mckinley: The beautiful fall colors are due to global warming.

Did I miss something, or was the number of new messages sitting next to my politics link wrong? It said 16 new messages, but I only see two new messages here since last night. Half the time the number is wrong, and I can believe a handful of messages being deleted, but not 14.

Artful Dodger: The Benghazi attack cover up is bizarre. I'm not saying the entire past four years has not been bizarre, but Obama has amped up and lent new meaning to word "bizarre" with this latest bonehead maneuver. I've never seen something like this happen so close to an election, so I'm not sure what could happen after the election.

If Obama is re-elected this will follow him into the next four year cycle, and the duration of that cycle will depend on whether the media continues to try supporting him or not. Hillarys best move would be to resign and try recovering some credibility before the 2016 election. There is talk of her resigning now less than one month before the election, but I don't see how that could help her.

But if Romney is elected, then the spin masters might try pinning the inevitable investigation of the lies and cover up on him, and claim Romney is behind a politcally movitivated witch hunt.

My own analysis of what could happen sounds bizarre to me, but after watching politics for as long as I have... I've likely underestimated the bizarre factor.

There is absolutely no intel to confirm the Benghazi attack was a peaceful protest (inspired by a video) that somehow erupted into violence. The Libyan leaders knew it was a planned attack and our state department knew it was a planned attack.

And it happens on the anniversy of 9/ll shortly after we took out their most beloved poster boy for inspiring new recruits to commit acts of terrorism.
Knock knock, Hello? Anyone there? Who's minding the store?

The state department and the Libyan leadership and our ambassador to Libya knew it was coming, that is why there was a request for more security. A request that was turned down because apparently no one knew about the request...?? That doesn't make any sense, was it turned down or ignored or no one got the memo? Which was it?

The state department refuses to back up Obamas purely fictional (fic-tion-al) claims because they do not want to commit perjury when called to testify about it. This story about a video and a protest about the video was concocted by Obama and his closest advisors, and Hillary and Rice and others were compelled by Obama and his closest advisors to lie about it.

Iamon lyme: I think someone got the boot. Something about TOS violations.

Iamon lyme: I think Hillary will stay on but there will be bad blood between Obama and the Clintons (more than there already was).

Iamon lyme: this was a well coordinated attack and planned for a long time. Obama is over his head.

Artful Dodger: Just like 9/11 ... Clinton warned Bush, others before the attack (as in other country's intelligence agencies) warned Bush... he went on another holiday.

(V): well Bush is no longer president so perhaps we ought to focus on the one who is!

Artful Dodger: You could, but then history becomes a rather fragmented oddity.

Like the House Republicans cutting the budget on embassy security funding by over $400 million dollars over the last two years, that the Obama administration warned that the cuts would be “detrimental to America’s national security”.

See, that is a fuller picture we have now.

(V): "You could, but then history becomes a rather fragmented oddity."

so history makes it ok for the current administration to ignore vital facts and allow the deaths of its fellow Americans?
and because of history..its ok for the current administration to pass the blame on our civil liberties?

most of us have neanderthal genes...does that make it ok for your neighbor to drag your wife out of your house to his by the hair screaming and kicking?

Iamon lyme:

> There is absolutely no intel to confirm the Benghazi attack was a peaceful protest
> (inspired by a video) that somehow erupted into violence. The Libyan leaders knew it
> was a planned attack and our state department knew it was a planned attack.

The Benghazi attack is the result of a foreign policy which follows a failed principle: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The Obama administration is using a foreign policy principle which had its birth during the Cold War and which was refined during the Reagan administration.

If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", then I can give this "friend" money, weapons and training to attack my enemy so that I may achieve my foreign policy objectives.

Some 15,000 posts ago I mentioned that at the time the government in Chad had claimed that western intelligence agencies were recruiting mercenaries out of Chad's insurgency, a paramilitary group organized by Al Qaeda to overthrown governments in North Africa. Al Qaeda in the Magreb had been trying to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Algeria, Lybia and Chad for the better part of 8 years. At the time nobody paid heed to Chad's claim and my post went for the most part unnoticed.

I also posted something alarming that had happened in Lybia. The opposition claimed that a lot of weapons were disappearing. Nato was supplying the oppositiong with weapons and those weapons were vanishing into thin air.

I also posted another thing that said that there had been two incidents of "friendly fire" in which Nato forces bombed opposition forces "mistakenly" thinking that they were part of Gaddafi's army.

Adding two and two together it is obvious that Al Qaeda had infiltrated the Lybian opposition, it had stolen weapons from them, and in an attempt to solve the problem Nato decided to bomb the culprits. Obviously Nato failed.

Now Al Qaeda is free to roam Lybia since Gaddafi is not there to stop them. People forget things easily. Not long ago (3 years?) Prince Andrew was havily criticized for going to Lybia and signing business deals with the Lybian government. Both France and the UK were eager to do business in Lybia and to buy Lybian oil from Gaddafi. Why would they have been willing to do so when Gaddafi was the enemy? The reason is that Gaddafi was not the enemy. He was an ally in the War on Terror. Part of extraordinary rendition was sending detainees to third countries to be tortured and interrogated. Two of the main destinations were Lybia and Syria. Gaddafi was quite happy to crush Al Qaeda because Gaddafi wanted to maintain his secular government.

So we see the great intelligence failure: the enemy (Al Qaeda) of my enemy (Gaddafi) is my friend. Now that Gaddafi is gone, Al Qaeda sees an opportunity to attain their objective and destabilize the Lybian government until it collapses.

The attack in Benghazi was carefully planned. It is impossible to attack an American diplomatic mission without a plan because American diplomatic missions are heavily guarded.

It is not the first time that Western intelligence agencies completely fail in using this style of foreign policy. The Moujahaideen were America's allies against the Soviet Union. Now they are the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The US used opposition groups in Iraq against Saddam Hussain. Now Al Qaeda is alive and well in Iraq, even though it had never been Iraq prior to the war. In Lybia Al Qaeda is now armed and dangerous and the Benghazi attack is probably not the last. The Syrian and Lebanese governments are now claiming that the Syrian opposition has been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. In spite of that western intelligence agencies are giving money and weapons to the opposition.

The pattern is clear, and the Obama administrations failure is in repeating the same pattern that started with Ronald Reagan, continued in full with George W. Bush, and now is turning the Middle East into an even bigger mess under the Obama administration. The question is whether Obama will change his approach or whether Romney would do any better.

Bwild: Which vital facts.. sorry, but so many get used it's hard to keep track.

"and because of history..its ok for the current administration to pass the blame on our civil liberties?"

Your liberties have been eroded for years... decades, to some degree centuries.

Are you talking about the video, free speech?

"does that make it ok for your neighbor to drag your wife out of your house to his by the hair screaming and kicking?"

No, nor does it make it right for the husband to do it, but we hear of abuse cases going on around the world.

(V): basically it's not history..it's the here and now.

Übergeek 바둑이: [ It is not the first time that Western intelligence agencies completely fail in using this style of foreign policy. ]

I believe you already know that the purpose of intelligence agencies are to gather information, and it's the politicians responsibility to make decisions and formulate policy based on that information. The Benghazi disaster was not an intelligence failure, it was a failure to respond to that intelligence and take measures to insure the safety of our people in Libya. No one needs a comprehensive history lesson to understand that if you get information about an attack being planned on your people in a country like Libya, where simply being an American means you are at risk, then it would be wise to take that information seriously. The diplomat was advised to NOT make that request, because it was known beforehand that it would be turned down, but he did it anyway. And it's a good thing he did. Because even though he is now dead, the request is a part of the record and everyone knows that the request was made and what happened as a result of the request being ignored.


"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is more of a rule of thumb if you will than any kind of useful proverb. IMO it's a machiavellian principle that has very limited usefulness. If the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy, then that would be like saying the mountain lion fighting the bear that was trying to eat me is my friend. The mountain lion is only your friend because he has engaged the bear and given you an opportunity to escape. It doesn't mean the mountain lion is your friend, and wouldn't harm you if he manages to defeat the bear. The idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend has an extremely limited shelf life, and doesn't always work even when those limited circumstances are well understood.

Bwild: "here and now" encompasses alot of things.. your gonna have to be more specific.

By the way, Hillary did an interview in Peru (why there?) and took "responsibility" for the failure to respond to the potential threat of violence against the emabassy in Libya. But then she cleverly buried that same "responsibility" into the thousands of people who work for her, suggesting it was a screw up by someone in that big pile of thousands of people who answer to her. I didn't hear the whole interview, but I'm pretty sure she didn't say "And by golly, I'll get to the bottom of this and find out who screwed up if it's the last thing I do!"

Apparently it's in her job description to deflect criticism of the president whenever she's asked to, this time by absorbing that criticism and then passing it along down the chain of command until it can made to stick to one of her underlings. The Clintons, both of them, used tactics like this during Bill Clintons tenure as president. They didn't just fire someone in the White House travel agency, they intentionally lied about him and tarnished his reputation, and for no other reason than to give themselves a reason for firing him.

Iamon lyme: It was used significantly at the time of the American revolution.. The French helped you. It has been used throughout history, by various groups.. Like when the Dutch became allies with great Britain regarding the Spaniards.

Throughout the cold war it was used by various governments.. even in the NI troubles, it was significant that the UK army was passing on info regarding IRA members and supporters to the loyalist paramilitaries.. who then 'executed' them.

When the US peeved off Gaddafi, he got back by supplying the IRA with weapons.

Shakespeare in his plays you'll find instances... The stories of the Greek Gods are laden with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

(V): how much more specific can now be,Jules?

Bwild: Death of Americans kinda now... it's not new that it's happened.

(V): then why ask me? It still didn't matter..it was now then

(V): I didn't say it wasn't or couldn't be used. I said it's usefulness is limited.

Bwild: Because some events keep happening, it's not new. Will it really infringe on your liberties.. no.

Iamon lyme: Yep... we just end up with messes like 9/11... It's nice that training given to kill Russians kills Americans.... NOT.

(V): [ Because some events keep happening, it's not new. Will it really infringe on your liberties.. no. ]

But if we sit back and do nothing about it.. yes.

Liberties are not determined by random events. They don't just pop into existence for no apparent reason and for our convenience. It takes effort to get liberty if you don't have it, and effort to keep it once you do have it.

Iamon lyme: Making offensive material regarding another religion is a liberty that needs to be kept? Burning flags, bibles, Korans??

(V): Compared to what? Making it illegal for girls to get an education? You have a little girl in your country right now, to protect her from further harm by people who tried to kill her as she was walking to school. How does that compare to the freedom to express yourself... which by the way happens to be a freedom you've already made it clear you support. Are you suggesting such freedom should be limited to only you and the people you agree with?

How are able to take a position one day, and the next day you are against that same position?

If making offensive remarks against religion is such a bad thing, then why do liberals go out of their way to lie about and make offensive remarks and materials against Christians?

Iamon lyme: Wow.. such drama..

"If making offensive remarks against religion is such a bad thing, then why do liberals go out of their way to lie about and make offensive remarks and materials against Christians?"

Who says they are offensive?

You just basically made my point valid.

Thankyou

(V): You had a point?

AD was right, it is easier to be a liberal. I've been working too hard at this, when all I really need to do is to randomly type words onto a page. And they will with no effort from me or anyone else randomly self organize into the same brilliant analysis you are able to achieve with eyes closed and mind preoccupied by thoughts of splendicious grandeur. That's my theory about house work, but it hadn't occurred to me until you hadn't mentioned it that this is actually a universal truth. It's how we evolved from lower forms of life and then de-evolved into liberals... not all of us, but some of us have. I did too until I didn't.

The perfect example of this principle in action is house work. I don't need to do anything, because aside from the fact that any work is offensive and no should have to listen to anyone tell them they need to work at anything, including making sense at a game site message board, everything will eventually self organize... the clutter will disappear and everthing will become clean, and every item I have will eventually through nothing more than the random forces of nature be located precisely where it should be. In fact, I could speed up the process by merely wanting everything to be as and where it already is.

What could be easier than that?

I listened to most of the debate. So now I've learned Obama believes the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack... period. No spontaneous eruption of violence during a protest over a video no one knew about until he, the president, told us about it. No, the day after the attack he said it was a terrorist attack and has always maintained it was a terrorist attack. So after two weeks of suffering through listening to him talk about how the violence and killings were because of a video... well, apparently that never happened. I've been asleep for two weeks dreaming about some stupid video, but today I woke and am now getting the straight scoop. Right.

And it's also apparent the president hasn't yet figured out that big bird is not really a bird. Or maybe he doesn't want to break the hearts of all those five year olds listening to the debate by telling them big bird is only an actor in a bird costume. But it does beg the question, Mr President... how many five year olds do you believe listening to the debate can be persuaded to vote for you in a few weeks, seeing as how they are only five years old?

Iamon lyme: Obama looked better this time and I'll bet many pundunts call it a draw. But a draw is better for Obama. I am busy trying to fix my taxes which were due yesterday (extension) but I screwed up. lol So only watched a small segment.

Artful Dodger: I started watching it on tv, then switched to listening to it on the radio. Obama was more aggressive this time. I knew he would be, he had to after learning he did not win the first debate... that still cracks me up, someone had to tell him he did not win the first one. After the debate all I heard from the commentators is that he won this debate. Except for Ann Compton, she said she would reserve judgement until after the next debate.

One other interesting thing happened... when the moderator brought up Hillary saying it was her responsibility and not Obamas (for not providing proper security when it was asked for) Obama said no... she works for me, so it's my responsibility. I think Hillary is already trying to look presidential, because it's likely she will want to run for president in 2016. Obama taking that hot potato back and saying it belongs to him was I think a knee jerk reaction, even though everyone knows the blame will inevitably fall into someone elses lap.

Iamon lyme: tomorrow the pundits all jockey for position on the many polls. I think this debate may be a draw but fact checking could decide it too

Artful Dodger: I'm not sure because I was in another room when I heard it, but I think I heard Obama say he paid more in taxes than Romney. If that is what he said, was he complaining or bragging?

Iamon lyme: Romney should ask him how much he gave in charity. Romney gave millions. When Romney inherited his father's estate, he gave away all the money. And when governor, he gave his salary back to the State. Same when he ran the Olympics. He's extremely generous.

Artful Dodger: I know, and it's not unlikely Obama paid more in taxes this year because he had more taxable income than Romney. Being wealthy doesn't mean you should have to pay taxes on the same income you've already paid taxes on. You are not taxed on the income you made and paid 10 years ago, or 9 years ago, or 8... you are taxed according to how much you made this year. Obama is not some poor struggling middle class worker, he's a wealthy man. It continues to amaze me who Obama is trying to impress with dumb statements like that.