mnottertail
Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
There is nothing resembling Alinsky anywhere on this thread. Most of the people on this thread have no idea who that is, and I can say without fear of evidence to the contrary, NOBODY, save myself, has read any of Alinsky's works. (I would insert a caveat for stef, but the odds are 9:1 against, and pick em).
Sorry about that bubble, Ron, but I first read Rules for Radicals 20 odd years ago, disagree completely with his requirement that you can never admit to common ground with the enemy, and I give copies of the book as gifts to college kids I know.
The subject of this thread is the lack of a response from the administration, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack (which is a scandal, partly because of the lack of response while the Benghazi attack was going on). Attempts to mock the people raising the issue, and getting that uncomfortable issue lost in a whole other set of weeds, most certainly are the sort of tactics old Saul wrote about and encouraged.
Just for the hell of, before I get tired of looking at the "gotta-potty dance" avatar, would you say that having no rapid response capability in a region as volatile as the Med coast of Africa was a sound policy and posture to safeguard United States interests in the region?
First, I am of he opinion, that the United States has no interests in the region, none whatsoever. I cannot imagine what they would be. And yes, I think that having no rapid response capability in the region must be sound policy, since it does several things, it keeps the fools from overreacting to every issue there, and starting another Iraq for no reason, same as last time. It must be sound policy, because someone, (let me repeat that) SOMEONE, did not think that a rapid response, or even any response to Syria was in our interests. Insofar as no response to Benghazi, it simply isn't true, no matter how the untutored try to spin it. There was a response, from the GRS team of the CIA at the time.
The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff testified in congress there were no 'superweapons' that these armchair generals were fantasizing about anywhere with in range to effectively assist the compound in time.
Now, when Obama, without the consent of congress, because he doesn't need it, killed a somali pirate that was like 16 years old, the same people as are making big fusses and spreading horseshit here, were aghast as was politically expected, but nobody IDed any of the attackers on this one to see if they were of a suitable age.....so, I find it insincere that there is a baying at the moon here.
Arrest warrants are made, we are hunting some of those perps, and I believe that sooner or later we will snatch them up.
And as for your avatar, a sphinx is hardly fitting, since it is unaware and silent, you are not silent.
And Alinksy......LOL:
quote:
Attempts to mock the people raising the issue, and getting that uncomfortable issue lost in a whole other set of weeds, most certainly are the sort of tactics old Saul wrote about and encouraged.
disagree completely with his requirement that you can never admit to common ground with the enemy....
...
First that is horseshit, he was far away from that, he raised the issues and the enemy in attempts to derail, tried losing it in the weeds. In order to fix the problem (percieved or not, depending on your frame of reference) you have to engage your enemies. So, fail. secondly, quote that passage, because he never said anything of the sort that I can find. That is rather a mockery, a losing in the weeds, and an admission by 'rightwingers' that they only are attempting to disavow any common ground with their enemy.
OK, what is the issue here at Benghazi? What issue is raised? Cuz I really haven't seen one of any import. That people died? no weeds there. That it would have been nice if they hadn't? no weeds there.
That there weren't 5000 troops laying around at every embassy in the middle east on that particular day on 24/7 standby? Seems to be one of logistics when we have so many enemies in the middle east and so many troops that have been rotated in and out several times in the area (here I am talking about Iraq and Afghanistan) and so few troops at loose ends, we are committed across the globe. So of all the threats we face in the world, there are a few that are gonna get by us.
Why were there not 5000 troops at LAX? We knew it would happen some day.
So, sifting thru the miasma we find ourselves in, a great deal of it our own making over the course of years and years, a lot of people, on the thousands of bets they make every day, made some bad bets.
Now, we need to ask ourselves if we were truely honest and trying to correct these 'lapses' of national judgement, since the house has an intelligence committee, homeland security committee, foreign affairs committee, armed services committee, and other committees and sub-committees, and are apprised constantly, and hold hearings and investigations, and are supposedly informed and expert in these matters, that rather than repealing Obamacare 42 times, that they should have had their eye on the ball and ordered or wrote a bill or something, to station 5000 troops at Benghazi, on that day rather than obstructionism and ineptitude, they plainly should have had the foresight to appropriate and legislate those troops there.
Why didn't the people who are demanding impossibilities have the foresight to station troops at LAX and all these other places around the country, shipyards, theaters, malls, where ever... when we know it will be necessary, in order to insure our second amendment rights are not abridged?
< Message edited by mnottertail -- 11/5/2013 3:18:17 AM >
_____________________________
Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30
|
RE: Update on Benghazi - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread