would be splashed all over the headlines here.

EDIT:

Just read 3 different articles:

Chris Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in rocket attack, served as envoy during revolution | The Lookout - Yahoo! News No mention of Libya supporting the attack in any way. Mentioned that a Marine counter terrorism unit is being deployed to Libya. I would think if Libya wanted to declare war on the US, it would deny that unit entry to the country.

American who risked life to stop Gadhafi killed in Libya - CNN.com
Libyan prime minister apologizes.

Obama vows to 'bring justice' to killers in US Embassy attack in Libya | Fox News
No mention of anything about the Libyan government supporting the attacks. The article mentions that some Libyans tried to help repel the attackers.

Still not convinced this is anything close to being an 'act of war'.

Right, that's what I meant, obviously the government of Libya didn't commit an act of war. But is the government of Libya relevant to anything? I was asking whether this is an act of war by the people carrying out these acts. Obviously it isn't as organized as traditional state action. I'm just saying our western perspective of "government" is kind of meaningless in a place with a brand new government that doesn't seem to have control over anything.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So by that logic...A vacationing family from another country is visiting California and is gunned down by some crips or bloods. That's an act of war?

Or an ambassador from another country is murdered here in the US by some fanatical that has no association with the US government other than he lives here. Act of war?

Invasion of an embassy and killing of personnel if initiated/condoned by country is an act of war.

The story/timeline is not out yet but there was a big demonstration, things happended, embassy was violated, 4 US officials were murdered. Was the demonstration initially peaceful and then agitators took over? Don't know.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

Right, that's what I meant, obviously the government of Libya didn't commit an act of war. But is the government of Libya relevant to anything? I was asking whether this is an act of war by the people carrying out these acts. Obviously it isn't as organized as traditional state action. I'm just saying our western perspective of "government" is kind of meaningless in a place with a brand new government that doesn't seem to have control over anything.

Ah ok, I see where you're coming from now. I think the people who do things like that probably do consider themselves at war with America and have for decades.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Invasion of an embassy and killing of personnel if initiated/condoned by country is an act of war.

The story/timeline is not out yet but there was a big demonstration, things happended, embassy was violated, 4 US officials were murdered. Was the demonstration initially peaceful and then agitators took over? Don't know.

From reading different articles, it definitely sounds like there was no support from the Libyan government in addition to an apology from the Lybian prime minister.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

in addition to an apology from the Lybian prime minister.

Umm, what else was he gonna say? I'm thinking that very few politicians - regardless of their actual feelings - were gonna look us in the eye & say "boy I sure wish they'd have killed several more".

Even the new government, such as it is, seems likely to realize that we've got some old targeting data lying around somewhere.

[cartman]

There is new info coming out now that the Al-Qaeda based group has had an attack planned for a while, and used the film protests as a convenient cover.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Might need to add a 4th news article to the reading list. This comes from that noted neo-con organization known as CBS News.

Assault on U.S. consulate in Benghazi leaves 4 dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens - CBS News

Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building - deemed safer - after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. 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.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm, what else was he gonna say? I'm thinking that very few politicians - regardless of their actual feelings - were gonna look us in the eye & say "boy I sure wish they'd have killed several more".

Even the new government, such as it is, seems likely to realize that we've got some old targeting data lying around somewhere.

I kind of agree with you on that. It would be stupid for a government that can't metaphorically, wipe its own ass, start a war with the US. That's why I think claims that it is an act of war is rather stretching it.

Might need to add a 4th news article to the reading list. This comes from that noted neo-con organization known as CBS News.

Assault on U.S. consulate in Benghazi leaves 4 dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens - CBS News

And is that security team an official Libyan government team or a private 3rd party security team? The article doesn't specify.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I kind of agree with you on that. It would be stupid for a government that can't metaphorically, wipe its own ass, start a war with the US. That's why I think claims that it is an act of war is rather stretching it.



And is that security team an official Libyan government team or a private 3rd party security team? The article doesn't specify.

More than that - nothing in the article claims that they were acting in an official capacity, even if they were members of a security team. So the Libyan "security team" had some terrorist sympathizers - is that really surprising?

That doesn't mean we ought to go starting ANOTHER war.

[JPhillips]

The Libyan government is saying all the right things. The silence of the Egyptian government is a much bigger problem.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Libyan government is saying all the right things. The silence of the Egyptian government is a much bigger problem.

"". This. Morsi's silence is deafening.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Libyan government is saying all the right things. The silence of the Egyptian government is a much bigger problem.

Yes, totally agree with this - Marc Lynch in his Foreign Policy blog has an interesting post on this interesting read.

Moments of Truth in Libya and Egypt | Marc Lynch

He compares the outpouring of condemnation for the killing, and support of the Americans, from Libyans of all stripes with the great silence coming from the Egyptian goverment after the attack on the US Embassy there.

[Edward64]

Here's a timeline.

The attack on the Libyan consulate, as it happened - World News

10:45 p.m.: U.S. security personnel try to take back the main building, but they come under heavy fire and return to the mission annex, where 25 to 30 people are holed up.

11:20 p.m.: U.S. and Libyan security personnel again try to take back the main building, this time successfully. They evacuate the rest of the personnel

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Yes, totally agree with this - Marc Lynch in his Foreign Policy blog has an interesting post on this interesting read.

Moments of Truth in Libya and Egypt | Marc Lynch

He compares the outpouring of condemnation for the killing, and support of the Americans, from Libyans of all stripes with the great silence coming from the Egyptian goverment after the attack on the US Embassy there.

I think we see the answer

More protests near U.S. Embassy in Cairo - CNN.com

Originally Posted by article

Morsy "expressed his condolences for the tragic loss of American life in Libya and emphasized that Egypt would honor its obligation to ensure the safety of American personnel," according to the White House statement.

In his statement, Morsy called on Egyptian diplomats in Washington "to take legal action against those people who seek to ruin relationships and discussions between people and countries."

The visceral reaction is a simple one: Um, eff you. I'm pretty sure trespassing is illegal in your country and I know it is on our native soil, which the embassy is. But we're cool with free speech, much as we hate some of it. So, no, we're not punishing anyone for this in our country because you don't like it.

Now, it's probably more complex than that. The "we will honor our obligation", while sounding lukewarm, could have been lost in translation a bit. We're relying on the White House to relay a message from a non-English speaking country.

That said, it sounds like the relationship is pretty frosty right now. Are we going to start pulling back funding for their military now that they are no longer in power and now that they're acting a lot less like an ally with Morsy in charge?

SI

[JPhillips]

This says a lot. From NYTimes:

Mr. Obama seemed to indicate that the American relationship with Egypt is evolving. “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” he said in an interview with Telemundo that was broadcast Wednesday night on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. “I think it’s still a work in progress, but certainly in this situation, what we’re going to expect is that they are responsive to our insistence that our embassy is protected, our personnel is protected.”

edit: Going to be hard to pump another billion in aid to a country somewhere in between ally and enemy.

[Dutch]

Well, according to Obama, Egypt is no longer our ally with the loss of Mubarak. The government, formed from revolt, does not inherit that relationship (and hopefully not the billions in American dollars) and needs to enlighten us on who's side they are on, first.

[Dutch]

And now Yemen's American Embassy is on fire.

[lungs]

All over a terribly produced B-movie 99.9% would never have heard of if nobody brought it up?

[panerd]

Sometime in the future a history class will study the start of World War III and wonder how a film that slandered one society's fake God caused another society to go to war to try and "civilize" them. If a lot of us thought the events that started WWI were confusing imagine trying to explain this one.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sometime in the future a history class will study the start of World War III and wonder how a film that slandered one society's fake God caused another society to go to war to try and "civilize" them. If a lot of us thought the events that started WWI were confusing imagine trying to explain this one.

"It's was a younger, more ignorant society. They didn't have the problems to worry about like we did prior to World War V, what with a set of war mongering profiteers who design military mobile suits, the emerging world power of the African Cyborg Republic agitating for more land and resources, and the threat of genetically engineered viruses that could destroy all life on earth a thousand times over possibly falling into the hands of the Randian Peoples Empowered Freedom Front from the crumbling failed government of Microsoft Nokia Coke District 2 of the North American Republic."

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"It's was a younger, more ignorant society. They didn't have the problems to worry about like we did prior to World War V, what with a set of war mongering profiteers who design military mobile suits, the emerging world power of the African Cyborg Republic agitating for more land and resources, and the threat of genetically engineered viruses that could destroy all life on earth a thousand times over possibly falling into the hands of the Randian Peoples Empowered Freedom Front from the crumbling failed government of Microsoft Nokia Coke District 2 of the North American Republic."

SI

Ok go on continue please ..... I'll go see the movie, read the book, whatever it takes

[Dutch]

The good news here is that nobody in Syria is protesting this. Clearly a model fascist society.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Ok go on continue please ..... I'll go see the movie, read the book, whatever it takes

It took me a few minutes to string all of those together, but, c'mon- the concept was fish meet barrel.

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"It's was a younger, more ignorant society. They didn't have the problems to worry about like we did prior to World War V, what with a set of war mongering profiteers who design military mobile suits, the emerging world power of the African Cyborg Republic agitating for more land and resources, and the threat of genetically engineered viruses that could destroy all life on earth a thousand times over possibly falling into the hands of the Randian Peoples Empowered Freedom Front from the crumbling failed government of Microsoft Nokia Coke District 2 of the North American Republic."

SI

[Edward64]

I agree with Obama that Egypt is not an ally and probably never will be. Why don't we give the money to Libya, Jordan and hopefully Syria soon. With a northern and eastern Israeli border secured, is Egypt really that strategic to us?

Egypt, Hearing From Obama, Moves to Heal Rift From Protests - NYTimes.com

CAIRO — Following a blunt phone call from President Obama, Egyptian leaders scrambled Thursday to try to repair the country’s alliance with Washington, tacitly acknowledging that they erred in their response to the attack on the United States Embassy by seeking to first appease anti-American domestic opinion without offering a robust condemnation of the violence.
:
:
During a late-night, 20-minute phone call, Mr. Obama warned Mr. Morsi that relations would be jeopardized if Egyptian authorities failed to protect American diplomats and stand more firmly against anti-American attacks.
:
:
But the war of words was continuing in Cairo on Thursday.

The United States Embassy publicly mocked the Brotherhood for sending out conflicting messages in its English and Arabic Twitter accounts. “Egyptians rise up to support Muhammad in front of the American Embassy. Sept. 11,” read an Arabic language post the Brotherhood sent out on the day of the attacks — one of several over the last few days emphasizing outrage at the video or calls for its censorship.

So on Thursday, when the group sent out a message of sympathy and support from its top strategist, Khairat el-Shater, from its English-language Twitter account, the Embassy responded tartly via Twitter. “Thanks,” its message read, “By the way, have you checked out your own Arabic feeds? I hope you know we read those too.”

[Edward64]

Obama caught stating he believes in "redistribution". I'm okay with it, that's what has been and is happening now anyway. Romney trying to play this as equivalent to what he said won't work.

Clip purports to show Obama embracing 'redistribution,' as Romney slams remarks | Fox News

A newly released audio recording purports to feature a young Barack Obama saying he believes in government "redistribution" -- a comment that Mitt Romney quickly seized on to claim his opponent thinks "the government should take from some to give to the others."

The tape, posted on YouTube, was a throwback to the web video that emerged in 2008 showing Obama telling "Joe the Plumber" he wants to "spread the wealth around."

This recording purportedly was from a 1998 conference at Loyola University. In it, the young Obama tells the audience he believes there has been "a propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy."

"I think that what we're going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all," Obama says. "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."

[sterlingice]

A video from 1998? Presidential campaigns are going to be really different in 20 years when the Facebook generation hits politics. "Back in 2008, my opponent was in favor of, and I quote, 'getting drunk as f--- and screwing everything that moves '."

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

A video from 1998? Presidential campaigns are going to be really different in 20 years when the Facebook generation hits politics. "Back in 2008, my opponent was in favor of, and I quote, 'getting drunk as f--- and screwing everything that moves '."

SI

+1

[JPhillips]

Why bother going back to 1998. They could just run the Joe the not plumber vid all day.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

If he still believes in wealth distribution in 2012 he's doing a piss-poor job of it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"Back in 2008, my opponent was in favor of, and I quote, 'getting drunk as f--- and screwing everything that moves '."

Well, that'll secure the youth vote.

[sterlingice]

In 1998, I was in college and I suspect I'd have spouted off whatever my sleep addled brain thought would get me a better grade: "You're damn right, I think the elderly should be turned into a slurry to feed the poo-" wait, that was another thread

I do remember taking a Poly Sci class where the assignment was to pick who was the best President since the end of WW2 and I went with Nixon because I thought he was easiest if you gloss over the whole Watergate thing.

SI

[Edward64]

I like the analysis, hope it happens. Made my day.

http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/was...-win.html?si=1

It’s not impossible for Republican challenger Mitt Romney to win, but he’ll need a dramatic reversal to make it happen -- a huge error by Obama in one of three debates scheduled for October, or more bad news about the economy that either keeps many Democrats home on Election Day or moves undecided voters toward the GOP.

Based on an analysis of poll results, voting patterns and other data, Kiplinger gives Obama 21 states and the District of Columbia, for a total of 269 electoral votes. That’s just one short of the 270 needed to win four more years in the White House.

We give Romney 24 states, putting 206 electoral votes in his column.

Five states, accounting for 63 electoral votes, are toss-ups: Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa.

[Coffee Warlord]

At first glance, I'd put Wisconsin in the toss-up category.

But really, it's the same story. Romney needs to win pretty much every toss-up state to have a chance.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

At first glance, I'd put Wisconsin in the toss-up category.

But really, it's the same story. Romney needs to win pretty much every toss-up state to have a chance.

And not lose any of the ones that they gave to him...

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

At first glance, I'd put Wisconsin in the toss-up category.

But really, it's the same story. Romney needs to win pretty much every toss-up state to have a chance.

I'd be surprised if Wisconsin is in play. We almost always go Blue, and Romney running as "not Obama" isn't going to help him.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'd be surprised if Wisconsin is in play. We almost always go Blue, and Romney running as "not Obama" isn't going to help him.

Granted, I understand Ryan isn't exactly loved by all parties up there, but I'd think there'd be at least some play with a resident as Veep candidate.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And not lose any of the ones that they gave to him...

From the list of states they gave him, pretty much no way in hell do any of those flip blue.

[SirFozzie]

Looks like Chick-Fil-A has backed down.. wonder if all the folks who were saying they'd support it forever for their "principled stand" will now howl in outrage?

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blog...all#readerComm

[ISiddiqui]

I wonder if Christians are going to stand in line for them now

[CraigSca]

I thought the issue was that the owner gave his opinion on gay marriage and that the funding came out only after the initial outrage.

I'm a Christian and I'd stand in line for their sandwiches any day

[markprior22]

I'm disappointed that Chick-Fil-A is doing this if it is in response to the recent uproar by a minority of people. The owner should be able to do anything he wants with his money (assuming it is legal). If people don't want to eat there because of that particular reason, they don't have to.

It's so ironic to me that many of the people who run around screaming "intolerance" are some of the most intolerant people I know.

We don't have any Chick-Fil-A's in my area but I love their chicken and would eat there no matter the guy's political stance because I like their food.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by markprior22

I'm disappointed that Chick-Fil-A is doing this if it is in response to the recent uproar by a minority of people. The owner should be able to do anything he wants with his money (assuming it is legal). If people don't want to eat there because of that particular reason, they don't have to.

It's so ironic to me that many of the people who run around screaming "intolerance" are some of the most intolerant people I know.

We don't have any Chick-Fil-A's in my area but I love their chicken and would eat there no matter the guy's political stance because I like their food.

The issue is that he wasn't doing it with HIS money I thought, but with the corporation's money?

Either way - trying to argue that boycotting, or that someone changing their behavior because of boycotting is anti-capitalist. Boycotting is a pure capitalist activity.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, it's corporate money. The founder's family is still free to do whatever they want with their personal funds.

The bad publicity must be hurting the bottom line or I can't see them making this decision.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by markprior22

I'm disappointed that Chick-Fil-A is doing this if it is in response to the recent uproar by a minority of people. The owner should be able to do anything he wants with his money (assuming it is legal). If people don't want to eat there because of that particular reason, they don't have to.

It's so ironic to me that many of the people who run around screaming "intolerance" are some of the most intolerant people I know.

We don't have any Chick-Fil-A's in my area but I love their chicken and would eat there no matter the guy's political stance because I like their food.

Who said he isn't allowed to do whatever he wants with his money? He's entitled to that, and I'm entitled to do whatever I want with my money.

And the whole "you're intolerant of intolerant people" argument is really lame.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by markprior22

I'm disappointed that Chick-Fil-A is doing this if it is in response to the recent uproar by a minority of people. The owner should be able to do anything he wants with his money (assuming it is legal). If people don't want to eat there because of that particular reason, they don't have to.

I'm quite sure that the owner is doing what he wants with his money - in this case stop funding a few causes of his so he can rake in more dough from additional customers.

Never underestimate the "all mighty" dollar.