A few posts to check out while we await the debate:
Debate: Look For Obama To Play Hero, Take ‘Full Responsibility’ For Libya
Town-hall presidential debate: what to know about Candy Crowley’s rules
CANDY CROWLEY WILL SHILL FOR OBAMA
Van Jones: Romney Was Acting Like a “Douche” in the Last Debate
I think there’s virtually nothing O could do onstage tonight short of barfing on someone that’ll get the left to admit afterward that he did poorly. They desperately need him to have a good performance to remain viable, and thus the narrative will make it so tomorrow even if Obama doesn’t make it so tonight. His problem is that, even with that media cushion, it’s unlikely that Romney will falter, which is really what O needs to reverse the momentum here.
Post debate
Like two roughnecks squared off on a playground, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney invaded each other’s personal space, raised their voices and fought. “It is just not true,” the president said. “It is true,” his rival replied. You could almost hear both men thinking: “Same to you and more of it.”
If you like to see presidential candidates fight for the job, if you want a passionate dialogue over big issues that matter, you got what you wanted Tuesday night. If it’s civility you seek, you’re sunk.
Who won? The cheap answer is Obama because his goal following a catastrophically sluggish first debate was so clear: Show some life. And, indeed, the president aggressively criticized Romney, labeling him a hypocrite and a liar who favors the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.
But Romney got his licks in, too, wrapping a miserable economy around the incumbent’s neck. “The middle class is getting crushed by the policies of a president who does not understand what it takes to get the economy working again,” Romney said.
Bottom line: Call it a tie. Obama and Romney scored points while turning off independent voters with their point-scoring. Democratic and Republican partisans will find reason to celebrate the debate but it likely did nothing to reshape the closely fought race.
See author page
Cary, dont’ know what you guys arguing about…but much of the technical difference about what makes something an “assault” rifle in the legal sense..was mostly about cosmetics (a pistol grip, a tripod, a collapseable stock). There are many rifles not considered assault weapons that have the same functional capability..including large capacity magazines, semi-auto fire, flash suppressors, etc. What makes it an “assault” rifle under past legal terms was simply how many of those things a single rifle had.
Further, the initial ban was done by manf date. When gun manf knew the bill might pass…they exploded their manf and made stockpiles of the existing model which could still be legally sold after that ban……for more $ of course. The point I’m making is…they were never effectively stopped from being sold even when they were illegal. They were stopped from being manf. And all the manf had to do to comply ..was simply remove one or two of the features of the same rifle and it was then legal. All it did was make them more desirable and cost more money. So, it in fact made MORE money for the gun industry…not less.
I know plenty of gun ignorant people who believed that weapons that looked like an M16 or AK47 were effectively banned etc. under the assault weapon ban and didn’t exist anymore until it ended…but it’s not true. They also made post-ban models…that may not have a pistol grip or some other cosmetic feature. But, it’s essentially the same rifle. And there have always been civilian models of those weapons that do not have selective fire. (ie., AR15 is semi auto version of M16) Selective fire (full auto capable) weapons have always been controlled (since long ago) under Federal statute and lic. So have silencers.
@Greg:
Not true at all. Republicans are eager to give Dimocrats credit for finally figuring out what happened though it took them three weeks to figure out what the Republicans were telling them when the attack happened. 3 weeks is not an overly long time for most Dimocrats.
@Cary:
Cary, my response was to you and Greg both of you said fully automatic weapons are legal. I said they’re not. I didn’t respond at all to the discussion in the debate.
@Redteam, #51:
That’s correct. We wouldn’t want too many of them out there, would we?
@Dc: DC
That’s not the subject. The subj was that Greg and Cary said that fully automatic weapons are legal. We weren’t discussing ‘assault weapons’.
@Greg:
Republicans aren’t selling anything. The WH is. Anyone with ears and eyes can see that the WH has changed it’s story 3 different times already about what happened….when it’s already known that the Intel community knew within 24 hours what it was….because they had VIDEO of it. They continued to push the story about it being spontaneous event even AFTER it was clear and that it was not. And further…anybody who was remotely attentive at the time…knew something was wrong with the story as they were telling it as the evidence that was coming out didn’t make sense. Particularly that it was 9/11. Particularly that there had been concerns about security even before…and that requests for more personnel and equipment was denied.
So, at least the State Dept…KNEW that this was most likely a terror attack. The president and Joe Biden claim they were unaware of any security threats or requests. That along is disconcerting. Further, they sent out Rice to on every network they could find …to push the narrative of the video spontaneous event. They were pushing it “hard”. Does that sound like to you that they were reflecting upon what happend…or trying to get to the bottom of it? Or does it sound more like they had already decided an angle and were pushing it. And then..they had to change that …but only did after the investigation started and people were put under oath.
Rice is claiming now that she got bad intel. The intel community claimed they “knew” within 24 hours that this was a heavily armed and organized terrorists attack and that’s the information that they had at that time. So, who gave Rice different intel? We dont’ know. But, even if you were remotely curious….you’d have to wonder how video protesters suddenly chucked out mortars and RPGs and lined up to perfectly assault the compound. It never sounded or looked right from the start. And I don’t think there is ANY evidence that the president was proactive in doing anything other than having people step out to push the story and narrative that this was about insulting islam. Indeed weeks later..the president himself was still pushing that narrative even after it was well known…early reports were wrong. It’s one thing to get it wrong the day it happens. It’s another thing to keep getting it wrong for weeks and have to have somebody drag you kicking and screaming to the truth.
@Redteam:
Ok..sorry then 🙂
That’s not what I said. I said they were legal, with a Class 3 license.
@Greg:
Why not? As long as they are in the hands of licensed museums/collectors and were not in the hands of criminals. I’m sure that most of the fully automatic weapons in use in the USA are the ones distributed by Obama in his Fast and Furious operation, but since it was your guy that gave them away, I’m sure that’s ok with you.
@Redteam:
Pay the tax, pass the background check, and you can own a fully automatic weapon. I bought a CZ-49 last summer, it took 7 months for the background check.
The CZ-49 is a fully automatic submachinegun in caliber 7.62 X 25. Lots of fun, if you can find a place to shoot them!
@Greg:
Greg, you need to try to keep up. You said legal to private citizens. They are not. They are only legal to class 3 ffl holders. That’s not the same thing.
@Greg: @Common Sense:
No, Greg, the Class III license is required to sell fully automatic weapons, which are called Title II weapons, not Class III as some would say.
To own a fully automatic firearm, you pay a tax and pass a background check. That’s all.
Which does not get you a Class III license.
@Petercat: Petercat,
I can’t speak with authority on the weapon you refer to. the only google reference to a cz-49 is to a Czech service pistol. But you are incorrect in your statement that I quoted. I linked above to a copy of the law and it clearly states that to purchase a fully automatic weapon, you have to have a class 3 license. That’s not ‘my’ law, it’s a federal firearms law.
I think maybe we’re all splitting too many hairs.
Get a Gatling gun. Mount it in the bed of your pickup. So far as I know, that’s OK with the Feds so long as you crank it by hand like an old fashion ice cream freezer. Of course you might have trouble with your state or local authorities.
@Petercat, #63:
I just checked that out. You’re right. I stand corrected.
The famous Rose Garden speech of September 12.
He didn’t refer to the attack as a spontaneous “demonstration” against a film or anything else. It’s quite clear that he considered it to be an act of terror. In fact, in the final minute he said that “no act of terror will ever” dissuade America from pursuing its goals. This was in the immediate context of the Benghazi attack (i.e. in the discussion preceding it and in the immediate sentence following it).
I’m sure that Romney supporters will claim that Romney won on style points or whatever, but the proof of the pudding will be in the polling over then next week. I think that Obama lost 4 points as a consequence of the first debate, but that Obama won back two of those four points tonight, which should put him back in the lead, by about a point and a half.
Meanwhile, we’ve got Presidential debate #3 and one more big week of economic data.
I predict that the winner will be whoever gets the greater number of electoral votes.
I look for the Tigers to close out the Yankees against Sabathia on Wednesday and then to take the series over the Cardinals in 5 games. Also, Michigan by two touchdowns over Sparty.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Petercat, would you give me a link to the CZ-49, I’d like to read up on it. google doesn’t have one.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: runnswim, you are surely aware by now that both Candy Crowley and Anderson Cooper have stated on CNN that they were wrong, that the statement he made at Acts of Terror had nothing to do with spontaneous protest in Benghazi. Quit trying to carry Empty Chairs water for him. He’s perfectly capable of keeping his foot in his mouth.
So the argument is that Obama originally called it terrorism, then contradicted that by repeatedly refusing to classify it as terrorism for two weeks, and now again asserts it was terrorism. Is that about right?
Larry I think Sabathia will give Yanks their only win. Giant pitching will get them past Cards in 7. Verlander gets MVP with wins in games 1,4 and 7 against Jints,
Irish go 7-0 and move to 4 in BCS with big win over the Fighting Mormons in South Bend this Sat. Prophetic as Black Irish BHO back in front of Mormon Mass. Moderate Mitt.
N.D.’s 2 Michigan victims go to O.T.
Love your #72 below. Revenge of Big Bird indeed.
Hi Red Team. I don’t need anyone to tell me what Obama said or the context in which he said it or what he meant by saying it. I watched it with my own eyes and listened with my own ears. Everyone who cares about it should do the same. Nowhere in the statement did he claim or imply that it was a spontaneous demonstration against anything. The whole speech was about it being an act of terror.
Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and his/her own vote.
I did particularly like Romney’s endorsement of affirmative action (“go out there and find me some women”). To go along with his plan for a 20% across the board reduction in tax rates, elimination of the estate tax, cut in corporate tax, no increase in middle class tax burden, large increase in defense spending, endorsement of Pell grants, honoring Norquist pledge against raising taxes on anyone, repeal of Obama/Ryan $716 Billion Medicare cut, maintaining all Bush tax cuts, and actual reduction of the deficit…all to be achieved through immaculate accounting. I think that this was — finally — the ultimate Emperor’s New Clothes moment. Call it revenge of Big Bird.
– Larry W/HB
P.S. (Rich): Whether the odds be great or small, Old Notre Dame will tie over all…
Remember ’66 “game of the century?”
#25 touched on the moment when Obama folded.
Obama had been interrupting Romney regularly.
Then Obama did it one too many times and Romney politely but firmly gave Obama a rebuke.
Obama meekly turned and went to his chair and sat.
OW!
Another thing I thought odd considering Obama really ”prepped” for THIS debate was that Obama kept trying to twist various questions so he could answer with a long patter about all sorts of unrelated stuff.
A sort of verbal padding a student does when he’s trying to snow teacher.
When a question is about women getting PAID an equal amount for equal work Obama twisted his answer into one about birth control and health coverage.
Ugh!
@Redteam:
Don’t rely on “Wiki” pages when discussing laws.
You have to check with the state laws, but yes some people, in some states can legally own a fully automatic gun:
So yes, you “may” be able to legally own a full automatic firearm that was manufactured prior to the 1986 Act.
Check out the ILA gun law section of http://www.nra.org for details regarding state and federal gun laws.
State Gun Laws: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/
Federal Gun Laws regarding “National Firearms Act” regulated guns – you must have a Federal permit to even own certain parts of machine guns: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/26usc_chap53.pdf
Before Greg and Cary go off on a rant about rampant crime and fully automatic weapons:
The late Hunter S. Thompson legally owned a number of fully automatic firearms on his spread in Colorado. The main military purpose of a machine gun is to lay down “cover” or “suppression” fire. or to take down moving targets. I’ve had the “pleasure” of firing a fully automatic M-60 (Of course, I also had the tedious chore of collecting the links and reloading the belt, but it was still a very cool experience). There are incidentally many things that make these poor choices as weapons outside of wartime. (1) They are damn near impossible to fire with any measure of accuracy unless you are using a mount or bi-pod (don’t buy into the movie hype, there is a tendency for the recoil to force the muzzle up ). (2) You have to shoot in relatively short bursts to keep the barrel from being damaged by overheating (and to realign on the target if you choose not to use a mount or bi-pod). (3) They are very expensive, costing upwards of $10,000.00 just for the firearm.
@Ditto, #74:
Everyone knows the primary use for a machine gun is to repel cattle rustlers.
(A 1920s ad for the Thompson machine gun.)
@Greg:
Republican spin? barry and company have out right LIED about what happened before, during and after. First it was caused by the video, then it was spontaneous riot (for whatever reason), then it was a terrorist attack -but wait I think it might be something else. come on.
The bottom line is the buck stops at the oval office. he SHOULD take responsibility, that is his job. barry couldn’t/wouldn’t take responsibility if his life depended upon it. The really sad part is what he really thinks of the people who represent our country and take the risks, they are just bumps in the road. Then comes biden and he laughs when this event was brought up during his debate. Yeah the marxist and the joker are quite a team.
If this were George Bush you would demand his head on a post . I suppose I didn’t realize until this election what evil people liberals are. Everything is good to go as long as it is on their side.
@Redteam:
Sorry, guys, I was mistaken. (The model designation isn’t stamped on it, only the serial number). It is a CZ-26 (vZ26) and you can see a civilian owned one being fired here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2efxMfcyaQI
Like I said, lots of fun! (I don’t know the man in the video- I don’t put my valuables out online!)
And, if you want to fire one yourself, this event is held twice a year in Kentucky:
http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events/featured-events/machine-gun-shoot
Look for me there!
@Greg:
I saw a copy of that ad when I was a kid (I’m old).
Greg, I have to tell you, from what I’ve seen of you here, I don’t agree with you on philosophy, but you are pretty cool headed and courteous, and willing to learn and admit that you don’t know everything. I’m learning to respect you.
If we ever meet at The Machine Gun Shoot, I’ll let you fire mine. The first magazine will be on me.
One thing I like about shooting sports is that on the range, everyone is equal. Economic status, skin color, religious beliefs don’t matter. On the firing line, we all share the same hobby.
@Ditto:
I hated the M-60! Give me something that I can fire single, accurate aimed shots with if I need to. That doesn’t runaway or jam if you don’t jerk the trigger!
Although, it is fun to shoot….
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
So he knew all along it was a premeditated attack? Why did he allow Susan Rice to go out and say it was about the video? Why did Biden in his debate with Ryan say the video reason was the best intelligence they had at the time? On The View, when told Hillary Clinton said the attack was a terrorist attack and asked if he agreed, Obama said they were still investigating and brought up the video. So, which is it?
Petercat
hi, I think you’re a great person,
I find that you have quite a knowledge of weaponry,
and as you know from the war in AFGHANISTAN, AND the cluster bombs buried undergrownd eid or ied or ide, what ever they call it to make them look less dangerous, STILL KILLING SO MANY BRAVES.
as an expert in ballistic , you surely know about those, now do you try with your friends to figure a way to neutralize or pulverize, or laser-ize, or chimicly soak them as they are located by a underground viser,
or searcher?
I have been sure there are some who could find a gadget or a recipie or a any way to do it,
IT’S kind of late, I know, but still important to find because they are still being used as a TALIBAN WAS SO PROUD TO MENTION TO A REPORTER OF THIS EID BEING THEIR BEST WEAPON STILL USED, and with the new threats of war,coming,
the need is also there because of the same enemy,
AND what do you know if there is any advance or even still any research,
or even any conversation topic about the resolution of that which so many WARRIOR HAVE COME BACK MUTILATED, BECAUSE OF IT, PROVING IT STILL HAVEN BEEN DEALT WITH.
AND for the last question, how come with all the knowledgeble people on weaponry,
this has still not been done with.
It’s a very serious thought searching task to take on,
BUT I can taste there are a solution to eliminate those,
but the right minds are needed to expand the search further than weaponry along with all we know, and all we have naming COMPUTER, THECHNOLOGY OF ALL KINDS, LASER, MINING PROBES ECETERA,
thank you for your input on it
Hi Aqua, Fog of war. The Benghazi attack appeared to be, at first, an isolated act of terror, on the 9/11 anniversary. Then some news media claimed it was in response to the video. Then, all of a sudden, there was copycat violence all over the Islamic world. All of this violence was in response to the video. No one is suggesting that this pan-Islamic violence represented a coordinated Al Qaeda attack. The Benghazi incident had to then be evaluated in the context of what was happening at the same time all over Asia. So what seemed clear at the beginning (that it was an act of terror) became muddled.
It’s beyond credible that the President knew, for certain, that it was a terrorist attack all along and decided that he could pull the wool over the eyes of the entire world and get away with it. And it’s incredibly unfair to claim that it’s the responsibility of the POTUS to micromanage embassy security. Neither he (nor Hillary for that matter) have the competence to do that. They rely on security experts. And I’m sure that it’s true that security officials on the ground all over the world complain frequently that they need more staff. So it’s up to higher up security officials, along with intelligence, to determine what staffing and other resources are required. When first notified of the attack, the first thing the POTUS did was to order in the marines. That’s all he could do.
It’s like the father of Christopher Stephens said: it’s terrible to politicize this. It was terrible to politicize this in the first 24 hours, as Romney did. It’s terrible to keep on politicizing it, until the facts are in. It’s no different than Fast and Furious. Only it’s worse, because it’s international and not domestic. In matters of foreign attacks, we are supposed to pull together as a nation — until and unless it’s very clear that our leaders are taking the nation down the wrong track. That’s not happening here.
In Fast and Furious, people tried to hang the POTUS with that. It turned out that, of course, not only did he not know anything about that (nor should he have known), but even Holder didn’t know anything about that, as it’s not the job of the AG to micromanage border enforcement and the ATF bureau.
It’s totally different than putting a crony horse show CEO in charge of FEMA and not engaging until days after the fact, with a large scale disaster unfolding in a great city on American soil. But conservatives have been Hell bent for leather to find something similar to hang on Obama. Remember when the BP oil rig disaster was supposed to have been “Obama’s Katrina?” Notice what a big part of the Romney campaign this so-called asleep-at-the-wheel “scandal” has become.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Openid….sure…let me help point it out to you. First…here are the references that Obama directly used in his speech whenever benghazi was mentioned:
Shocking attack, Senseless violence, Brutal acts, Attack. The word “terror” was used in the later part of his speech which was about remembering 9/11. When he later mentioned Benghazi at the end of that..he again used the word senseless violence to describe it.
If that’s not clear enough…lets add some actual context and stop parsing words: Go to 1:19 in the speech movie link you provided and listen carefully.
It is absolutely clear…that the president was talking about the movie here. Not a direct AlQueda attack on our compound (which is what actually happened). He directly referenced Benghazi attack 7 times…and never once used the word “terror” or terrorist. He only used the word terror after he had shifted his conversation at 3:28 to the context of 9/11. That these “attacks” were particularly painful in the shadow of 9/11. It was “here” when he was speaking about 9/11 and sacrifices made ..he used the word “terror”. When he again referenced Benghazi at after that here’s what he said at 4:39
Obama clearly is trying to frame what happened in Benghazi as a criminal act spun off from the movie…not an attack by AlQueda. I think the only way one could find it otherwise would be to completely remove the context of this speech and what he said….and just take the one sentence and word that terror was mentioned…and then try to go backwards and conflate that with everything previously said. I know that’s clearly how most liberal minds work. But, it’s not the truth.
Further, the problem with Candy Crowley mentioning this during the debate is/was….the candidates can be responsible for what they say and live with it. Networks have plenty of time after the fact to debate what was said and fact check, etc…as much as they want. But by jumping in here, Crowley left a wrong impression…that she later clarified on CNN. The problem was….60 million people saw her mistakenly accept that the president actually specifically said “Benhgazi” was a terroist attack”…which he clearly did not. 1 million saw her round table follow up where she admitted that while he did use the word terror, he didn’t actually relate that to Benghazi and that Romney actually had a point. Both things…as I said before..cannot be true at the same time. Then…she cut Romney off from going any further with it saying…I think we’ve settled this. She later said…she felt the fact that she acknowledged that the WH continued to use the meme of a spontaneous movie protest gone out of control for weeks was also true… somehow made up for it?? which it clearly did not.
weeks after the event to continue to push something that was known internally not to be true is not “the fog of war”. And his speech clearly shows that he was even early on delineating between “senseless acts” based on the video, and “Terror” that happened 2001.
Here’s what actually happened. Alqueda had been planning for months to strike sensitive targets and Benghazi was a soft spot and had been for a while…given they had little security. The ambassador knew this..and the St Dept knew this, and the intelligence community knew this. The president and joe Biden claim that they did not know this. Multiple requests were made to get better security that were refused at St Dept level to the point that the people were frustrated and angry.
The movie protests that began before 9/11 were convenient for them. Weapons were prepared including heavy weapons, a plan was put together and rehearsed…and the compound was “assaulted” and overwhelmed quickly killing everyone there.
This was a successful, pre-meditated terrorist attack by AlQueda on American soil, killing Americans. Despite his rhetoric, somebody dropped the ball, and we got “hit” again…on his watch. And the first ambassador killed in 30 years. When you hear the president acknowledge that…you let me know.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Hello Bees!
That is a really complex problem that you are handing me, there. You are asking me about the problem of unexploded ordinance such as old artillery shells and bombs that did not explode when they hit, and are still out there, buried in the ground, still dangerous? And unexploded land mines from old conflicts that are killing and wounding innocents today?
There is no easy answer.
There are so many different types of landmine out there, specifically designed not to be easily detected and neutralized, that finding them becomes a herculean and expensive task that no one really wants to pay for.
Designing explosives to become inert after a period of time will not work, either- the mechanisms might be built with a timer, but the explosives and detonators will still be there, waiting for someone to find them and misuse them. Or for some child to say, “What happens if I hit this thing sticking out here with a big rock?”
You cannot design the explosives or detonators to go chemically inert over time, either. A chemical reaction of the type needed would not operate on a strict schedule, but be of a half-life type, meaning this:
If you wanted the landmine or artillery shell to become inactive after say, one year, then the best that you could do would be to have the chemical deactivation timespan look like a bell curve, with half of them being inactive after one year, three-quarters inactive after two, and so on. (I’m really simplifying this). But this type of chemical design would mean that some would never become inactive, and others would become inactive within days of manufacture. Not good!
This is what Hillary Clinton was after when she wanted all firearm primers to “go bad” after a year, so that no one could stockpile ammunition. When a police officer pulled out her service weapon to shoot a bad guy, there would be, say, a 10% or more chance that it wouldn’t fire, depending on whether her ammunition was 1 week or 6 months old.
Sadly, Bees, there are no easy solutions, and for anyone to engage in soundbite commentary on a problem of this nature is despicable.
openid.aol.com/runnswim
I see you are trying to cover the failure as you always do try before on other topics,
but everyone in AMERICA KNOW THAT OBAMA IS SO DEDICATED ON THE MUSLIMS COUNTRIES,
HE is interested on every things about them, he send them billions of money also to stay connected,
the one who would be told first is him, because the rest of AMERICA ARE NOT THAT MUCH DEDICATED
TO THE MUSLIMS, ONLY OBAMA IS,
SO don’t try to give us a smoke screen to hide what he know by his friends in there who surely called him to described the real thing, except OBAMA was so surprise to have been stab in the back by his so call brotherhood friends, he could not take it. and retreat in places to be hidding, for the time it took,
while THE PEOPLE wanted to know the real story, HE REALIZE HE HAD FORSAKEN AMERICANS DOING A JOB WITHOUT ANY SECURITY WHICH THEY ASK FOR AND HAVE BEEN REFUSE MORE THAN ONCE, BECAUSE HE TRUSTED HIS FRIENDS MORE, THAN THE AMERICANS,
YOU SAY, THE PEOPLE WANT TO HANG HIM,
HE IS LUCKY TO LIVE IN AMERICA, OTHERWISE HE WOULD BE HANG,
petercat,
thank’s for that answer,,
remember I mention it should be a team work exploration of minds seeking to realize a solution into
a palpable gadget,USABLE BY ONE OR TWO PERSON ON THE SPOT AS THEY DETECT THE BOMB CLUSTER,
you have to agree it would be a great conversation piece, with the aim to come out with a positive
solution, not by one only but with one who would from what you gave me here,
expand to another level, then other chip in as soon as the visualize the potential,
even if some clue is missing then, but could be work with later,
like a if you would get an order to build a component which doesn’t exist yet,
okay, I have that question in my mind since the first WARRIOR got killed
IN AFGHANISTAN,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
You are correct, Bees. The best way to (begin to) solve this problem would be with teamwork. When civilized peoples like the USA, Russia, Great Britain and others lay minefields, they usually make and keep good maps showing exactly where the mines are. An international effort, with all governments cooperating, would be a good start.
Of course, it would be like herding cats.
For finding old stuff, however, the best answer has always been boots on the ground, moving very slowly and carefully. Not possible in many parts of the world where abandoned minefields are located.
Like the poor, we will always have these hellish devices with us.
Have any pundits or commenters remarked about Obama’s claim that he was ”offended,” by the idea that he might play politics over the Benghazi Embassy attack?
I simply bring it up because, in a debate,” saying, ”I’m offended,” is not a rebuttal.
If you listen carefully to Obama’s Rose Garden comment, his context for using the term ”terror” comes AFTER he has brought up the ORIGINAL 9-11-01 attack.
It can only be applied to Benghazi’s attack by twisting his words against all his (and his Administration’s) subsequent comments about the Benghazi attack’s relationship to ”the video.”
See, as I see it, Obama has a record.
Even in this Benghazi area, Obama has a record.
Romney forced Obama to face his record, and Obama didn’t like it.
Obama could have moved off the past and sketched out his plans for his next four years, but, other than staying the bad course we are already on, he didn’t.
Americans don’t like the course we are on.
Benghazi is a direct result of the course Obama has set us on.
According to Obama not ”offending” Muslims must be our foreign policy, no matter how many of us die trying to paint ourselves into THAT tiny corner.
@Nan G: The article just sounds like conservative spin to me.
@James Raider: Who takes responsibility for the millions of people killed, wounded, and displaced due to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over oil and pipelines? You?
@AdrianS: Additional security was request for Tripoli, not the Benghazi embassy.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity): Who voted to go to war there?? Also, they where acting on the intelligence at hand. Geeez your stupid!!
@Liberal1 (Objectivity): It is conservative for sure, obviously foreign to a wacho like you. I remember when Slick won the election with the phrase “It’s the Economy Stupid”. America needs to stay focused in this for sure.
Petercat
YES that would be hard to do,
thank you, again, I didn’t know the cluster bombs used in AFGHANISTAN, where falling into the same category
as the mines, the old ones,
because the IEDS cluster bombs ,the one I mean, are not old, they are still fabricated and planted in the ground as we speak, i suppose they are the same way use by the one who explode themselves to be their martyr suicide bozo
by the TALIBAN bragging it to be their best weapons,
I thought the mines where only one bigger bomb lay on land, not buried deep
I appreciate the info,
bye thank you
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
you need to change the batteries on your hearing aid.
@Ditto: #74
Ditto, we’re getting into a lot of legalities and if one gets missed it may change everything. While I agree with the quote above, you refer to the 1986 law which didn’t pass so left older machine guns legal. well, in actuality since they were already, at the time, still banned (technicality C&R could be owned by collectors) by the Federal law of 1934 the 1986 law had little consequence.
@Petercat: #77 thanks for the update. okay, so according to the Federal law you may only own that with a Class 3 license. basically stating that it is a collector’s item.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
And where is all this oil we are supposed to have from Iraq and Afghanistan? Heard this many times…but never shown any proof that it is true. Neither has anyone else who’s actually looked at it.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised
Lastly, according to the last study by Brown University…there have been 132,000 deaths from both wars over 10 years. Not “millions”. You are wrong on both counts. Do you have to just make stuff up?? Or are you getting all your “objective” information from Daily Kos?
Hi Dc. First, I want to thank you for the constructive, fact-based tone of your debate. You lay out the conservative side of the narrative. Here’s an equally fact-based, liberal side of the narrative, which I consider to be a highly convincing refutation of the conservative narrative.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/?mobile=nc
Rather than going around and around, arguing one narrative against the other, I want to step back and look at this, with a modicum of objective fairness and common sense.
Firstly, it’s very clear that someone screwed up. There was inadequate security for Ambassador Stevens. Given that security was a State Department responsibility and given that the State Department is part of the Executive Branch of Government, which is broadly part of the Obama administration, it’s correct to say that the Obama administration screwed up.
But the question here is — did the President himself screw up? Did the President, himself, intentionally try to mislead the American people as a cover-up?
I really think that the timeline and the facts described in the Think Progress link are an effective refutation of the cover-up charge.
Beyond that, it’s absurd to suggest that security and intelligence experts told Obama that more security was needed and he made the command decision to ignore this assessment. What on earth would be the motive for so doing? The fact that there may have been advance threats or intelligence chatter or whatever, which was considered at lower levels and felt to be not credible or exaggerated or (mistakenly) not worth bringing to the attention of Obama is not Obama’s fault. The fact that Obama isn’t trying to save his own skin by casting blame downstream (especially before a full investigation is complete) is praiseworthy, not worthy of condemnation.
In the run up to 9/11/2012, I’d think that there would be a surfeit of threats, around the globe. Were I in charge of terrorism and planning an attack somewhere, I’d try to give the impression that there were a surfeit of targets, around the globe, to lessen suspicions relating to the true target. This is basically what Eisenhower did to the Germans, in advance of the Normandy invasion.
Do you remember: “Bin Laden determined to strike in the USA?”
In retrospect, it’s damning. At the time, it’s part of a global chatter. Intelligence is always clear in retrospect.
It’s simply not credible that Obama would have been stupid enough to believe that he could fool the entire world in the cover up of the century, when hundreds of government employees and the army of the world’s mainstream and sidestream media, including Wikileaks, were on hand to keep him honest.
There’s a simple, common sense explanation, as outlined in the Think Progress timeline narrative, and there’s a partisan witch hunt conspiracy theory, hatched at a time when Romney was losing the election.
I think that I’ll just leave it at that.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Remember Obama’s bow to the Saudi king?
Remember Obama saying the morning call to Muslim prayer was the prettiest sound on earth?
Remember all of Obama’s apologies for America?
Leopards don’t change their spots.
Why would the Benghazi embassy be attacked UNLESS WE in the USA did something to ”offend” the attackers?
Thus the useful prop of a video.
Obama has been slow to drop this ruse, too.
Just yesterday the State Department was saying it STILL hadn’t ruled out that the video was the cause of the Benghazi attack!
Infidel people cannot paint themselves into small enough corners to NEVER ”offend” Muslims.
Justification for the original 9-11-01 included a laundry list of ”offenses.”
One of them was that Spain’s Christians had retaken that land from Islam.
Hundreds of years ago!
Try living in a corner THAT small!