Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    13 May '13 06:08
    Named Maureen Dowd.


    WASHINGTON

    THE capital is in the throes of déjà vu and preview as it plunges back into Clinton Rules, defined by a presidential aide on the hit ABC show “Scandal” as damage control that goes like this: “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.”

    The conservatives appearing on Benghazi-obsessed Fox News are a damage patrol with an approach that goes like this: “Lies, paranoia, subpoena, impeach, Watergate, Iran-contra.”

    (Though now that the I.R.S. has confessed to targeting Tea Party groups, maybe some of the paranoia is justified.)

    Welcome to a glorious spring weekend of accusation and obfuscation as Hillaryland goes up against Foxworld.

    The toxic theatrics, including Karl Rove’s first attack ad against Hillary, cloud a simple truth: The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.

    After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.

    Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.

    Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Chris Stevens were rushing to make the flimsy Benghazi post permanent as a sign of good faith with Libyans, even as it sat ringed by enemies.

    The hierarchies at State and Defense had a plodding response, failing to make any superhuman effort as the siege waxed and waned over eight hours.

    In an emotional Senate hearing on Wednesday, Stevens’s second-in-command, Gregory Hicks, who was frantically trying to help from 600 miles away in Tripoli, described how his pleas were denied by military brass, who said they could not scramble planes and who gave a “stand-down” order to four Special Forces officers in Tripoli who were eager to race to Benghazi.

    “My reaction was that, O.K., we’re on our own,” Hicks said quietly. He said the commander of that Special Forces team told him, “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more” chutzpah “than someone in the military.”

    The defense secretary at the time, Leon Panetta, insisted, “We quickly responded.” But they responded that they would not respond. As Emma Roller and David Weigel wrote in Slate: “The die was cast long before the attack, by the weak security at the consulate, and commanders may have decided to cut their losses rather than risking more casualties. And that isn’t a story anyone prefers to tell.”

    Truth is the first casualty here when competing fiefs protect their mythologies. Some unhinged ideologues on the right cling to the mythology that Barry and Hillary are out to destroy America.

    In the midst of a re-election campaign, Obama aides wanted to promote the mythology that the president who killed Osama was vanquishing terror. So they deemed it problematic to mention any possible Qaeda involvement in the Benghazi attack.

    Looking ahead to 2016, Hillaryland needed to shore up the mythology that Clinton was a stellar secretary of state. Prepared talking points about the attack included mentions of Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group, but the State Department got those references struck. Foggy Bottom’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, a former Cheney aide, quashed a we-told-you-so paragraph written by the C.I.A. that said the spy agency had “produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” and had warned about five other attacks “against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy.”

    Nuland fretted about “my building leadership,” and with backing from Ben Rhodes, a top White House aide, lobbied to remove those reminders from the talking points because they “could be abused by members” of Congress “to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”

    Hicks said that Beth Jones, an under secretary of state, bristled when he asked ask her why Susan Rice had stressed the protest over an anti-Muslim video rather than a premeditated attack — a Sunday show marathon that he said made his jaw drop. He believes he was demoted because he spoke up.

    Hillary’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, also called Hicks to angrily ask why a State Department lawyer had not been allowed to monitor every meeting in Libya with Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who visited in October. (The lawyer did not have the proper security clearance for one meeting.) Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, has been a rabid Hillary critic on Fox News since the attack. Hicks said he had never before been scolded for talking to a lawmaker.

    All the factions wove their own mythologies at the expense of our deepest national mythology: that if there is anything, no matter how unlikely or difficult, that we can do to try to save the lives of Americans who have volunteered for dangerous assignments, we must do it.

    ###
  2. 13 May '13 13:36
    If Maureen Dowd is criticizing the Obama administration, it must be really bad.
  3. 13 May '13 14:27
    Amazing!

    Who's Maureen Dowd?
  4. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    13 May '13 14:31
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Amazing!

    Who's Maureen Dowd?
    Really?

    A very liberal (and very smoking hot) columnist for the New York Times. One of the smartest women on the planet.
  5. 13 May '13 14:37
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Really?

    A very liberal (and very smoking hot) columnist for the New York Times. One of the smartest women on the planet.
    Your gonna piss flannegen off with that kind of talk.
  6. 13 May '13 14:59
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Amazing!

    Who's Maureen Dowd?
    Also of interest, google "Dowdification".
  7. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    13 May '13 15:45
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Your gonna piss flannegen off with that kind of talk.
    I don't care. She's brilliant, classy, she's got legs that go on for miles, and I could completely envision her propositioning the right man while looking at him past the rim of her glass of bourbon.
  8. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    13 May '13 16:09
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I don't care. She's brilliant, classy, she's got legs that go on for miles, and I could completely envision her propositioning the right man while looking at him past the rim of her glass of bourbon.
    Did ya feel that way when she doled it out on W or are you a new convert?
  9. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    13 May '13 16:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I don't care. She's brilliant, classy, she's got legs that go on for miles, and I could completely envision her propositioning the right man while looking at him past the rim of her glass of bourbon.
    Yes she's all that and then some. Here's some of her thoughts on W.


    W.’s presidency will go down in infamy because he ignored Katrina and the Constitution and cherry picked intelligence with Tony Blair to build up a faux case for invading Iraq. That is why the three Democratic presidents who talked at his library’s dedication had to cherry-pick their topics, focusing mostly on W.’s good work on AIDS in Africa.

    Though he presents himself as the Batman of anti-terrorism, W. ignored the warning that Osama was going to strike and didn’t catch him dead or alive. He failed to fix the egregious problems of agencies coordinating watch lists and dropping the ball on information about terrorist suspects, which flared again in the Boston bombings.

    W. and other Bush officials continue to say they could not possibly have known that Saddam had no W.M.D. But I’m now told that Saddam sent word through the Saudis to the Bushies over and over that he had no W.M.D. and was only blustering to keep his nemesis in the neighborhood, Iran, at bay.

    Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld weren’t looking for the truth, and they weren’t hitting the pause button the way President Obama is with Syria right now, sensitive to the quicksand nature of the region. They simply wanted to blast some Arabs and Saddam was a weak target, just as W. was a weak president, easily led wherever Cheney and his co-conspirator Rummy, along with their bellicose band of neocons, wanted to take him.


    I give you that. She's sharp.
  10. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    13 May '13 16:40
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Did ya feel that way when she doled it out on W or are you a new convert?
    I've always felt that way about her.
  11. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    13 May '13 16:43
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I've always felt that way about her.
    Its the legs right?
  12. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    13 May '13 16:44
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Yes she's all that and then some. Here's some of her thoughts on W.


    W.’s presidency will go down in infamy because he ignored Katrina and the Constitution and cherry picked intelligence with Tony Blair to build up a faux case for invading Iraq. That is why the three Democratic presidents who talked at his library’s dedication had to cherry-pick th ...[text shortened]... eir bellicose band of neocons, wanted to take him.


    I give you that. She's sharp.
    She got that right. Bush was wrong enough to make me get out of the military.

    But here's the thing. This is all you people do. Bring up Bush. Bush's failures do not excuse Obama's. Obama's been president for - what? Five years? You don't get to talk about Bush anymore. It's time to talk about Obama, and what a failure he's been (or a success, in your view, if you can hold that view without contorting reality into something unrecognizable).

    No more Bush. Obama. Obama and how thoroughly and manifestly he's failed this country.
  13. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    13 May '13 16:48
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I've always felt that way about her.
    No I know what's going down. You loved her Pulitser prise winning outing of Bill and Monica and saw her atacks on W as just paying the rent. Now that that Kenyan Socialist is in power SHE's back, and all's well with the world!
  14. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    13 May '13 16:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    She got that right. Bush was wrong enough to make me get out of the military.

    But here's the thing. This is all you people do. Bring up Bush. Bush's failures do not excuse Obama's. Obama's been president for - what? Five years? You don't get to talk about Bush anymore. It's time to talk about Obama, and what a failure he's been (or a success, ...[text shortened]... No more Bush. Obama. Obama and how thoroughly and manifestly he's failed this country.
    See I dont just see Obama. I see a President wanting some semblance of bipartisanship from Congress, but instead being routed at every turn by a hostile GOP willing to take villification to a whole new level. The very nature of Obama's rule has been to seek and nurture consensus. If he has a weakness, then it is that he has not rammed home his advantage when he has had the opportunity to do so.

    EDIT: Which would have proved the dictatorial claims and rumblings made against him by a slew of rabid right wing attack dogs. But yet to no avail.
  15. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    13 May '13 17:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    See I dont just see Obama. I see a President wanting some semblance of bipartisanship from Congress, but instead being routed at every turn by a hostile GOP willing to take villification to a whole new level. The very nature of Obama's rule has been to seek and nuture consensus. If he has a weakness, then it is that he has not rammed home his advantages when he has had them.
    OK - that's your position...I disagree with it, but that's your position. In return, I see an extreme left president, hampered by the efforts of the extreme right, but unwilling to engage moderates in the consensus conversations that would make the far right irrelevant.

    What I don't see is a willingness to deal with the real issues. If you pay attention - if you read the newspapers - no one in Washington really likes this guy. He's imperious, secretive, insular - even with his own party. He is not the guy who reaches out, the dinners with Republicans notwithstanding. He is the guy who lectures, who preaches, who talks down to people, who does not understand that politics is played between the 30-yard lines. I'm sure he's a fantastic professor - (actually I'm not) - but it's painfully clear that he does not possess the requisites to be a successful executive.

    I am not part of the crowd that wants America, particularly American government, to be unsuccessful. But he's so ideologically motivated, so willing to bend truth to his worldview, that unfortunately, I see no way for him to be successful now.