+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 12 to 22 of 22
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Third Presidential Debate : Obama VS Romney

  1. #12
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    59,181
    Thanks
    2,658
    Thanked 4,946 Times in 3,063 Posts
    The Obama campaign finally has a plan for a possible second term, and it’s out in booklet form. Obama’s Vision for the next four years includes building roads and bridges, higher taxes on the rich, more investment in “clean energy,” hiring more teachers and cutting the deficit. This stuff sounds awfully familiar: What’s “new” about this plan? It’s in a glossy booklet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jky5R...layer_embedded
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #13
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    59,181
    Thanks
    2,658
    Thanked 4,946 Times in 3,063 Posts
    October 23, 2012
    When You've Lost Jimmy Carter...


    A preview of an upcoming epic Duel of the Pygmy Presidents (One term edition)? Jimmy Carter travels to Israel and takes a few shots at Barack Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/wo...th-throes.html

    In Jerusalem, Carter Derides Netanyahu and Obama

    On Monday, he [Mr. Peanut] ramped up his years of criticism of Israeli policy by saying that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lacked the courage of his predecessors and that he had abandoned the two-state solution that has been the accepted framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades. And just two weeks before the American election, he was almost as critical of President Obama, saying his administration has shirked the historical role played by the United States in the region.

    ...

    As for Mr. Obama, a fellow Democrat, the former president said, “The U.S. government policy the last two to three years has basically been a rapid withdrawal from any kind of controversy.”

    He added: “Every president has been a very powerful factor here in advocating this two-state solution. That is now not apparent.”
    Of course, Jimmah has no reputation for being pro-Israel, so it isn't clear whether it is Romney or Obama that benefits from this denunciaton.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #14
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    59,181
    Thanks
    2,658
    Thanked 4,946 Times in 3,063 Posts
    October 23, 2012

    Obama, hoist on his own bayonet

    Or something. Close enough. TMZ: http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/23/barack...levant-debate/

    We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. -- a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets -- who tells us he believes Obama's comment was "ignorant ... because our soldiers still use bayonets."

    He adds, “[Bayonets] are still distributed to the military all the time -- he should get educated on it”
    A person who already knows everything is not going to be open to "getting educated" on anything.

    But along those lines, have a graphic, via Pseud O'Nym:



    Related post: Question for the President: Why no military rescue of Americans under siege in Benghazi? http://www.punditandpundette.com/201...-military.html

    ***
    Update: Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is not amused. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...katrina-trinko

    ***
    Steyn: Cold Steel http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eel-mark-steyn

    ***
    Charles C. W. Cooke on bayonets and submarines: CCWC 1, BO 0. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rles-c-w-cooke

    http://www.punditandpundette.com/201...n-bayonet.html
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #15
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    59,181
    Thanks
    2,658
    Thanked 4,946 Times in 3,063 Posts
    Re-watching the 1980 debate between Reagan and Carter. Amazing! Dems still hung up on more govt spending, investing in bio-fuels, solar energy, blah, blah, blah ad infinitum. Crap didn’t work then and ain’t agoin to work now. Look’s just like Obeyme copied Carter’s energy plan and everything else. Here’s the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8YxFc_1b_0
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #16
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    59,181
    Thanks
    2,658
    Thanked 4,946 Times in 3,063 Posts
    DWS says Romney never mentioned Israel in the debate,
    and if you don’t count the 14 times he did, she’s correct

    By Doug Powers • October 23, 2012 04:24 PM

    It isn’t possible that Debbie Wasserman Schultz knew before the debate what her talking points would be no matter what was said during, is it? Nah: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...iel-botwinick#

    What I was surprised about Greta, during the entire section of the debate on the Middle East, Mitt Romney didn’t bring up Israel once and I think it just shows he isn’t committed to Israel as he says he is and has really only used the issue as a political opportunity.
    But here of course we must also remember the time honored phrase “there are lies, damed lies, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz,” because according to NRO, Romney mentioned Israel 11 times — Twitchy says the transcript shows Romney bringing up Israel 14 times. http://twitchy.com/2012/10/23/unreal...ioning-israel/ Either way, DWS is true to form in the compulsive liar department.

    Here’s just one example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=bg7C89hum4c

    Click the link for more video evidence at NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...iel-botwinick#

    **Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/23/dws-israel-romney/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #17
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    59,181
    Thanks
    2,658
    Thanked 4,946 Times in 3,063 Posts
    October 23, 2012

    Ships, Horses, Bayonets...and a Clueless Commander in Chief

    Update: "Horses/bayonets" quip fact checked and found wanting. http://www.memeorandum.com/121023/p62#a121023p62

    What leapt out at me during last night's debate was how stunningly dishonest, uninformed, and disengaged a Commander in Chief we have. Two comments in particular cast the President's disastrous disinterest into bold relief. The first was on sequestration: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

    ... the biggest gaffe—or deliberate evasion—of the evening was made by Mr. Obama when he denied paternity for the sequester defense cuts now set for 2013 and said they "will not happen." Mr. Obama's aides rushed out after the debate to say he meant to say the cuts "should not happen."

    But the truth is that Mr. Obama has been using the fear of huge defense cuts as a political strategy to force Republicans to accept a tax increase. As Bob Woodward describes in his recent book, Mr. Obama and the White House helped to devise the defense sequester strategy—no matter the actual risk to defense.
    "No matter the actual risk": if that phrase doesn't neatly encapsulate Obama's decision making process as commander in chief, I don't know what does. He acts as though there were no connection between his decisions and events on the ground. Sequestration is unpopular, therefore he simply declares that "it won't happen", leaving his aides scrambling to reframe their boss's bizarrely contrafactual assertions:

    White House already backpedaling on sequestration...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPDP...layer_embedded


    But in the real world, the truth matters and the truth is that sequestration cuts would drastically affect not only future procurement but current readiness and op tempo, risking both the lives of our armed forces and their ability to protect American interests abroad: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=69678

    "Last month I visited the Central Command region had the opportunity to visit both of our aircraft carriers, our minesweepers, our patrol craft, and other ships in the region. I talked to over 10,000 of our forward deployed Sailors," said Ferguson. "At every forum, Sailors - from the most junior to our operational commanders - expressed concern regarding what sequestration will mean to our Navy and their service. The uncertainty of our fiscal future is increasingly on the minds of our force."
    ...[Vice Chief of Naval Operations] Ferguson pointed out that sequestration implementation would potentially impact mission accomplishment for the Navy. "With existing forces, we are already seeing longer deployments. Carriers are operating at about 8 months, ballistic missile defense ships (operating at) 9 months, with very rapid turnaround to go back on deployment. We would not be able to sustain that going forward under sequestration. You would see less presence forward, and you would see less ability to surge," said Ferguson.

    To the long list of things our Commander in Chief apparently does not know about the military he commands, add the fact that (contrary to his sneering jibes) bayonets are still an integral part of every Marine's basic training. British troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan still use the bayonet to good effect: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._military.html

    Just last month a British soldier was honored for a bayonet charge on the Taliban that he led in 2011. This charge was reminiscent of another British bayonet charge in Basra, Iraq, in 2004. In 2011, Col. Muammar Gaddafi was also reportedly killed by a bayonet stab to the rear.”
    A Commander in Chief should know that. But this is a man who thinks wars can be fought by unmanned aerial drones like the ones that watched impotently from the sky as over 30 Americans were attacked in Benghazi: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_16...-libya-attack/

    CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

    ... The Pentagon says it did move a team of special operators from central Europe to the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, but gave no other details. Sigonella is just an hour's flight from Libya. Other nearby bases include Aviano and Souda Bay. Military sources tell CBS News that resources at the three bases include fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships, which the sources say can be extremely effective in flying in and buzzing a crowd to disperse it.

    Rick Nelson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Navy pilot who worked in counter-terrorism, says such missions can be very risky. "A lot can go well, right, as we saw with the bin Laden raid. It was a very successful event," he says. "But also, when there are high risk activities like this. a lot can go wrong, as we saw with the Iranian hostage rescue decades ago."

    Add to the controversy the fact that the last two Americans didn't die until more than six hours into the attack, and the question of U.S. military help becomes very important.
    It's entirely possible that the military could not have arrived in time to save Ambassador Stevens or the three other Americans who lost their lives in the Benghazi attack. But they could have secured our consulate and driven home the message that the United States will not passively sit and watch as our Ambassador is murdered and our consulate and sensitive documents looted.

    What kind of message is sent when the President of the United States responds serious questions about military readiness with ignorant and dismissive quips about ships being as antiquated as horses and bayonets? http://www.memeorandum.com/121023/p11#a121023p11

    What kind of message is sent when the press are not only able to gain access to our consulate, but retrieve sensitive documents left lying around but the President of the United States can't manage to get his investigators into the country?

    What kind of message is sent by a President whose first instinct was to blame a movie no one has actually seen for the Benghazi attack - who, years after the disastrous attack on our troops at Fort Hood, is still hesitant to label it a terrorist attack? http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/10/mil-links-1.html

    It is hard to believe this is still in dispute:
    Nearly three years after the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, many of those affected are urging the U.S. government to declare it a terrorist attack, saying wounded soldiers and victims' relatives otherwise won't receive the same benefits as those in a combat zone.

    This was ruled a "workplace dispute". Really? A guy running through an area yelling "Allu Akbar" who we find out was radicalized by a Muslim Imam who preached jihad against the US? Sounds like the administration's description of the Benghazi incident. "Spontaneous protests that got out of hand". Yeah, Ft. Hood was as much an "act of terrorism" as was Benghazi (as it is now recognized).
    This is a president who likes to think of his leadership style as cooly cerebral and dispassionate. Like an unmanned predator drone, he hovers over world events from a safe distance, taking it all in.

    And doing absolutely nothing.

    http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcb...horses_ba.html

    comments

    A Commander in Chief should know that...
    He might - if he bothered to attend his Intellegence Briefings
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 10-24-2012 at 04:54 AM. Reason: spelling
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #18
    Registered User boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute boopster has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,864
    Thanks
    360
    Thanked 347 Times in 214 Posts
    I don't recall the show but it compares obama's new 13 page booklet to the points that romney has been stating regarding education, economy etc. The only point obama seems to not have agreed with romney was trade so romney has a 5 pt plan and obama has a 4 pt plan. Hmmmm obama had to copy romney's plan....no wonder when obama had been asked about his plans and he ignored the question. I guess he was waiting to see what romney's plan was so that he could copy it.

    the DNC chairwoman who proclaimed that romney never mentioned israel (records show it mentioned 11 times) either needs her hearing checked or could she be sending the message that americans are dumb and gullible?
    Last edited by boopster; 10-24-2012 at 08:12 AM.

  9. #19
    go ahead....I dare ya pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute pepperpot has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    9,437
    Thanks
    4,645
    Thanked 4,079 Times in 2,265 Posts
    See, his people know that once a bell has rung, it cannot be unrung. They will say what you want to hear or what they want you to hear, truth of not, and your impression is formed. When it comes time for
    truth, correction and retraction.....part of that "formed impression" (based on lies) does not change. His people know this and use this to their advantage.

    A few weeks ago, I recall hearing a "study" where just by someone saying, "it'll be alright", will automatically make someone feel better irregardless of the outcome. Then, I recall, shortly thereafter, Obama making some speech where he uses this phrase, looking and speaking straight into the camera with a pregnant pause. Geez, it almost had me believing him and feeling better.
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

  10. #20
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    59,181
    Thanks
    2,658
    Thanked 4,946 Times in 3,063 Posts
    October 24, 2012

    Specious Argument of the Day

    Here: http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/1...s-navy-really/

    In 1916, the US controlled roughly 11% of the world’s naval power. This is an impressive number that ranks the US third in naval strength behind the UK (34%) and Germany (19%), and just ahead of France (10%). What about the US navy in 2011? In 2011, the US controlled roughly 50% of the world’s naval power putting it in a comfortable lead in naval power ahead of Russia (11%).

    The US Navy has decreased in absolute size as Governor Romney argues (although this decline has been ongoing since the end of Cold War). U.S. warships are more powerful now than in the past, as President Obama implied. However, neither the number of warships nor the power of our ships is what is most important for understanding military and political influence. It is relative military power that matters most.
    The authors get it half right. It's not the size of our Navy relative to other navies that matters, but the size/capabilities of our Navy relative to their mission.

    It's worth noting here that the scope of the mission is fluid - in an instant it can change, and ships can't be ordered up and built all that quickly. There are also quality of life considerations that arguably didn't apply in 1916. Modern military families can't imagine having a father or mother gone for years at a time, as was sometimes the case in WWI and WWII.

    Any calculation of whether our modern Navy is "big enough" is necessarily dependent upon our values. What things do we want the Navy to be able to do? How much are we willing to spend on those tasks? What is our risk tolerance? This is a crucial question because military might is (at least to some extent) a function of redundancy. In war - and in peace - equipment grows old and breaks.

    How much of our fleet is battle-ready?

    I have no quarrel with the notion that this isn't simply a question of numbers or even of composition. But the idea that our "share of naval power" is a meaningful metric is simplistic nonsense. If our goal is to be able to project power effectively over a given area (whatever that may be), our allies' capabilities have to matter. If they unilaterally disarm, that reduces the number of ships we can call upon in a crisis.

    It's probably fair to say that Barack Obama's idea of mission scope and Mitt Romney's are very different. This matters, because the whole question of "big enough" depends on "what do you want the Navy to do"? By their respective values, our current Navy probably seems too big to Obama and too small to Romney.

    As a final aside, during the 2008 campaign, Obama promised to bring the troops home on a 16 month schedule that was wildly unrealistic and - as it turned out - unachievable in light of both logistical and security concerns: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz2AEdML0Xt

    Pulling nearly all U.S. troops and equipment out of Iraq in 16 months is "physically impossible," says a top officer involved in briefing the President-elect on U.S. operations in Iraq. That schedule would create a bottleneck of equipment and troops in the south of Iraq and Kuwait where brigades repair, clean and load vehicles and weapons for the trip home, said the official. Others say the U.S. could conceivably pull out on that time scale, although that would require leaving more equipment behind. A more important concern for officers is that the security gains in Iraq would be put at risk if troops were withdrawn before the Iraqi security forces are in a position to protect their own communities and borders.

    In the end, Obama's much touted 16 month withdrawal grew to 18 months, http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_...lans_0227.html and even then was achieved only by redefining the remaining brigades from "combat" to "advise and assist" and leaving a larger remain behind element than planned: http://www.redstate.com/california_y...le-not-obamas/

    As we reported in July 2008, Obama’s 16 month withdrawal plan was not realistic. To save face, President Obama redesignated the 7 remaining combat brigades still in Iraq after his artificial 16 month deadline as “Advise and Assist Brigades,” and declared his scheduled end to the war in Iraq on August 31, 2011
    This is what happens when we fail to consider our actual capabilities against our goals and build in contingency for the hundreds of things that will go wrong when an abstract plan meets concrete realities.

    Those interested in exploring both the size and composition of our current Navy will enjoy these interactive charts.

    Posted by Cassandra at October 24, 2012 12:09 PM

    http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcb...us_argume.html


    l take the prerogative of expanding my concerns from the naval to the military.

    Is it possible to make reasoned judgments as to capability if we cannot state our goals as first and foremost limited? Limited as in we are not broke but in hock; limited as in having a hammer does not make every problem a nail; limited as we have a responsibility to defend ourselves and no others. If we have some inordinate desire to insinuate ourselves everywhere to right wrongs, bring peace, justice and democracy, then we are woefully under militarized – and insane. Sending rapid response teams to quell disturbances among the Trobrianders should not be among our 'goals'. Lest anyone think I'm having fun being facetious I'd have thought as much of anyone who'd have said we'd be ten years in Afghanistan... making it safe for the Taliban.

    No capability is up to the proliferation of our desires – so first we curb our desires.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #21
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    59,181
    Thanks
    2,658
    Thanked 4,946 Times in 3,063 Posts
    October 23, 2012

    Ships, Horses, Bayonets...and a Clueless Commander in Chief

    Update: "Horses/bayonets" quip fact checked and found wanting. http://www.memeorandum.com/121023/p62#a121023p62

    What leapt out at me during last night's debate was how stunningly dishonest, uninformed, and disengaged a Commander in Chief we have. Two comments in particular cast the President's disastrous disinterest into bold relief. The first was on sequestration: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

    ... the biggest gaffe—or deliberate evasion—of the evening was made by Mr. Obama when he denied paternity for the sequester defense cuts now set for 2013 and said they "will not happen." Mr. Obama's aides rushed out after the debate to say he meant to say the cuts "should not happen."

    But the truth is that Mr. Obama has been using the fear of huge defense cuts as a political strategy to force Republicans to accept a tax increase. As Bob Woodward describes in his recent book, Mr. Obama and the White House helped to devise the defense sequester strategy—no matter the actual risk to defense.
    "No matter the actual risk": if that phrase doesn't neatly encapsulate Obama's decision making process as commander in chief, I don't know what does. He acts as though there were no connection between his decisions and events on the ground. Sequestration is unpopular, therefore he simply declares that "it won't happen", leaving his aides scrambling to reframe their boss's bizarrely contrafactual assertions:

    White House already backpedaling on sequestration...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPDP...layer_embedded


    But in the real world, the truth matters and the truth is that sequestration cuts would drastically affect not only future procurement but current readiness and op tempo, risking both the lives of our armed forces and their ability to protect American interests abroad: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=69678

    "Last month I visited the Central Command region had the opportunity to visit both of our aircraft carriers, our minesweepers, our patrol craft, and other ships in the region. I talked to over 10,000 of our forward deployed Sailors," said Ferguson. "At every forum, Sailors - from the most junior to our operational commanders - expressed concern regarding what sequestration will mean to our Navy and their service. The uncertainty of our fiscal future is increasingly on the minds of our force."
    ...[Vice Chief of Naval Operations] Ferguson pointed out that sequestration implementation would potentially impact mission accomplishment for the Navy. "With existing forces, we are already seeing longer deployments. Carriers are operating at about 8 months, ballistic missile defense ships (operating at) 9 months, with very rapid turnaround to go back on deployment. We would not be able to sustain that going forward under sequestration. You would see less presence forward, and you would see less ability to surge," said Ferguson.

    To the long list of things our Commander in Chief apparently does not know about the military he commands, add the fact that (contrary to his sneering jibes) bayonets are still an integral part of every Marine's basic training. British troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan still use the bayonet to good effect: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._military.html

    Just last month a British soldier was honored for a bayonet charge on the Taliban that he led in 2011. This charge was reminiscent of another British bayonet charge in Basra, Iraq, in 2004. In 2011, Col. Muammar Gaddafi was also reportedly killed by a bayonet stab to the rear.”
    A Commander in Chief should know that. But this is a man who thinks wars can be fought by unmanned aerial drones like the ones that watched impotently from the sky as over 30 Americans were attacked in Benghazi: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_16...-libya-attack/

    CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

    ... The Pentagon says it did move a team of special operators from central Europe to the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, but gave no other details. Sigonella is just an hour's flight from Libya. Other nearby bases include Aviano and Souda Bay. Military sources tell CBS News that resources at the three bases include fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships, which the sources say can be extremely effective in flying in and buzzing a crowd to disperse it.

    Rick Nelson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Navy pilot who worked in counter-terrorism, says such missions can be very risky. "A lot can go well, right, as we saw with the bin Laden raid. It was a very successful event," he says. "But also, when there are high risk activities like this. a lot can go wrong, as we saw with the Iranian hostage rescue decades ago."

    Add to the controversy the fact that the last two Americans didn't die until more than six hours into the attack, and the question of U.S. military help becomes very important.
    It's entirely possible that the military could not have arrived in time to save Ambassador Stevens or the three other Americans who lost their lives in the Benghazi attack. But they could have secured our consulate and driven home the message that the United States will not passively sit and watch as our Ambassador is murdered and our consulate and sensitive documents looted.

    What kind of message is sent when the President of the United States responds serious questions about military readiness with ignorant and dismissive quips about ships being as antiquated as horses and bayonets? http://www.memeorandum.com/121023/p11#a121023p11

    What kind of message is sent when the press are not only able to gain access to our consulate, but retrieve sensitive documents left lying around but the President of the United States can't manage to get his investigators into the country?

    What kind of message is sent by a President whose first instinct was to blame a movie no one has actually seen for the Benghazi attack - who, years after the disastrous attack on our troops at Fort Hood, is still hesitant to label it a terrorist attack? http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/10/mil-links-1.html

    It is hard to believe this is still in dispute:
    Nearly three years after the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, many of those affected are urging the U.S. government to declare it a terrorist attack, saying wounded soldiers and victims' relatives otherwise won't receive the same benefits as those in a combat zone.

    This was ruled a "workplace dispute". Really? A guy running through an area yelling "Allu Akbar" who we find out was radicalized by a Muslim Imam who preached jihad against the US? Sounds like the administration's description of the Benghazi incident. "Spontaneous protests that got out of hand". Yeah, Ft. Hood was as much an "act of terrorism" as was Benghazi (as it is now recognized).
    This is a president who likes to think of his leadership style as cooly cerebral and dispassionate. Like an unmanned predator drone, he hovers over world events from a safe distance, taking it all in.

    And doing absolutely nothing.

    http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcb...horses_ba.html

    comments

    A Commander in Chief should know that...
    He might - if he bothered to attend his Intellegence Briefings


    http://liberallogic101.com/wp-conten...ic-101-314.jpg

    http://liberallogic101.com/?p=1734
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #22
    C & P Queen Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute Jolie Rouge has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    59,181
    Thanks
    2,658
    Thanked 4,946 Times in 3,063 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts