Unfortunately, Barack the candidate and Barack the President are two different things. He rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. While sparring over that issue, he and Congress have both allowed our economy to deteriorate to its worst state since the Great Depression.
And don't get me started on Israel. Obama has managed to alienate our closest ally.
I'd vote for someone else, but Mitt Romney is an embarrassment. Not just as a GOP candidate, but as an American. His attempt to politicize the tragic murder of America's Ambassador to Libya tells me all I need to know about him. There comes a point when we should stop being Democrats or Republicans and start being Americans.
This is certainly no ringing endorsement of Obama or his policies. But Romney? In a country of 300 million people, is this the best we can do? If anything, this Hobson's choice tells me something is seriously wrong with our Presidential election process.
Updated 11 AM: Non-partisan FactCheck.Org makes clear that Romney's foreign policy criticisms are factually flawed. In addition to being unnecessarily divisive, he also happens to be just plain wrong.
89 comments:
Bernie -
Romney's comments were in response to the events in Cairo and made before the killings in Libya. They were in direct response to the pathetic statement coming out of the State Department in Egypt, which in effect gave an excuse for the actions of those attacking our embassy.
I can remember a time when an attack on our embassy would be considered an act of war, and our leaders would respond accordingly. In an ideal world, we'd have a leader that would realize the gravity of the situation and (at a minimum) would quickly condemn the incursion on US soil, pending further action.
Sadly, we don't have that kind of leadership right now, and will have to wait until November to make that change.
The direct effects of the Obama foreign policy were on display over the last day, with the very factions he helped put in place being the ones attacking our embassies and killing our diplomats. Despite a policy of appeasing those who want to destroy us, we are certainly not safer, and clearly not more loved or respected in the world.
That Obama and his surrogates spent more time condemning Romney than those responsible for the murders of innocent Americans tells me all I need to know about Obama. I'm tired of failure at home and abroad, so the only logical choice is Romney.
PS - How the heck does our President let our nation's guard down on the very day that commemorates the largest unprovoked attack on US soil? That's an obvious red alert day.
Now I realize people often have difficulty adjusting to and succeeding at their first real job, but perhaps the President needs to get off the campaign trail and actually put a few minutes of work in.
Mitttens Rommney,
"In your guts you know hes nuts".
He is still beholden to the extremeists teabaggers and in the end it will cost the Republicans the White House and some House seats.
People may not be happy but they don't want crazy.
"Hobson's Choice" is a great film, and I highly recommend it.
I don't discuss politics, so that's my contribution to this thread.
UT
"There comes a point when we should stop being Democrats or Republicans and start being Americans."
We passed that point long ago, I hope it happens soon.
@12:51 agree with you completely! That statement came via tweet no less. If the White House didn't know about the tweet then that scares me even more. There is no excuse for that lack of internal control especially in a place like the middle east
This election is about more than foreign policy. I am voting my wallet so much like other Americans. I am sick of paying for the rich to get richer and paying less (percentage wise) in taxes than I pay. This year, Republicans can go to hell. I'm voting Democrat. sign me.....a Senior Citizen
Bernie,
No matter who the Republican candidate was the main stream press would have vilified and impugned him/her to the point where conscientious voters such as yourself would be saying ,"yes but (fill in the blank)how could I vote for that person.
Look past the press portrayal and their jaundiced view of any Republican.
Scott Armstrong
"No matter who the Republican candidate was the main stream press would have vilified and impugned him/her to the point where conscientious voters such as yourself would be saying ,"yes but (fill in the blank)how could I vote for that person.
Look past the press portrayal and their jaundiced view of any Republican.
Scott Armstrong"
that's true. just look at the way the press vilified Laura Bush for killing a man, in the run-up to his first election.
Oh...wait...
Yes, by all means vote for the candidate who has cut almost a TRILLION from Medicare; didn't authorize a social security COLA until an election year; has given a tax holiday for a portion of what gets paid into the social security "Trust Fund"; and added TRILLIONS to the amount that your children and grandchildren have to pay back.
I could continue, but I doubt that you are really a senior citizen. If you are, I am certain that math is not your strong point.
I think Obama will win. We've reached a point where a majority of citizens have no skin in the game. They are going to vote themselves more and more of the wealth of the minority.
"I am sick of paying for the rich to get richer and paying less (percentage wise) in taxes than I pay" what a crock. half don;t pay anything at all. The "rich" already pay 90% of everything.
I weep for the country as these morons cast teir ote.
morons who cast teir ote?
And can't spell?
Is it bad to be freaked out that Mitt Romney had five grandparents and his family fled the US for two generations because they refused to accept the Mormom church making polygamy illegal? If gay marriage is such a political issue why isn't multiple wives? Will we have more than one First Lady at the same time? Not in the budget.
"His attempt to politicize the tragic murder of America's Ambassador to Libya..."
What a load of shit from a John Edwards/Joe Brennan apologist and cheerleader.
You haven't a drop of Romney's dignity. The State Department kept apologizing all day. The president played golf through another national security briefing. And you, with your personal story that is the equivalent of a flaming trainwreck carrying infected shit have the nerve to make a false, flip assessment of Romney. Go forge more signatures and feign a public pennance replete with the affect of minority grandchildren and a concern for others. You're a piece of shit with appalling judgement. Your real offspring are ashamed of you.
Romney's dignity, seriously..This guy is pathetic..Everything he touches goes to hell. He cant open his mouth without putting his foot in it.. In regard to foreign policy , he's completely clueless and that, my friend, is dangerous..As far as Obamacare goes I would have preferred a public option or single payer like the majority of Americans did. However, the Republicans filibustered all attempts at that and we ended up with Obamacare. However, getting 30 million folks health insurance that didnt have it before , doesnt sound like a failure to me...Not allowing insurance companies to refuse to insure those with pre existing conditions sounds good to me. I could go on but the point is , the only choice in this election is Obama..Romney's running to make the rich richer and I think we've seen enough of that..
It's 1979 all over again.
It's been Marty McFly time in this country for the past four years because we've already lived it in the late 70s with the lousy economy and out of touch administration.
An embassy attack, feckless Presidential response...yep, been there, done that, got that t-shirt.
Romney will win this election and I don't believe it's going to be close. Similar to Obama, people "liked" Jimmy Carter but they knew he just wasn't up to the job.
You can call "insuring those with a pre-existing condition" a lot of things, but it ain't insurance.
Maybe insurance companies should also be forced to provide "insurance" for buildings that are already on fire.
In both cases, the approach is out of touch with economic reality and guaranteed to destroy the private system.
While I disagree with Bernie's characterization of Romney and support of Obama, I don't think this kind of personal attack is helpful or likely to win anyone over.
We've got two months to convince Bernie (and others) that Romney is the better candidate. We've also got overwhelming evidence on our side.
Personal attacks are the democrat's tactic. Let's put our best case forward and make sure that a majority of voters aren't fooled again with false promises of hope from Obama.
so, Anon 8:00 AM: you agree with 7:16's point, you just don't like his spelling?
"No matter who the Republican candidate was the main stream press would have vilified and impugned him/her to the point where conscientious voters such as yourself would be saying ,"yes but (fill in the blank)how could I vote for that person."
That's certainly true. They have been in the tank for Obama. But there are some Rs I could easily support, like Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels.
Barack Hussein Obama?
AGAIN?
Got 16 trillion dollars of debt?
Got a budget?
Got a freakin' clue?
Ha ha.
Our international guard is down and actually stood down by this administration. Our Ambassador was assassinated and other Americans killed by terrorists and we apologize. Not to mention our soverign soil being overrun and attacked. Epic failure of leadership IMHO. The diplomatic rhetoric that is being spewed is shameful in light of the sacrifices of those who served this country in the past and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. BTW, where are the US Marines in protecting our embassies? Have they been stood down? Many questions that need to be answered and all I hear are crickets.
@12:51 Then you can remember when our fine young United States Marines were killed by a terrorists bomb in Lebanon and President Reagan pulled our troops and the 7th Fleet out of the region. Right?
0-bama is a joke.
The whole world knows it, too.
0-bama MUST be re-elected, though.
Because not enough Americans are on food stamps yet.
How has that HOPE & CHANGE been working out for YOU?
Honest question from new Lehigh Valley transplant---is Scott Armstrong a Mormon?
Thanks?
Romney was and is right to criticize the collapse of Obama's foreign policy relative to the Middle East. We have arrived at 1979 again. The blood of that wonderful diplomat is on Obama's hands. He failed to secure our diplomats, just like Carter. The only surprise is that it didn't happen sooner. Obama wants a more humble America. So did Jimmy Carter. So did Woodrow Wilson. As a default position, t:hey believed we were the bad guy :in international affairs. This is never good for free people who don't slaughter innocents on the pretense of a movie they don't like. Jefferson studied the Koran to understand the Islamic culture. The pacifist president who decommissioned the Navy was alarmed and formed the US Marines to deal with Barbary pirates. History repeats and repeats.
8:11, Instead of attacking me anonymously, try attacking what I say. Instead of rolling around the floor, foaming at the mouth, you need to take a drug cocktail. Or two.
Even if I agreed with your characterization of the 1983 event (which I likely don't), you're comparing two vastly different things.
The 9/11/12 events occurred at our embassies in Cairo and Libya. That's US soil by definition and an act of war if they are attacked.
Even if you're point was correct, are you trying to excuse what happened the other day and our pathetic response to it? I don't remember Reagan's State Department apologizing for being there.
Well, not sure what you'll do now..if Romney out because he "politicized" this incident, how can you support Obama who did the same thing in '08:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/barack-obama-used-troop-deaths-to-ding-bush-mccai
Frankly, I am rather alarmed that all the discussion today is about Romney and how he reacted....there was a time in the not so distant past that such an action against a US Embassy was considered an act of war...an invasion of sovereign US property...now we issue some meaningless statements, and complain that the guy who is not President is not reacting appropriately.
Obama is the first president to not offer the opposition party's candidate security briefings - not that Obama attends these either.
He's a nice guy and a real shitty prez. It happens.
Bernie -
Is this true about the security briefings?
I don't think much of Obama as President, but even I can't believe he'd deny security briefings if that was the standard practice.
Could it be that the briefings are only offered after the election (assuming the challenger wins)?
Senior Citizen
You might want to do the math on the big numbers. Let's say Romney makes 20M multiple by 15% and golly gee you come up with a $3M tax bill. Do you pay $3M
The Media's reaction to the Obama/Romney statements about the embassy attacks has really been amazing. The attacks began and the government (Obama) reaction was to apologize to Muslims for the content of the film as if it was produced by our Government. We can debate whether this effort to calm things by simplifying things was the right reaction, but it's undeniable that an alternative would have been to strongly defend free speech and emphasize that the opinion of the filmmakers did not reflect that of the US Government or people. This was not the reaction of the Obama Administration, and is exactly what Romney was criticizing.
Romney took Obama to task for that decision, just as the attacks escalated and the Ambassador was killed, and without knowledge of the severity of the incidents. However, since that time, the media has fallen all over itself to point out that the initial conciliatory messages from the government (Obama) came out before the situation worsened, but has crucified Romney for making his statments without noting the same thing in his case. This was a fast moving event that was not forseen, and reactions to it by everybody fell behind events pretty quickly. However, only one side (Obama) is being given the benefit of the doubt in this case.
It happens again and again with news reporting, and yet for some reason it amazes me every time that it occurs and that the vast majority of people aren't smart enough to see the obvious.
Ah Chris, Mittens himself admitted he never payed more than 13% in taxes. The wealthy know how to shield what we call "income" and make it a different reenue stream not taxed like wages.
Just though you ought to know.
@11:51
No. Regans State Dept was too busy getting weapons to Iran at the time.
Thanks Cap!
On the security briefings from the WaPo:
About the same time, the Republican National Committee and prominent Republicans such as Dick Cheney and John McCain threw another faulty bit of plumbing at Obama: that the president “does not attend his daily intelligence meeting” more than half the time, in contrast to George W. Bush, who “almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.” This claim was the work of former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who writes a weekly online column for The Washington Post.
In reality, Obama didn’t “attend” these meetings, because there were no meetings to attend: The oral briefings had been mostly replaced by daily exchanges in which Obama reads the materials and poses written questions and comments to intelligence officials. This is how it was done in the Clinton administration, before Bush decided he would prefer to read less. Bush’s results — Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and the failure to find Osama bin Laden — suggest this was not an obvious improvement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-mitt-romneys-bucket-brigade/2012/09/12/1aa4fde0-fd2c-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Again, what you think Reagan did or didn't do 30 years ago is irrelevant. We're living in the present.
I realize that you have no defense for Obama's incompetence and need to change the subject, but the rest of us are talking about what's going on now.
The main point here should be that Obama is thrashing Romney so badly in Pa. that the draft dodging Mittster took all his ads and ran out of Pa. So if you're a teabagger from Pa. you might as well stop spewing your fox propaganda crap. It's a waste of time..he's toast in Pa. He's toast in USA..Despite all the billionairre dollars and the pathetic voter ID laws, and Fox's 24 hr a day cheerleading, the Mittster is toast, ha ha ha
Sorry fleabagger. Mitt beats the amateur (Clinton's description of Barry) by 4-6 points. Stop drinking frack water and realize that PA doesn't matter in Mitt's victory. Get your ID out, asshole. Felons and illegals wont help the Kenyan this time. Get the balls out of your eyes.
Barack Hussein Obama: unsuccessfully groveling for peace since 2009
Mitt is a real man with real man hair and a real man name. Mitt served his country risking his life in hostile France saving souls for the LDS.
Mitt understands what it's like to but in a fair days work for a fair days pay.
Mitt is a man faithful to his credo and never waffles or flip flops.
Mitt is a humble, American hero who can relate to you and me dear reader. Mitt is no commie or hommo. Mitt is the man for today's America .
Bernie,
How do you think you would feel about candidate Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels now if they were subjected to the same mocking, nonstop assault on their character, motives, intelligence, and personal history, that mitt Romney has experienced at the hands of the main stream media? Meanwhile the incumbent president is not only immune from press scrutiny he is actually protected by the media.
Remember how four years ago some wide eyed Republicans thought with John McCain as a presidential candidate the press would give us an even shake. Many knew better and sure enough as soon as he won the nomination they turned on him and gave him the usual Republican/bad guy treatment.
Mitt Romney was the most moderate serious contender for the nomination. He is a straight arrow, very smart and successful, and apparently a very gracious, generous, and caring man. And according to the press, exactly the wrong type of man we need leading the country.
Scott Armstrong
Scott, please share with us all the "things" the press is protecting Obama from. I wopuld be interested to know exacxtly what the "smoking gun" is that the mainstream media is hiding.
Please, not the one that he was born in a town called Hawaii in Kenya, we have all heard that one already.
Tell us what the really big story is.
Good article Bernie! Obama wins easy. Hopefully some level headed and politicians w common sense also enter Congress in 2013 so we can help our Nation out of the hole and start making progress with our Great Society!
I consider myself as a pragmatist and we need more of them!
Good article Bernie! Obama wins easy. Hopefully some level headed and politicians w common sense also enter Congress in 2013 so we can help our Nation out of the hole and start making progress with our Great Society!
I consider myself as a pragmatist and we need more of them!
Although I hate to sound racist, bottom line is the election will be won by the candidate getting the black and hispanic vote. They are now the majority in our country and will vote for policies most advantageous to them. Just as I would for those advocating policies that help me. Fairly simple to figure how that will end up.
Ummm.. Bill Clinton!
I love the way Scott defends the Mittster.
Scott you are so cool. I love you man.
YOU are the man dude!
I love the way Scott defends the Mittster.
Scott you are so cool. I love you man.
YOU are the man dude!
Anon.5:54,
Please, no serious observer disputes the partisan role the media/press play in politics today.
Scott Armstrong
Your right Scott. Just look at the free ride W got in the pathetic lead-up to the disastrous Iraq war.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, anyone?
Yo Scott, pick up a copy of Noam Chomsky's
"Manufacturing Consent".
I know your a lot smarter than him---- but check it out. You can write a piece on Bernies blog about it.
Clinton is my man, too, Bernie. We did fine economically with him as president.
Yep. We were going gangbusters when he was at the helm.
Scott you right wing-ding conservatives are such victims and whiners. " the press doesn't like us.... Wahaaaaa!"
Maybe that's why the Supremes gave you the presidency you didn't win in Bush Vs Gore.
I wouldn't worry to much Scott. Somehow the rich and powerful you shill for always seem to find a way to get by.
God bless that dear man Charles Snelling.
Rest in peace my conservative friend. You will be missed.
Get Monica back and maybe we can get Bill.
I hear you Scott, ever watch
Fox News?
Jake
Civil rights were "rammed down the throats" too. As will "gay marriage".
It's called progress. We STILL haven't caught up with the rest of the world in healthcare availability. That's a national disgrace.
Clinton allowed banks to run wild in exchange for expansion of the CRA. It gave mortgages to those who couldn't afford them and big mortgages to those who could only afford small ones. He developed the wall of separation that led to the 9/11 intelligence breakdown. He treated international terrorism like a domestic police matter and failed to heed the admonishments of those tried for the 1993 WTC building.
Obama didn't inherit Bush's mess. Obama and Bush inherited Clinton's mess. He left office with an economy in its third month of recession.
The rehabilitation of the Horny Hick's reputation is remarkable. He was a very dangerous president and we're paying for his term now.
The most disappointing thing about this election season is the lack of truth and real analysis. There are definitely legitimate things that Obama can be criticized on, but those things don't include the socialism and muslim critiques that come from the right. It's those very accusations that cloud the political debate such that legitimate criticism can't be lodged against Obama hence giving him cover. For example, the recent killing of the Libyan ambassador comes on the heels of seven months of bombing by the administration to support Al qaeda terrorists we effectively hired to overthrow Ghaddafi. Obama didn't seek nor get congressional approval for that action and the republican party said nothing. This set up the preconditions that resulted in Steven's death who was actually sent to Libya to help the rebels. But we can't talk about that can we? No, it's much easier to call the guy a socialist. Obama has extended the assault on social liberties far worst than Bush under the National Defense Authorization Act, yet no republican outcry about that---and none from so-called liberals for that matter either. Obama has done way more drone bombing and targeted assassinations than Bush ever dreamed of, yet no outcry from the republicans-----or the so called liberals on that one either. It's seems the political debate in the country has simply lurched toward the irrelevant and untrue which in effect blocks a true evaluation of Obama or our failing political system in general.
Israel is not the 51st state and plenty of people in the defense establishments here in the US as well as in Israel don't want war with Iran. So, Netanyahu doesn't even have support in his own country yet he comes here to press the US to support a military action against Iran on his timetable. On it's face, that's BS. Moreover, Israel (and the US) has been conducting a war against Iran with assassination of their scientists, hacking into their computer systems and hitting them with economic sanctions----things that both we and they would consider acts of war if some other nation did that to us. Yet another thing we can't talk about (and overseen by Obama) without indicting our meddlesome foreign policy. The issue with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons but has plenty to do with oil as we attempt to keep the petrodollar system alive. Both Israel and the US want this---just a slight disagreement over timing. In the meanwhile our nation suffers for want of a true debate/discussion of the real issues.
Romney foreign policy views = Dent's foreign policy views.
Both are right.
"Israel is not the 51st state..."
You are correct. Obama claims to have visited all 57 or 58 states and he's never visited Israel.
>>You are correct. Obama claims to have visited all 57 or 58 states and he's never visited Israel.<<
Is visiting Israel some sort of litmus test? Doesn't continuing to dole out billions of US taxpayer dollars count for something? Hell, with 90% of the congress being bought by AIPAC and the rest of the Israeli lobby, Obama and any other president has ready surrogates to go in their stead anyway. To hell with paying homage to that nation.
I find it amazing how some of you people can rail about cutting welfare and spending, but don't have peep to say about a foreign nation who's at the taxpayer financed trough and does absolutely nothing to help us but does more to harm us. The top nation we have to worry about spying on us is indeed Israel.
The sooner we cut these leeches off and let them get by on their own, the better. But again, we can't talk about that can we?
As far as I'm concerned, the one thing I do support Obama on his his snub of Netanyahu. He's been the only one with the balls to do that. Far more needs to be done to distance ourselves from them.
@ 6:51, we give the same amount of aid to egypt, and they attack our embassy and burn our flag, but at least they're not jews.
"@ 6:51, we give the same amount of aid to egypt, and they attack our embassy and burn our flag, but at least they're not jews."
Typical knee jerk response. Any criticism of Israel is anti semitic. Funny how that doesn't cover all semites like the Arabs.
Our "ally" Israel is the top threat for spying on us. Our "ally" Israel deliberately sunk the USS Liberty and our "ally" has done nothing but pushed us into wars in the middle east where they do none of the dying but get most of the benefit. We don't need friends like this. Ending this "friendship" would do wonders for how America is perceived all over the world not to mention saving billions of aid they get. All foreign aid everywhere needs to be cut, we can't afford it anyway.
It is time that Americans come to know the truth about this situation and there are few politicians with the independence to speak up, but increasingly people are waking up. As that occurs, notwithstanding attempts to control perceptions through the press, Israel will be increasingly seen for what it is----an apartheid state sustaining itself on the backs of US taxpayers. They are not the 51st state and it's damn high time that they be cut off and fiend for themselves. That move alone would force them to pursue the all elusive peace in the middle east that they've never wanted.
@8:13, i didn't call you anti-semitic, i call you a jew hater. fyi, our wars with iraq had nothing to do with israel, and not one u.s. soldier ever fought in israel's defensive wars, but rant on....
8:13, Fascinating to learn that we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan at the request of Israel. I thought it was to get al-Qaeda. Silly me. Also, whether Israel deliberately or mistakenly sunk the USS Liberty, in the height of the 6-day war, is very much disputed. Frankly, the venom coming from you does make me wonder whether you are anti-Semitic.
"@8:13, i didn't call you anti-semitic, i call you a jew hater. fyi, our wars with iraq had nothing to do with israel, and not one u.s. soldier ever fought in israel's defensive wars, but rant on"
Thanks and if you don't mind,I think will rant on. It's a well know fact that the war with Iraq had its genesis with neo cons and Israel firsters right at the outset pushing us into that war with an accusation of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The same thing is being attempted now with Iran with the same basic lie. In the meantime, Israel itself has 200 nuclear warheads which it refuses to either confirm or allow anyone to inspect.
Israel by far is the largest recipient of US foreign aid:
"Israel has been, by far, the largest recipient of US foreign aid anywhere in the world. Since the inception of Israel’s close diplomatic relationship with the US all the way through 2008, Americans gave Israel over $103 billion, according to the American Educational Trust.
President Barack Obama in late 2009 approved an additional $2.77 billion for Israeli foreign aid in 2010, and another $30 billion over the next decade.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/27/time-foreign-aid-israel-we-anymore-sen-paul-warns/
http://ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html
Israel wars have been about offense not defense. The six day war was provoked mainly to annex more land just as it's provoking Iran today and attempting to drag this nation into it.
Yeah, I know I'm just a damn jew hater for even bringing all of this up. It's much easier to call names rather than come up with facts isn't it? That's par for the course with these sorts of discussions---call names and generally confuse the situation. That won't work here. You're better off stopping while you're ahead.
"8:13, Fascinating to learn that we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan at the request of Israel. I thought it was to get al-Qaeda. Silly me. Also, whether Israel deliberately or mistakenly sunk the USS Liberty, in the height of the 6-day war, is very much disputed. Frankly, the venom coming from you does make me wonder whether you are anti-Semitic. "
Actually, no venom here at all, but let's fact check you by asking a question. Was Al Qaeda ever found in Iraq? Or did you get caught up in the lie that it was?
Funny, it seems that I remember that the Iraq war was generally viewed as a mistake. No weapons of mass destruction and no Al Qaeda. Where are you getting your information?
About the USS Liberty:
NEW YORK – On the fourth day of the 1967 Arab Israeli War, the intelligence ship 'USS Liberty' was steaming slowly in international waters, 14 miles off the Sinai Peninsula. Israeli armored forces were racing deep into Sinai in hot pursuit of the retreating Egyptian army.
'Liberty,' a World War II freighter, had been converted into an intelligence vessel by the top-secret US National Security Agency, and packed with the latest signals and electronic interception equipment. The ship bristled with antennas and electronic 'ears' including TRSSCOMM, a system that delivered real-time intercepts to Washington by bouncing a stream of microwaves off the moon.
At 0800 hrs, 8 June, 1967, eight Israeli recon flights flew over 'Liberty,' which was flying a large American flag. At 1400 hrs, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the American vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks lasted 20 minutes, concentrating on the ship's electronic antennas and dishes. The 'Liberty' was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle.
At 1424 hrs, three Israeli torpedo boats attacked, raking the burning 'Liberty' with 20mm and 40mm shells. At 1431hrs an Israeli torpedo hit the 'Liberty' midship, precisely where the signals intelligence systems were located. Twenty-five more Americans died.
Israeli gunboats circled the wounded 'Liberty,' firing at crewmen trying to fight the fires. ...
The Israeli attacks killed 34 US seamen and wounded 171 out of a crew of 297, the worst loss of American naval personnel from hostile action since World War II....
Surviving 'Liberty' crew members would not be silenced. They kept demanding an open inquiry and tried to tell their story of deliberate attack to the media. Israel's government worked behind the scenes to thwart these efforts, going so far as having American pro-Israel groups accuse 'Liberty's' survivors of being 'anti-Semites' and 'Israel-haters.' Major TV networks cancelled interviews with the crew. A book about the 'Liberty' by crewman James Ennes' was dropped from distribution. The Israel lobby branded him 'an Arab propagandist.'
.... The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html
As I've said, whether the USS Liberty was sunk intentionally or by accident is very much at issue. Citing one link does not resolve this question. Anyone who does the research via Google will quickly discover that your assertion is flawed. If you cannot concede this minor point, I suspect that much of everything else you say is flawed.
A rebuttal takes far more than an mere assertion that facts presented are flawed. Similarly, calling someone names like jew hater (you didn't do that, but Molinsky did) doesn't a rebuttal make. A flawed assertion is generally overcome with a better set of facts. I don't see where you've done that.
While we're talking about flawed assertions, I noticed that you've seemed to skip over my questions on your assertion regarding the Iraq war where I fact checked you. Are you willing to concede that point?
10:20, A rebuttal, as you call it, is simply typing the words "USS Liberty" in the google search engine. You will see numerous accounts establishing clearly that it is by no means clear what exactly happened. I think it's pretty effective. I could spread numerous links here, but I think you get the point. Your assertion is flawed. Yet for some reason, you are unwilling to concede on even a rather minor point where you are clearly mistaken. Thus there is no logical reason to accept anything else you are saying.
Israel wars have been about offense not defense. The six day war was provoked mainly to annex more land just as it's provoking Iran today and attempting to drag this nation into it.
Israel conquered the sinai, gaza and the west bank during the war. they returned the sinai to egypt for recognition of their right to exist. the sinai is five times larger than israel itself. during their tenure as owners they developed the red sea resort which attracts more tourists than the pyramids, and discovered gas in the sinai, enough to supply israel's energy for 100 years, yet they gave it all up just for recognition. they also returned gaza to the palestinians, to get thousands of rockets shot at israel in return. the west bank is a long story, but for the most part, now under palestinian control. iran promises to wipe israel off the map, and you say that israel is provoking iran?
Bernie--
And not withstanding your google searches you still can't present a rebuttal offering what is not clear? If you want to clearly establish something is flawed, you're going to have to do far better than merely saying it's flawed. You have to prove it's flawed rather than take the easy way out. Since you've not done that,there's nothing to concede.
However, you continue to evade my questions on the Iraq war where you clearly made a flawed assertion. So rather than my assertions being questionable, your failure to concede the point on this error raises the question about whether the balance of your own comments on anything are legitimate as a result of this one error. That's a pretty broad brush isn't it? If you don't want to get painted with one, don't paint me with one.
Dude, Go to Google. Type USS Liberty and search. You will find literally hundreds of articles from which it is clear that what happened to USS Liberty is unclear. I am not going to go down the list and provide link after link. It is overwhelming. ou are being a sophist instead of recognizing reality for that reason, I decline to debate you until you concede your error.
"Dude, Go to Google. Type USS Liberty and search."
In other words, go do your work for you? Now this is a new one for me. Make an assertion and then turn around and rebut myself...
I hate to keep bringing this up, but would you mind conceding the point on Iraq so we can at least get that out the the way?
"iran promises to wipe israel off the map, and you say that israel is provoking iran?"
Who has been assassinating Iranian scientists? Who has been the author of computer worms to sabotage their nuclear plants? Why does Israel need nuclear weapons and why are they undeclared and not subject to the same sort of inspection that they demand of Iran? Last question: do you have the exact reference to the quote where Iran says it would like to wipe Israel off the map?
MM is an unapologetic Zionist. In such cases, all actions are justified.
"MM is an unapologetic Zionist. In such cases, all actions are justified."
It would appear to be so. Be that as it may, but he, nor his sidekick Bernie, are entitled to their own mythologies without being required to back them up. When confronted with that, the usual course is to name call or to pull some underhanded stunt like Bernie has attempted. When they leave with their panties in a bunch refusing to debate, I realize that's all they're left with and I just put another one in the victory column.
@7:46, your victory column of hate and misrepresentation? i suggest you consult a map, israel obviously has no "expansion" ambitions toward iran. it is being forced into defensive action, for which it will pay a price, to prevent a future nuclear attack. this concludes my dialogue with a hater.
I think you are looking for an excuse to vote for Obama.
"this concludes my dialogue with a hater."
LOL! Actually, you were "concluded" a few posts back before you even got started. Feel free to get your panties in bunch and run for the hills. Zionists like you always prefer slogans and name calling to debate. That's all you bring and when dealing with someone like me, that will always be apparent.
I concluded my dialogue with this hater last night. You can't have a logical discussion with persons like him.
"You can't have a logical discussion with persons like him"
Are you guys gonna leave me with the last word? Oh my!
If your "logic" is exhibited by your misunderstanding of the reasons we went to war in Iraq, that would explain why you can't engage in these sorts of discussions. You can always establish logic by putting forth a fact based argument. Similarly, you can expose poor logic with the same tactic. You nor your buddy Molinsky have done that.
You see, facts don't care about your emotions or your mythology. When you can't overcome them, the "cover" is to leave in a huff claiming that someone is a hater or illogical. That's called transference.
You can have your opinions, just be aware that I'll challenge them. That's as it should be, so you may find yourself in leaving in a huff or not speaking to me frequently. That's what you'll be left with.
We should invade the MiddleEast before they threaten Israel and the US. with a nuke. Here's the benefits:
The economy- We now have cheap oil
Terroism- Al Queda operatives now dead
Israel- Their enemies are mitigated and our #1 ally is safe.
MUSLIMS HATE AMERICANS .always have.we need to accept that fact. Appeasement is not the answer.
Military force is.
"MUSLIMS HATE AMERICANS .always have.we need to accept that fact. Appeasement is not the answer.
Military force is."
Just sign up and go.
Send you children too.
your stated benefits are lies too.
Post a Comment