|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but really, how are you able to deficit hawk with a straight face when imagination is the limit for the military budget?
but anyhow, nuclear power is nice, but the current regulatory climate is way too strict on risk projections and the costs are too high on them. they are not economically viable without huge subsidies. you get very wide range of potential damage numbers depending on if you follow Linear No Threshold model for bioimpact of radiation, or homeosis. that's billions of precautionary cost based on a choice of science. [google link http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full]
a majority of the DoE loan projects are actually doing fine, btw. it's not a failed project.
|
|
You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing.
Source
|
Issa's on the hunt. Considering how many times they changed up their story, they don't have a lot of wiggle room. Protestors for a video without warning. Okay, maybe some warning, but it was still the video. Nah, no terrorists, that's clean out. If it had been a couple stories as new things came to light, they say, "Hey, we started out this without all the facts, and published more accurate stories as they came in" and its over.
Latest story from State Dpt - no protest Take a step back, and we lost a US Ambassador on Obama's watch to terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. The black flag of Al Qaeda flew on the embassy that night. Serious setback for the "Osama dead, GM Alive" sentiment. The intricacies of who knew what when will come out in time, perhaps not until after the election. There's been some overtones to someone in State Dpt. messing up bad.
|
On October 11 2012 04:21 oneofthem wrote:but really, how are you able to deficit hawk with a straight face when imagination is the limit for the military budget? but anyhow, nuclear power is nice, but the current regulatory climate is way too strict on risk projections and the costs are too high on them. they are not economically viable without huge subsidies. you get very wide range of potential damage numbers depending on if you follow Linear No Threshold model for bioimpact of radiation, or homeosis. that's billions of precautionary cost based on a choice of science. [google link http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full]a majority of the DoE loan projects are actually doing fine, btw. it's not a failed project. The DoE loans are extremely safe - very little risk of default. On the other hand I'm not sure they do much good. Overall solar subsidies (namely the 30% credit) are pretty expensive.
|
Bye bye dvorakftw
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 11 2012 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 04:21 oneofthem wrote:but really, how are you able to deficit hawk with a straight face when imagination is the limit for the military budget? but anyhow, nuclear power is nice, but the current regulatory climate is way too strict on risk projections and the costs are too high on them. they are not economically viable without huge subsidies. you get very wide range of potential damage numbers depending on if you follow Linear No Threshold model for bioimpact of radiation, or homeosis. that's billions of precautionary cost based on a choice of science. [google link http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full]a majority of the DoE loan projects are actually doing fine, btw. it's not a failed project. The DoE loans are extremely safe - very little risk of default. On the other hand I'm not sure they do much good. Overall solar subsidies (namely the 30% credit) are pretty expensive. there was a rush of loans going out just as the progrma expired, so i'd think there was enough incentive created.
solar industry failing is a rather specific problem. certainly without clearly strategic competition from china, solyndra would be doing well. the difference between the two being the chinese company does not have to turn a profit to continue running.
|
On October 11 2012 04:58 Praetorial wrote:Bye bye dvorakftw data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt=""
Nah I think the ban was quite in order. The links he provided were, for the most part, hardcore trolling, and with the last ones he overdid it. I was like WTF REALLY?... when I opened them. Three strikes could have been a solution but he was already on the admin's "shitlist", so that's that.
|
|
I wouldn't limit the damage to just the State Department. Obama is going to eat shit for this one big time. As I mentioned previously, the weeks of lies and dodging the reality that the attack was clearly a terrorist attack is going to bite him in the ass when foreign policy issues come up at the debates. The worst part is that the media at large has tried so hard to cover up this scandal by ignoring it, that most Americans are going to be hearing about this fuck up for the first time during the debates when it will have maximum effect.
|
On October 11 2012 05:07 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 11 2012 04:21 oneofthem wrote:but really, how are you able to deficit hawk with a straight face when imagination is the limit for the military budget? but anyhow, nuclear power is nice, but the current regulatory climate is way too strict on risk projections and the costs are too high on them. they are not economically viable without huge subsidies. you get very wide range of potential damage numbers depending on if you follow Linear No Threshold model for bioimpact of radiation, or homeosis. that's billions of precautionary cost based on a choice of science. [google link http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full]a majority of the DoE loan projects are actually doing fine, btw. it's not a failed project. The DoE loans are extremely safe - very little risk of default. On the other hand I'm not sure they do much good. Overall solar subsidies (namely the 30% credit) are pretty expensive. there was a rush of loans going out just as the progrma expired, so i'd think there was enough incentive created. solar industry failing is a rather specific problem. certainly without clearly strategic competition from china, solyndra would be doing well. the difference between the two being the chinese company does not have to turn a profit to continue running. Well there was demand for the loans because they were at a subsidized rate. Whether or not the loans resulted in more projects is rather dubious. If the DoE didn't make the loans then private lenders could have - just at a marginally higher rate.
I'm not sure about your comment on Chinese competition. The solar market was / is over saturated with suppliers and so panel prices are low. Whether or not that's attributable to Chinese competition specifically is unknown to me (you could be right - I just don't know). Another problem Solyndra had was that the company used thin-film solar which is more expensive than silicon based solar panels.
|
New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death.
|
On October 11 2012 05:51 jdseemoreglass wrote: New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death. This a thousand times. The lies that the administration has been peddling about Libya are outrageous, and it even worse that so few people are aware of it. That's going to change, soon, and it will be hilarious to watch.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 11 2012 05:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On October 11 2012 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 11 2012 04:21 oneofthem wrote:but really, how are you able to deficit hawk with a straight face when imagination is the limit for the military budget? but anyhow, nuclear power is nice, but the current regulatory climate is way too strict on risk projections and the costs are too high on them. they are not economically viable without huge subsidies. you get very wide range of potential damage numbers depending on if you follow Linear No Threshold model for bioimpact of radiation, or homeosis. that's billions of precautionary cost based on a choice of science. [google link http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full]a majority of the DoE loan projects are actually doing fine, btw. it's not a failed project. The DoE loans are extremely safe - very little risk of default. On the other hand I'm not sure they do much good. Overall solar subsidies (namely the 30% credit) are pretty expensive. there was a rush of loans going out just as the progrma expired, so i'd think there was enough incentive created. solar industry failing is a rather specific problem. certainly without clearly strategic competition from china, solyndra would be doing well. the difference between the two being the chinese company does not have to turn a profit to continue running. Well there was demand for the loans because they were at a subsidized rate. Whether or not the loans resulted in more projects is rather dubious. If the DoE didn't make the loans then private lenders could have - just at a marginally higher rate. I'm not sure about your comment on Chinese competition. The solar market was / is over saturated with suppliers and so panel prices are low. Whether or not that's attributable to Chinese competition specifically is unknown to me (you could be right - I just don't know). Another problem Solyndra had was that the company used thin-film solar which is more expensive than silicon based solar panels. it's rather difficult to tell whehter the project "is created new", but the effect may just be trailing. it's a signal for similar projects down the road potentially receiving the same kind of favors, if a friendly government is in place.
also, since these are new technology we are talkinga bout, failure is not a black hole. at least you learn what didn't work and get experience.
as for china's solar panel dumping. there's lots of stuff on this you can google it.
|
On October 11 2012 05:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:51 jdseemoreglass wrote: New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death. This a thousand times. The lies that the administration has been peddling about Libya are outrageous, and it even worse that so few people are aware of it. That's going to change, soon, and it will be hilarious to watch.
It wasn't a lie for goodness sake. The State Department made an announcement based on the information they had at the moment, which unfortunately was rather scarce, conflicting, and ultimately incorrect. As you very well know, a lie is deliberate. This was a mistake.
There were violent protests over an incendiary film. Using Occam's Razor, it was a pretty natural conclusion (without further information) that the Ambassador's death was due to the same thing rather than a convoluted terrorist plot to assassinate him.
This entire situation 1. sucks terribly bad and I feel for everyone who was affected, and 2. has been hyped by Republicans for their own political gain. Its almost as bad as when they tried to impeach Clinton, and I hope the American people see that.
|
This is a good read its a letter from David Siegel, the owner of Westgate Resorts, to his employees. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-workers-youll-likely-fired-131640914.html That is a link to the page but its just the article read the actual letter in spoilers first then acticle.
+ Show Spoiler +Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]
To All My Valued Employees,
As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.
However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.
I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business - hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business --with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.
Just think about this - most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?
Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50 percent of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50 percent of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.
Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore - to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.
So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.
You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.
Signed, your boss,
David Siegel
Very interesting from a man who has created his wealth worked hard and still this day is a large business owner.
I'm so glad it included one of my favorite quotes too "Democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -Thomas Jefferson
|
On October 11 2012 05:24 xDaunt wrote:I wouldn't limit the damage to just the State Department. Obama is going to eat shit for this one big time. As I mentioned previously, the weeks of lies and dodging the reality that the attack was clearly a terrorist attack is going to bite him in the ass when foreign policy issues come up at the debates. The worst part is that the media at large has tried so hard to cover up this scandal by ignoring it, that most Americans are going to be hearing about this fuck up for the first time during the debates when it will have maximum effect.
Okay, three problems with this:
1. Are you saying that Obama (or any high-level, appointed official) is personally responsible for the security arrangements of every US ambassador? That mistakes by security personnel are the fault of the president? By that logic, Bush was responsible for 9/11, FDR caused Pearl Harbor, and JFK and Lincoln deserved their own assassinations. The president and Secretary of State are not in charge of security, and in the absence of clear policies that lead to a security lapse, that lapse is not their fault.
2. Your story is that the president blatantly lied and deliberately covered up obvious terrorist activity, naively supposing the media could never find out what actually happened, in order to protect the State Department. The competing hypothesis is that someone just screwed up and the intelligence community didn't realize the attack was Al-Qaeda until after Obama made the announcement that it was spontaneous. Given how hectic the situation was and how many spontaneous protests were occurring, which of these is more likely?
3. The NYTimes and Washington Post websites both have headline stories about Libya right now. I know it's convenient to bash the "liberal media," but...
Overall, there's plenty of evidence that the State Department screwed up, and you can make that case if you want to (Romney sure will...) but nothing to support the accusation you're making--that the President of the United States is lying to the American people.
|
On October 11 2012 06:05 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 05:51 jdseemoreglass wrote: New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death. This a thousand times. The lies that the administration has been peddling about Libya are outrageous, and it even worse that so few people are aware of it. That's going to change, soon, and it will be hilarious to watch. It wasn't a lie for goodness sake. The State Department made an announcement based on the information they had at the moment, which unfortunately was rather scarce, conflicting, and ultimately incorrect. As you very well know, a lie is deliberate. This was a mistake. There were violent protests over an incendiary film. Using Occam's Razor, it was a pretty natural conclusion (without further information) that the Ambassador's death was due to the same thing rather than a convoluted terrorist plot to assassinate him. This entire situation 1. sucks terribly bad and I feel for everyone who was affected, and 2. has been hyped by Republicans for their own political gain. Its almost as bad as when they tried to impeach Clinton, and I hope the American people see that. This only holds up if you believe that they didn't have intelligence within 24 hours of the incident. It has been repeatedly reported and demonstrated that they did. They have been lying. There's no way around it.
|
I posted this in the Libya thread, but apparently no one cares anymore. (Probably what the administration was counting on.)
There was no protest at the compound prior to the attack.
Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.
In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.
In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.
"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound," a senior State Department official said. "Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside." Foreign Policy Report
The State Department denies that it ever claimed it was a protest due to a YouTube video that took place.
The State Department says it never concluded that an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya was simply a protest gone awry, a statement that places the Obama administration’s own foreign policy arm in sync with Republicans.
That extraordinary message, appearing to question the administration’s initial description of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, came in a department briefing Tuesday — a day before a hearing on diplomatic security in Libya was to be held by the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has accused the State Department of turning aside pleas from its diplomats in Libya to increase security in the months and weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi. One scheduled witness Wednesday, Eric Nordstrom, is the former chief security officer for U.S. diplomats in Libya who told the committee his pleas for more security were ignored.
Briefing reporters Tuesday ahead of the hearing, department officials were asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an American-made anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet. One official responded, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying. AP Report
Pentagon confirms the attack was pre-planned by terrorist organization, Democrats join Republicans in criticizing Obama administration.
Senate Democrats joined Republicans Thursday in questioning the Obama administration's handling of the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and why the administration refused for days to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack linked to al Qaeda.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., circulated a bipartisan letter addressed to Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, asking for an "accounting of the attacks against U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen," according to a copy obtained by The Washington Examiner.
The lawmakers are also demanding to know whether the administration had any advance warnings of the Libyan attack and, if so, whether it had shared that information with U.S. personnel on the ground.
President Obama came under intense criticism because the administration's explanation for what happened at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi kept changing. For days, the administration insisted to the public and Congress that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an American-made anti-Muslim video. As recently as Tuesday, in an address to the United Nations, Obama was blaming the video for inciting the attack.
But as evidence came to light showing that mortar rounds had been fired into the U.S. compound and that the attack had been carefully planned, the administration's explanation changed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first suggested in a high-level meeting at the U.N. that there could be a link between al Qaeda and "other violent extremists" and the attack in Benghazi.
On Thursday, the Pentagon confirmed that the attack was the work of a terrorist organization and not related to the anti-Muslim video.
"It was a terrorist attack," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at a news conference.
The Obama administration clearly had been hoping that the Libya attack would fade in the public's consciousness, said James Carafano, a defense expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. With congressional Democrats now also questioning how events unfolded, however, that's not likely to happen.
"Their hope was that on Monday, when the facts started to come out, everyone would have moved on, and that was a miscalculation on their part," Carafano said. "The one thing you can't do is have people intentionally lying to Congress or withholding information from Congress and then think you are not going to pay a price for that." Washington Examiner
Claims are rising that the Obama administration intentionally misled the people regarding attack.
The Obama administration's lies about the Benghazi attack continue to unravel. The President would like us to believe that he and his spokespeople have merely passed on the best intelligence they had as it evolved. But the State Department said yesterday that it never concluded that there was a protest outside the consulate.
For seven days after the attack, the Obama administration clung to its YouTube protest fiction. Then, the White House claimed to have received new information that the attack was terrorism, planned in advance and unrelated to a protest. Yesterday's State Department admission reveals this "evolving intelligence" claim to be yet another lie.
Within 24 hours of the attack, U.S. intelligence suspected that it was terrorism linked to Al Qaeda. At the time, the Obama administration was still claiming it was merely a spontaneous protest that got out of hand.
By September 13, the President had internally designated the attack an act of terrorism so that he would have the legal authority to mobilize military and intelligence assets. But, for the next five days, his spokespeople, most notably Press Secretary Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Rice, continued to insist that the attack started as a protest.
The State Department is now saying that, like the intelligence agencies, it never concluded that the attack grew out of a protest. So why did the Obama administration continue to tell the protest lie to the public for a week after the attack?
I'll tell you why.
The President would have been in a tough spot if he had admitted at the time of the attack and murder of a U.S. ambassador that it was Al Qaeda-linked terrorism. After all, he had, only five days earlier, boasted at the Democratic National Convention that "Al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat."
A disaster like the premeditated slaying of a U.S. ambassador would also call into question Obama's entire Libyan adventure. In truth, the very act of toppling Gaddafi made the region less safe, less stable, and less manageable. And responsibility for that lies solely with President Obama, since he failed even to ask Congress for authorization to attack Libya.
To avoid the indignity of being called to account for his own failed policies, the President and his staff concocted a lie. It was a plausible lie, though it rested on the absurd stereotype that Middle Eastern mobs carry mortars with them. But it was a lie and it was designed to direct the public's attentions away from Obama's own failures. Daily News Blog
|
On October 11 2012 06:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 05:51 jdseemoreglass wrote: New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death. This a thousand times. The lies that the administration has been peddling about Libya are outrageous, and it even worse that so few people are aware of it. That's going to change, soon, and it will be hilarious to watch. It wasn't a lie for goodness sake. The State Department made an announcement based on the information they had at the moment, which unfortunately was rather scarce, conflicting, and ultimately incorrect. As you very well know, a lie is deliberate. This was a mistake. There were violent protests over an incendiary film. Using Occam's Razor, it was a pretty natural conclusion (without further information) that the Ambassador's death was due to the same thing rather than a convoluted terrorist plot to assassinate him. This entire situation 1. sucks terribly bad and I feel for everyone who was affected, and 2. has been hyped by Republicans for their own political gain. Its almost as bad as when they tried to impeach Clinton, and I hope the American people see that. This only holds up if you believe that they didn't have intelligence within 24 hours of the incident. It has been repeatedly reported and demonstrated that they did. They have been lying. There's no way around it. Source this, and no partisan hackery please.
|
|
|
|