US ambassador 'killed in Libya'

I saw it on Fox News last night. Hannity and Crowley were gushing over our "valuable ally Kaddhafi" being thrown under the bus by President Obama.

I couldn't believe it. Except it was Fox, so I could.

See this:

and this:

Whatever it takes to condemn Obama...

Seriously. These people would have condemned Obama for allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, and simultaneously say he was throwing Japan under the bus.

Oh heaven forbid that Obama gets some criticism. We just can't have that can we?

What amazes me is that liberals like you are watching Fox far more than I ever have. I catch O'Reilly a couple times a week but that's it. I wouldn't even know what the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaughs of the world had to say about anything if you guys weren't watching and reporting. You do realize that there is a network named MSNBC that caters to you Obama butt kissing whims right? You need to watch because they could really use the ratings.

Here's another vote for "I have such a severe case of ODS that I'll even defend Gaddafi."

Arrests made in Libya: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/meast/embassy-attacks-main/index.html

Right wing spin: Libyan authorities arrested terrorists, therefore Obama "leading from behind."

Are you dense? How is that praising him? Fact is that he kept a ruthless but forceful hold on the area. Just like Saddam did in Iraq and parts of the ME.

I know that once you find yourself in a disagreement, your SOP is to call the other person dense, and idiot, and what have you. It adds nothing, but if that's what it takes to feel good about yourself, have at it.

How is it praising him? It's suggesting there is a positive way to view him. That's praise.

I disagree. Ideologies have consequences...not just the religious ones.

It does suggest that you might be a bit pre-disposed towards it, if you really feel that way.

Khaddaffi was a thug. And a terrorist. And then Reagan sent F-111s to kill him. They failed at that (got a couple of his family, though) but they succeeded in making him think maybe he shouldn't be involved in terrorism against the US. Then Dubya toppled tin-pot strongman Saddam Hussein for having WMD and not playing nice with the US and Khaddaffi decided maybe it was a good idea to not have WMD and to play nice with the US.

Then the Obama (praise His name) not only threw him under the bus, he backed over him a couple times. The Beast has been busy snubbing and undercutting Israel and appeasing the towlies and now we're to the point where it isn't safe to be an American in that part of the world. Thirty years of foreign policy, undone in less than four.

So in one post, we have Volpone mentioning that Obama killed a towelie terrorist and then charge him with appeasing the towelies. Incredible!

If NATO hadn't acted, Bengazi would have ended up a smouldering crater.

The truth of the matter revolves around Islam's incompatibility Western concepts of freedom and liberty. No one understood this better Mustafa Kemal Atatürk he understood his religion and his coreligionists quite well. He knew that for his people to enjoy any Western style freedom or liberty, Islamism had to be repressed at the expense of religious freedom.

Now we have our State Department speaking of "legitimate Islamism" as if there could ever be such a thing. The thought is if we let the Islamists who have only had violence as the means to express themselves legislate. They'll fall into the rough and tumble of politics with its grand bargains, compromises, setbacks, and losses. They'll stop being the Islamists who have used mob violence, explosives, and Kalashnikovs to get their way and become good democrats accepting that which they cannot change. It's not like they're fanatics or anything. Right?

What's really sad is that you actually believe that.

Obviously it applies to all beliefs. The point remains that some dispose us to act differently than others.

Sure...whether or not they're religious.

sandbagger, to be entirely fair, the notion of "legitimate Islam" is something that's been in the political and societal consciousness since 9/11.

And I would dare say that the "Christians" who murder abortion providers, take rights away from same-sex couples, attempt to redefine and apologize for rape and depict the poor as moochers and thieves aren't practicing anything close to legitimate Christianity.

And apostle will come along and call me a fag, and prove I'm right.

Yeah, because a professional Marine Officer (with all that implies) who actively studies (and participates overseas) in this stuff is obviously less informed than you, a Hollywood wannabe screenwriter.

Mike, it's people like you who give America a bad name overseas, not people like Fox.

Ordering peons to kill babies?

Professionally, of course.

Yep, you have him pegged. All my Company Commander did in Iraq was sit around and plan how to kill babies. I actually had to take several of us experienced NCO's into his office and beg to let us take our soldier's out to go after toddlers and pre-schoolers so that their skills didn't rust. Babies just didn't challenge our high-speed soldiers enough.

Please tell me you're just trolling here. Please?

No. Because I've lost count of how many times we've went over this and the fact that you've either forgotten or are ignoring it makes me see that it is pointless. The fact of the matter is, late in his administration, Clinton engaged in a bombing campaign to take out caches of Iraqi WMD. A UN investigation into his nuclear capabilities was ongoing--or would've been if Saddam hadn't been obstructing it. At the time there was a credible reason to believe that Saddam was working on getting nukes. He got taken out because of that. And because he got taken out by the US and Coalition troops, Khaddafi decided maybe having nukes wasn't such a cool thing and voluntarily got rid of his program.

Lie #1.

Lie #2.

Lie #3

Lie #4

I rolled into Iraq 2003 because that's my job, so no big deal there. My insurance pays out a shitload if by chance I die, so there was no fear per se.
My "gut instinct" was there was ZERO threat from NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) in any way, shape or form. If I wasn't forced to tote that gas mask around, I wouldn't have. If I died it would be from hostile small arms fire most likely. The IED hadn't been invented yet.

We had one SCUD missile explode above our airfield (because it was shot down from our defenses) and my sense of urgency was ZERO. Put on my gear? Fuck that, I took off my shirt and put on tanning oil since our ATC tower was a mile from our headquarters so nobody would bitch at me.

Psychological studies have shown that otherwise ordinary people will commit or participate in extreme acts of violence when convinced by ideological reasons to do so.

IOW, for many people, it takes both factors to push them toward violence.

I, personally, would not say "stupid people", but rather week-minded people.

6. The pope visited Lebanon at the height of the tension, and Hezbollah leaders attended his sermon, refrained from protesting the film until he left, and called for religious tolerance. Yes, this happened.

While impressive, this is poorly written. Was it the Pope that refrained protesting the film and called for religious tolerance or was it Hezbollah?
If Hezbollah, which I read this as, the comma before the 'and' really shouldn't be there. There is enough ambiguity with that comma that someone quickly skimming could think it was the Pope protesting the film and calling for religious tolerance when he left Lebanon (and my initial read went that way, causing me to double back and reread).

So the Obama administration lied to the American people and now have to backpedal

Intelligence officials could find out the names and immigration statuses of all nineteen 9/11 hijackers 24 hours after the attack, but it took them seventeen days to figure out an attack on a US embassy was premeditated?