my take on election

[dustinf]

I stand corrected on Egypt. The contracts were suspended, but have since resumed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/w...ted-states-aid-to-egypt-is-restored.html?_r=0

 

[dustinf]

Again I don't really care but the flood of U.S. made or purchased arms to Egypt, Libya and most likely Syria has not abated under Obama, period.

Nemont

Then why is Romney attacking him for not providing arms?

 

[Nemont]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/?page=all

An article on what was supplied in Libya.

So as long as we ask the Saudi's to arm them I guess al qaeda can't use Saudi supplied weaponry to kill Americans?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html

The fact is that we covertly provided arms and funding to Libyan rebels, we are covertly providing arms and funding to groups in Syria through our NATO ally Turkey.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330


Again parse it how you want but we are having Saudi Arabia and Qatar do our heavy lifting in arms sales.

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

Then why is Romney attacking him for not providing arms?

Is this your first election?

Why is Obama attacking Romney for being rich? Why is Rehberg attacking Tester for "voting with Obama"? Why is Romney attacking Obama over the Benghazi attack?

It is what passes for politics in this country.

Nemont

 

[dustinf]

It is what passes for politics in this country.

That was my point.

 

[Nemont]

That was my point.

So you agree that we armed Libyan rebels and are already covertly providing arms to the Syrian opposition and continue to send arms to Egypt?

Nemont

 

[rhomas]

Also, don't forget the 1 billion dollar debt the Obama administration just forgave the Egyptian Government. Obama and NATO armed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, Romney at least has stated that he supports arming Syrian opposition that has been verified as being friendly to the US...........unlike the Muslim Brotherhood which supports Al Quida.

 

[Nemont]

rhomas,

Most of your facts are inaccurate as well.

Romney has remade himself so many times that even he doesn't know what he believes.

Nemont

 

[dustinf]

So you agree that we armed Libyan rebels and are already covertly providing arms to the Syrian opposition and continue to send arms to Egypt?

Nemont

No. I'll agree that Romney is rich.

 

[Nemont]

No. I'll agree that Romney is rich.

And that is a bad thing?

Tell me how you think we have not armed the Egyptians or the Libyan Rebels? How do you think the Syrian opposition have got their hands on Stinger shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles? I highly doubt they came from the 35 year old Afghan stock of missiles.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

And that is a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing. Not at all. The policies he wants to continue and expand will only help him, and the rest of those who have wealth accumulated, but will do little to help create new wealth, or even help the working class.That's a bad thing.

 

[Nemont]

It's not a bad thing. Not at all. The policies he wants to continue and expand will only help him, and the rest of those who have wealth accumulated, but will do little to help create new wealth, or even help the working class.That's a bad thing.

That wasn't the context of the question or the answer.

Didn't President Obama continue all the Bush tax cuts for the entire four years of his presidency? Why is it okay for Obama to follow those tax rates but it is going to be bad under Romney?

I don't think either candidate much cares about what will create new wealth or help the working class. We could tax the rich at Bill Clinton rates and that would cover about 9% of the current deficit. I say go for it but that means to close the gap the other 91% of the deficit has to come from somewhere and the rich can certainly pay more but the fact is that everyone is going to have to not only take less but expect less. Which candidate is telling people to change their expectations of what the government can or even should provide. Neither.

Nemont

 

[dustinf]

Tell me how you think we have not armed the Egyptians or the Libyan Rebels? How do you think the Syrian opposition have got their hands on Stinger shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles?

We did not arm the Libyan rebels, we gave them non-lethal supplies, and $25 million. We stopped arming the Egyptian government while it was in transition, now that they have a new democratic government in place, we have started filling their contracts. I'll admit, filling the contracts again was an election-year political move to save domestic jobs.

Who the hell knows what's going on in Syria, but I think the stingers were from Turkey.

 

[noharleyyet]

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102312.php3#.UI7FHsVG-f4

Libya and Lies

By Thomas Sowell



It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was "offended" by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?

Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States -- followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.

Remember his pledge to have a "transparent" government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an ObamaCare bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.

Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations -- and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?

As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an "investigation" under way. An "on-going investigation" sounds so much better than "stonewalling" to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this "investigation" will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.

The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of September 11th were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, "in real time," as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming "investigation" to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.

The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But, as someone once said, you don't need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten. And you don't need to know every detail of the events before, during and after the attacks to know that the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.

The administration's initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barack Obama's much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.

To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating President Obama's supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that Al Qaeda was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.

Osama bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan's Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.

Nobody tried to depict President Franklin D. Roosevelt as some kind of hero for having simply authorized the killing of Yamamoto. In that case, the only hero who was publicized was the man who shot down the plane that Yamamoto was in.

Yet the killing of Osama bin Laden has been depicted as some kind of act of courage by President Obama. After bin Laden was located, why would any President not give the go-ahead to get him?

That took no courage at all. It would have been far more dangerous politically for Obama not to have given the go-ahead. Moreover, Obama hedged his bets by authorizing the admiral in charge of the operation to proceed only under various conditions.

This meant that success would be credited to Obama and failure could be blamed on the admiral -- who would join George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and other scapegoats for Obama's failure

.

 

[Nemont]

We did not arm the Libyan rebels, we gave them non-lethal supplies, and $25 million. We stopped arming the Egyptian government while it was in transition, now that they have a new democratic government in place, we have started filling their contracts. I'll admit, filling the contracts again was an election-year political move to save domestic jobs.

Who the hell knows what's going on in Syria, but I think the stingers were from Turkey.

We stood in front of the UN general assembly and stated that arming the Libyan rebels was allowed under the resolution, we then asked Saudi Arabia and Qatar to send money, weapons and supplies so that there could be deniable plausibility, Neither country would have overtly supplied the Libyans if we had not only given them the political cover but also guaranteed the payments.

The democratically elected government in Egypt is made up mostly of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Check out how many Al Qaeda leaders first belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Do you believe that the Obama administration acted in the best interest of America to continue to send arms to Egypt just to help get the President reelected? If that is acceptable to you I am curious where you draw a line? Getting elected by any means appears to be acceptable to you.

The Stingers, if they came from Turkish weapons depots, would have to had an American wink and nod to allow them to leave Turkish control. Remember Turkey is a NATO ally which means that it cannot simply decide to turn over or sell American made military equipment without us being in the loop.

It is obvious that you believe Obama is the better choice to lead the country, that is fine by me but the facts are that he has not stopped the flow of American made weapons to the middle east. In addition if he is simply filling contracts to send arms to erstwhile ally's who have ties to radical Islamist just to get elected then you may wish to reconsider your support.

I am not voting for either as neither has the gonads to lead this country where it needs to go.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

That wasn't the context of the question or the answer.

Didn't President Obama continue all the Bush tax cuts for the entire four years of his presidency? Why is it okay for Obama to follow those tax rates but it is going to be bad under Romney?

Yes he did, but it's more nuanced than that, right? calling for an extension of the tax cuts for the middle class while allowing them to expire for the upper class is different than saying that he's just following bush's lead. Plus, when you have a congress that's dead set on not doing anything productive, it's tough for any president to get anything done.

While I have grave concerns about Obama's ability to be the next Clinton, and actually lead this nation in a forceful and dynamic manner, I have more trepidation about Romney and Ryan dismantling the social contract in favor of more tax cuts for Exxon Mobil.

As you very rightly point out, there's no candidate to get excited about, so it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils. Or Ralph Nader.

The incredibly disturbing thing I see here is that folks who lean conservative would kill an outdoor economy that's thriving to prove a point that Obama is the devil.

I don't think either candidate much cares about what will create new wealth or help the working class. We could tax the rich at Bill Clinton rates and that would cover about 9% of the current deficit. I say go for it but that means to close the gap the other 91% of the deficit has to come from somewhere and the rich can certainly pay more but the fact is that everyone is going to have to not only take less but expect less. Which candidate is telling people to change their expectations of what the government can or even should provide. Neither.

110% with you.

 

[Mule Deer]

Mule Deer, where are you from?....sure hope your fellow statesmen don't pull the blue handle.

Are you paid to blog hunt sites?

Nice 2 post intro but welcome anyway.

I have been looking through this forum for a while, but these posts bugged me.

Welfare and food stamps arent breaking the US. 2 unfunded wars are.

Yes, Im a hunter and I guess I lean democrat, although I think of myself more a independent. I don't understand the whole I hunt, I use a gun so I have to be republican. It doesn't even make much sense in the grand scheme of it all.

 

[Nemont]

Welfare and food stamps arent breaking the US. 2 unfunded wars are.

Actually Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt will swamp us long before the 2 unfunded wars do.

Nemont

 

[fowladdict]

Plus, when you have a congress that's dead set on not doing anything productive, it's tough for any president to get anything done.

So you are saying that it is not the president's fault, but the congress' fault? Please explain. If it is the fault of the congress, then isn't it the fault of the previous congress for the largest deficit increase during those four years thanany other previous congress? Help me understand why it is W's fault then, but congress' fault now.


Not making an argument, just asking for an explanation. Aside from the Looney Tune comment this thread is somewhat a good read.

 

[dustinf]

neither has the gonads to lead this country where it needs to go.

I can agree with you 100% on that point.