Political trends

[Beavah 205]

Beavah, how do you feel about Obama's foreign policy expertise now?

 

No change in my opinion, eh? I thought Romney's responses and tone with regard to foreign policy have been completely daft.

 

"Egypt is not an ally."

 

Yah, I think that's in some ways true, eh? Egypt has a new government. That's a relationship we have to build.

 

More important, though, if Obama were to come out and say that Egypt was an ally, that would undermine da work the State Department is doin'. Folks in da Middle East are particularly sensitive to being seen as American client states, and sayin' that out loud can undermine da position of Egypt's new leadership at a critical time. So I think that's smart, eh? Yeh don't say what American voters want to hear, yeh say what is da best thing to say to get the job done.

 

Unrest and demonstrations against US interests in the Arab world are because of a YouTube video...

 

Again, yeh don't say what people want to hear, yeh say what yeh need to in order to get the job done. Just like how we got Bin Laden, eh? Yeh don't tell da Pakistanis that yeh know they're harboring him because yeh want to look good in da media. Yeh have administration sources repeat over and over again that he's in mountain villages and caves.

 

If you're goin' after the bad guys, yeh don't announce to the world that yeh know who they are and you're comin' to get 'em. Yeh misdirect your responses so that they think they have yeh fooled. McCain and others who got da administration's intelligence briefin' all said that it was clear it was a hit, but all da public statements that were likely to get repeated in media da Libyans have access to said it was a protest. Smart, eh?

 

Da more interestin' thing to my mind was the people of Benghazi taking out da Islamist militia on their own, and da Libyan authorities arresting and interrogatin' a significant number of folks tryin' to track down da people who hit our consulate. I expect we'll see more action over da comin' weeks and months. To win fights yeh have to be smart, not go off half-cocked.

 

"If the president visits one foreign leader (while they're in town at the UN) he'll have to vistit ten." So he went on 'The View' instead...

 

I was totally comfortable with that, eh? It was a very deliberate, very calculated snub of da Israeli PM without sayin' so in public. I reckon it's exactly right to do that to any foreign leader who tries to muck around in American elections, but Netenyahu in particular has been badly overplayin' his hand lately. Yeh don't beg da U.S. for economic and military support and then try to tell us what to do.

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker 132]

Well if that was your intent, you failed.. You have forced me to try to be a secretary taking dictation from 6:30am - 7:30 this morning to proove you took things out of context, and then spun your own interpretation on them..

 

This is long.. Don't know if I can put all this in one post. I may have to break this up.. Here.. Goes.. (There are two parts.. 1st 2 minutes in, talking about the attack that killed the Ambassador.. Second 10 minutes in talking about the video.)

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2min into the video..

Along with 3 of his colleagues Chris Stevens was killed. In the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old.

 

I tell you this story because Chris Stephens embodied the best of America. Like his fellow foreign service officers, he built bridges across oceans, and cultures. He was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents. He acted with humility but he also stood up for a set of principles, a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty and dignity, justice and opportunity.

 

The attacks on the civilians in Baghzi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and from the Libyan people. There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.

 

I also appreciate that in recent days the leaders of other countries in the region, including Egypt, Indonesia and Yemon have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities, and called for calm, and so have religious authorities around the Globe. But understand the attacks of the last 2 weeks are not only an assault on America, they are also an assult an the very ideas upon which the United Nations was founded. The notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully, that diplomacy can take the place of war, that in an inter dependent world, all of us have a stake in working toward greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

 

If we are serious about upholding these ideas, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy, or to put out statements of regret and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about these ideas, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis, because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes that we hold in common.

 

Today we must reaffirm that are future is determined by people like Chris Stevens and not by his killers. Today we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(goes on to talk about a vendor in Indonesia setting himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, which started the Arab Spring. Goes on to talk about all the changes in all these middle east countries, and their over throws of dictators and starting up of new democratic governments. In there he talks about these changes to democracy seeing convulsions at time, and conflict that rise between races or tribes.. Conflicts between ideas in religion & tradition coming to terms with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world..)

 

I dont see mention of the video in that part of the speech..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok.. around the 10 minute mark..

In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves, must ask themselves how much theyre willing to tolerate freedom for others. That is what we saw play out in the last 2 weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage in the Muslim world.

 

Now I have made it clear that the United States Government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well. For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that welcomes people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.

 

We understand why people take offense because of this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

 

I know there are some who ask why dont we ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws.Our constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me many of our citizens are Christians, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country and commander and chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day. And I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views. Even view that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood without such protections the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

 

We do so because in a diverse society efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives and passion the religious differences can enflame, the stongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech. The voices of tolerance that rallied against bigamy and blasphemy and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

 

I know not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with a click of a button the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question then is how do we respond? And on this we must agree there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

 

There are no word that excuse the killing of innocents, there are no videos that justify an attack on an embassy, theres no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon or destroy a school in Tunis or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. In this modern world with modern technologies for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in that speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us, if thats how we respond.

 

More broadly the events of the last two weeks, also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the west and the Arab world that is moving toward democracy.. Now let me be clear, just as we can not solve every problem in the world.. The United States has not and will not seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad. We do not expect every nation to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume the violence of the past weeks, or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelmingly majority of Muslims. Anymore then the views of the people who produced this video represent the views of those of Americans. However I do believe it is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism..

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(theres more, but I ran out of time.. Our president is LONG WINDED..)

Anyway.. The point is you muddled two different messages.. The mention to the attack on embassies with the video, is not talking about the attack that killed Chris Stevens.. that attack was discussed (without mention of video earlier in the speech.. The key note is EMBASSIES.. not embassy.. They are talking about climbing the walls and tearing down the American flags, and destroying and looting the buildings.. I also believe he is talking about protection of our people in the future.. Some leader this weekend put a bounty on the head of the producer of the video, and wants a law passed worldwide giving them the right to kill anyone in the world for blasphemy.. This is something that is totally ridiculous..

 

[moosetracker 132]

In addition..

 

To argue that Obama didn't appologize before the UN totally misses the point, and is a typical subterfuge of someone who just lost an argument.

 

Correction.. it is in response to your ridiculous charge

So, we knew September 12th that it was terrorism, but this week Obama is apologizing for a naughty video while at the UN.

 

Which is utter nonsense, being spewed by a campaign that HAS TO MAKE THINGS UP, 'CAUSE THEY GOT NOTHING.. Which I would point out is subterfuge of the whole Republican party which is LOOSING.

 

I would also like to add, that JoeBob's demonstration of how the radical right takes in and accepts the stories thrown out by their conservative news networks, without checking for facts, is exactly how Romney (where he ever to become president).. Could throw out some red meat to this crowd, about the proof of WMD or some other nonsense, and this group will just drink the koolaide and be rallying with pitchfork in hand, to go to war and obliterate the new threat.

 

Get your head out of the sand JoeBob, check other news sources outside your comfort zone.. There's some nice ones, that arrange debates between people from both party lines.. How about Meet The Press, Morning Joe or The Cycle.. Maybe someone else has other suggestions to help educate our friend here.

 

If you don't want to follow that advise, then my second advise would be not to debate others who get their news from varying sources, and then double checks that news.. Stay in your own little hermetically sealed vault with other conservatives, and grumble about what you hear and believe from you conservative news sources.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Beavah 205]

Sure sounds like Obama is blaming the video, and not his foreign policy, for the death of Ambassador Stevens.

 

Yah, hmmmmm....

 

So you're sayin' that American foreign policy is responsible for terrorist attacks, JoeBob? That sounds a lot like da "blame America" crowd that popped up after 9/11. If it weren't for America being so bad, yada yada, these nutters wouldn't have flown planes into buildings.

 

Bah, humbug. They're nutters. They fly planes into buildings or drive trucks full of fertilizer into buildings or have a consulate-burning party because they're nutters.

 

Nuthin' about American foreign policy caused the death of Ambassador Stevens, other than America is what it is - a country that sends some of its best and brightest to stand beside those strugglin' for freedom from tyranny. That sort of thing ticks off tyrants both large and petty, but it's nuthin' we should apologize for.

 

But Obama isn't willing to admit that Kum Bah Yah as a foreign policy has failed

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

Now I'm completely lost.

 

What foreign policy has failed?

 

We helped take out a maniacal dictator in Libya who had committed acts of state terrorism against our citizens? I would have done that a quarter century ago. Or shouldn't we do things like that because maniacal dictators who engage in state terrorism are so well-aligned with our Timeless Values? Or because we're so pee-our-pants afraid of a bunch of Islamist goat-herders that we just have to have the help of Big, Strong, Real Men like Moammar and Hosni to protect us against da terrifying Muslim Brotherhood with their scary beards!

 

Gimme a break. I get that da neo-cons are a bunch of chicken-hawks, but I drank a toast to Saddam's end, I drank one to Mubarak's end, I drank one to Quadaffi's end, and I've got da bottle all set for the toast to the end of Assad. The United States being a beacon of Liberty is just fine with me, and if liberty means that they get to elect a bunch of druids to parliament for da first time, that's fine too. Even if we have to be brave and stand up to a bunch of goatherders with left-over RPGs.

 

Da only issue in my mind was that da protection detail was too small. It was da Ambassador's choice to go out to da consulate rather than have people come to him at da embassy in Tripoli, but it was our failure to be usin' "private contractors" instead of da Marines for security. That's a Bush legacy, eh? Outsourcin' the proper role of the military to private industry, because da Marines are too socialist for modern Republicans. I wish Obama had reversed it. Maybe now he will.

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker 132]

Beavah, saw your first post, but had to run off to work.. Answering JobBob took a long time this morning and I started running late..

 

I double down on what Beavah has said.. It all sounds sounds sensible, and that he has been figuring out his opinion by listening to a lot of different sources..

 

Yes, I know JoeBob... Anything outside of FOX news & conservative radio talk show hosts, is all liberal media.. Even those which debate both sides of the arguement.. If you allow the liberal view to air at all you are a total liberal.

 

Has everyone heard? Per Rush Limbaugh the political debates are worthless, because the hosts of the debates are all liberal. So if Romney or Ryan look bad, it's not their fault, it will be the fault of the moderators.. So you heard it here, if Romney doesn't look good, Not his fault..

 

[Sentinel947 1205]

The Republican party has lost one of the easiest races to win since Reagan v Carter. They tossed up a moderate candidate, then the primaries forced him to embrace Neo Con Idealogy. As I've stated before, Republicans make up 30% of the population, and therefore must secure a large percentage of independents. They will fail to do so. Romneys new positions make George W Bush look like a bleeding hearted liberal with his NCLB, Medicare Part D and Aids Funding.

 

 

Beavah: when you said "Gimme a break. I get that da neo-cons are a bunch of chicken-hawks, but I drank a toast to Saddam's end, I drank one to Mubarak's end, I drank one to Quadaffi's end, and I've got da bottle all set for the toast to the end of Assad. The United States being a beacon of Liberty is just fine with me, and if liberty means that they get to elect a bunch of druids to parliament for da first time, that's fine too. Even if we have to be brave and stand up to a bunch of goatherders with left-over RPGs. "

 

Isn't that an example of Neo Con idealogy? Unabashed interventionism for American interests and Democracy? I thought you were more liberal than that. You continue to amaze me with your positions. Every time I thought I'd figured you out, you throw a twist at me.

 

Sentinel947

 

[JoeBob 606]

Moose and Beavah,

 

Simple question: If Obama was NOT trying to divert blame for attacks on our embassies to a video, why did he bring it up so often before the UN?

 

***

Moose, if you spent less text trying to demean folks who don't think like you, you might be able to make a valid point and change some minds. These statements:

 

"Only makes you guys look like fools"

 

"To walk around in side the mind of a Republican is sometimes very difficult.."

 

"Do I need to say more then he is a Republican?."

 

only elicit applause from people who already think like you. So you accomplish nothing but cheerleading.

 

As to dismissing arguments by claiming they have no support, please refer to the multiple news sources I've been linking to. Just for you, I avoided using Fox News.

 

[moosetracker 132]

I love it when people call Beavah liberal. Beavah is just Beavah. Well educated on many subjects, coming to his own conclusions, and then stubbornly defending his views, which could run from liberal to conservative.

 

Beavah and I agree on somethings, but clash on others. I am not sure what religion he is. Says he is not Catholic, but is well versed in their ideology and will defend it to the death..

 

On social issues Beavah & I have knocked heads on many an occasion, me being liberal, him being conservative.

 

His war ideology is a little too neo-con for my tastes, but if total need for war I will support the US doing so, and was happy to see Bin Laden's end.. Didn't really cry over Hussans end due to his cruelty on other front, but already felt we as a country were dupped into getting into that war. I do not agree with lieing an falsify evidence in order to proove the need for a war.. But, I am just fine with word play by our President or anyone else in order to negotiate cooperation and peaceful outcomes. War should be the very last resort.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I can assure you he is not Catholic

[Beavah 205]

If Obama was NOT trying to divert blame for attacks on our embassies to a video, why did he bring it up so often before the UN?

 

Yah, I dunno. Maybe because protectin' embassies is a very current issue, where our national interest aligns with international law and da UN Charter and it was da perfect place to highlight to the world an example of how extremist Islam is an enemy shared by all civilized people?

 

So JoeBob, do yeh think America is to blame for the attacks on our embassies?

 

I'm just not seein' where "blame" comes into it at all, eh?

 

------

 

Sentinel947, CalicoPenn pegged me about right, eh? I'm what used to be called a conservative, back when bein' conservative was identified with wisdom and intelligence. I'd never call myself a liberal, but it's true that some of da modern pseudo-conservatives might call me that because, yeh know, I believe in science and in makin' sure our grandchildren have da same woods to hike in that I did. Used to be that was what conservative meant.

 

I'm not an interventionist, and I'm opposed to obtuse exercises in nation-building. Part of that is that I also don't believe da U.S. has to cozy up to dictators because we're scared of communists or Islamists or any other -ists. I was delighted when da Tunisians took out their dictator on their own. I think all freedom-lovin' people should be proud when a nation like Egypt throws off a dictator who has ruled by emergency decree for 30 years and is tryin' to replace him with a legitimately representative democracy. I'm as proud of da young folks fightin' against tyranny on da streets of Homs as I am proud of da young folks who stood against tyranny at Lexington and Concord. Da U.S. should be a friend to those who seek liberty.

 

That doesn't mean that we intervene, eh? There is measure to which da tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots, not by outside powers. I reckon it does mean that we offer at least our moral and diplomatic support, and perhaps, under limited circumstances, other support when requested. I reckon, after all, that we do owe a debt to da French when they intervened at Yorktown.

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker 132]

Sorry JoeBob.. I probably should have been using the term tea-party or neo-con.. Republicans still does have some good people who still think it represents what it use to, or at least realize it is not what it use to be, but want to change it back to it's former glory..

 

Even have heard some of our liberal media folks claiming they are hoping that this election is a total defeat for Republicans.. Not simply because they want to win.. They do, but simply because right now, your group is so radical it is scary. Still the opinion is, if Republicans loose slightly they will blame it all on Romney, and decide next time to run even more radically right.. But, if Republicans lose big time it will be a wake-up call that you are headed in the wrong direction, and you need to figure out where middle American lies, and find a way to adjust your views back to moderate Republican leanings.. Things that are palatable for the Independent voter you must win over in order to get elected..

 

I was not into politics in the 70s but the same video made mention that the Democrats went through its own radical left thing at that time, and had to get a wakeup call to straighten itself out..

 

The Democrats speaking voiced the opinion that this country is run on a two party system. It doesnt do well with a one party system. When we have a good two party system, then congress can debate and find compromise. Those compromises acheive the best for everyone. Republicans are so radically right, and refuse to swing center for a compromise.. It makes it impossible to do anything in Congress.

 

Instead we have Republicans stating that compromise to them is when Democrats accept the views and mandates of Republicans.. We have the Democrats looking forwared to running off a fiscal cliff in order to force the Republicans to sit down and work out a compromise. These games are childish and not good for the country as a whole.

 

As for your articles.. Some still are biased reports, others I think you saw what you wanted to see in the story. Sort of like they say during the debates each side will think that their candidate won the debate..

 

Your worldnews article, I listened to an interview from the Libyan president around the same time. He said the same thing. Libyan attack of the ambassador had nothing to do with the video.. But, that did not change the fact that there was a different group, personally not part of the terrorist attack that was protesting on the issue of the video on the very same day as the terrorist attack went down.. Connected only under the distinct possibility they were whipped up to a frenzy on the issue and sent out to protest at that embassy on that day to be used unwittingly as a decoy..

 

The Daily Beast article you saw is all factual.. It did take until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge the attack as being a terrorist attack. But, in the news within 24 hours was the unofficial acknowledgement there was indication it was a terrorist attack.. Nothing was hidden. It was the difference between simple informal deduction and the official report from the crew sent to analysis the site.

 

The news article I showed it was in the press, (and not through people who were talking off-the-record..) .. I dont think it was 24 hours, but maybe 2 days after, there was a news broadcast with someone walking us through the burnt out embassy, talking about where the cars pulled up, how they got into the compound where they struck first, second, third.. That it was well trained, well planned, well armed..

 

[pchadbo 60]

"Republicans are so radically right, and refuse to swing center for a compromise.. It makes it impossible to do anything in Congress."

 

Moose, the entire political spectrum has moved, if JFK were alive today with his agenda and policies, he would be a Republican, to the right of Romney and heading towards McCain. What you call "radical" are the policies that the Republican party has been espousing for 50 years. They did not so much radicalize as were left behind in the shift to the left politically in this country.

[Peregrinator 85]

I think the characterization of Republicans as "radically right" is off the mark. As far as I can see, with the exception of very few issues (abortion being one) they are pretty much the same as Democrats.

[moosetracker 132]

I can't agree with your arguement PChadbo.. Personally if JFK lived I see hem evolving with the Democrats like Ted Kennedy and all the other Kennedy's who stayed in politics.

 

I think he would not be comfortable in the Republican party who goes back to voter suppression for blacks, poor and Latino, as well as women..

 

He was very much into science, with his vision to go to the moon. He wanted our country to grow in the science field, and in education all around. Republicans now have no need for science that points out things like global warming and how a womens body works. Making lower education be a voucher system will divide the schools (more so) from the haves & have nots.. As the rich take the vouchers and add on for fancy schools, the middle class adds a little for decent schools and the poor are left behind (this is heavily slanted against blacks & latios.)

 

He cared deeply for the poor, he fought for social reform.. The whole Kennedy family did. I do not see that while his family evolved with the Democratic views, him turning south with the philosophy of a party that does what Ryan did the other day.. When a woman stated she worked, but still couldn't make enough to get off of welfare, and asked the question.. "What advise would you give for HOW I can get off welfare. How will your program help me?" He goes into a big retoric.. "Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Don't feed fish." That was it.. She was already working, she knew how to work. She was asking what the vision was to get people like her into better paying jobs.. No compassion or empathy, or helpful advise in that proposal.

 

Nope.. I can not swallow the pill that JFK would change to become someone with that lack of care about people around him.

 

[Eagle732 27]

Hey moose, how far back do you want to go with that statement about Republicans suppressing black voters?

Maybe 1863 and the time of Lincoln?