Disgraceful Media

more Thorns! the basic point in this boring screed is "What is Pres. Obama’s foreign policy for the Middle East? Is it
appeasement, withdrawal, and not supporting Israel?" Thorn wants us to worry Obama isn't supporting Israel — Obama's and this country's support of Israel is practically a blank check, we support them VERY firmly under Obama, that has to be obvious. It is right and good we do support Israel so firmly, although Netanyahu shouldn't be allowed to draw red lines for us and seek to influence this presidential election (witness Thorn). Obama supports Israel's existence particularly by continuing to discourage an Israeli attack on Iran... and poor old Mitt essentially gave them the green light to do so when over in Tel Aviv collecting vast bags of money from Sheldon Adelson and other Israeli/Jewish hardliners.
Thorn makes no sense at all. Good for the Indie for putting this gibberish online so we all get a chuckle...

More Thorns indeed DD, weird huh?
On a pseudo serious note, Obama and Clinton immediately answered the question as to why our unguarded embassies were attacked by organized militias on the anniversary of 9/11; spontaneous Arab Spring Democratic revolts against a poorly made video!
What more facts were necessary except their words to our ears? It only took the media about a week to admit there may have been "other factors" that "contributed" to the attacks.
Another example of why I have no trust in my adopted government regardless of which party is in power and the media sucks, not because they may or may not be liberal, but because they are no longer adversarial to our officials to the benefit of schmucks like us...

Yes, Mr Thorn, Obama wants to appease Muslim murderers and abandon Israel to terrorists intent on its destruction, and all of the media except for the ones you receive through your tin cap are determined to back him up. Thanks for pointing this out.

As for italiansurg's predictable "regardless of which party," yes, Romney's foolish, false, and dangerously incompetent performance in the aftermath of the attacks is exactly equivalent to Obama's thoughtful response.

pk-and it was all due to the video? Can you admit that your hero LIED? Romney is not our President, thank Gawd. Do you ever think with your brain and not with myopic ideology?
How horrible, that I am critical in a bi partisan manner when all you can decry is the partisanship of the Republicans. This is my blanket apology for perpetuity about remaining objective.
You appear to have borrowed DM's crack pipe.

1) Were the attacks on 9/11/12 premeditated and was al Qaeda involved?

We now know they were premeditated, with the protests over the lousy video used as a cover.

2) Why wasn’t there more security for United States embassies on 9/11?
Do you know for a fact that there wasn't? Are we to make 9/11 every year a holiday on which to attack Americans simply by behaving in a paranoid manner?

3) Why were there no marines protecting Ambassador Stevens?
Amb. Stevens hated too much security by his account and all accounts. At times he would ditch his own bodyguards.

4) Were the Libyan security guards protecting Mr. Stevens infiltrated by al Qaeda? No foreign armies act as security guards for any other country's ambassador.

5) What is Pres. Obama’s foreign policy for the Middle East? Is it appeasement, withdrawal, and not supporting Israel?

It seems to be bomb bomb bomb but most of us would prefer withdrawal and not supporting Israel's every bad deed. We're Americans, not Israelis or Palestinians.

I'm suppose these answers won't be good enough for you since they don't inclyde a nefarious conspiracy and aren't based on Race, but come time to cast your vote remember this: Obama is the only Christian in the race!

Netanyahu is addressing the UN at this very moment! Is Netanyahu just a low information head of state or a pathological liar?

Romney blew it when he tried to make political hay out of the attack in Benghazi. America should have been speaking with one voice at that time. What a horrible way to pay tribute to Ambassador Stevens and the other three Americans who died that day.

KV is correct. If you read the many profiles on Chris Stevens, he often eschewed his bodyguards, preferring instead to mingle freely with the population. He even risked his own life during the revolution by setting up camp in Benghazi when there was no other American presence in country. It's no wonder so many people in Libya liked and respected him.

mr. italiansurg, please help me out; what is the LIE to which you refer and appropriate to Obama?

I'm having trouble finding any statements which fit your description (no sarcasm here:I truly cannot find anything beyond some general diplo-speak coming from the White House, US Embassy in Egypt, or the Secretary of State).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20...

V
Netanyahu is a narrow politician with a suicidally belligerent attitude to a complex problem that he and his allies, who are driven by a skewed and simplistic reading of the Bible that makes them believe they're doing God's bidding, have only been making worse.

And yes, italiansurg, do let us know what Obama lied about in this situation. The fact that you equate his imaginary "lie" with the host of Romney's idiocies shows the value of your equally imaginary bipartisan "objectivity."

Netanyahu has a Moses complex and has a messianic desire to "save" his people...he is pressuring our President...and has Mitt wrapped around his little finger. The best support for Israel is to limit it from exercising foreign policy options which involve us...our dog has to wag that tail, not vice-versa. Furthermore, Israel has nuclear weapons and without our 30,000 bunker-buster bombs their air force and missiles cannot get into the heart of their nuclear stuff at Natanz and elsewhere. The next worry is whether Netanyahu would use nuclear on those Iranian facilities -- if Israel attacks, it makes some of the sickening rants of Ahmadinejad justified, or justified at least in the eyes of many Iranians...

Friends don't let friends drive drunk. Friends don't let friends commit human rights violations either.

again, there goes surg with his 'both sides' are equally deplorable rant as well as calling everyone 'schmucks'. Well, I may be a lot of things to different people, but I am a 'schmuck' to nobody. Too bad you feel so. Btw, I will not support Robot-ney or Obamney, cuz you know, they are both equals. As for the thorns in our sides, hopefully they will someday see the light without the help of tinfoil reflectors.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs...

"Netanyahu is a narrow politician with a suicidally belligerent attitude to a complex problem that he and his allies, who are driven by a skewed and simplistic reading of the Bible that makes them believe they're doing God's bidding, have only been making worse." -pk-

Call in the media! PK and I completely agree on something!

amen, brother. and check out the link above your comment.

I notice in the debate about the Middle East the issue of the role of the Shah of Iran and his torture squad known as SAVAK is not discussed. Such delving into this history would explain much.

I'm pretty sure the Indy prints her letters for the same reason it runs the "Pet Psychic" column.

BC: I don't believe that any thinking, rational person would deny that US policy in Iran from the 40s through the era of the embassy takeover was pretty abysmal. But Savak has not been in existence for 30 plus years and much has transpired since then in the tangled history of the Middle East. I don't think that the current regime gets a free pass in its nearly nonstop belligerence towards the "west" due to past transgressions. Iran, somewhat ironically maybe, is now doing its own version of foreign policy meddling in the Shi'a areas of the region where it has much influence.

Let me clarify that I am not an apologist for the Ayatollah or the current regime. I'm merely connecting the dots of history and how one even can lead to another.

It has not escaped attention that italiansurg has been asked twice to state what Obama's "lie" was and how he considers it equivalent to Romney's politically motivated and irresponsibly inaccurate response to these events. Until he does, italiansurg's claim to objective bipartisanship, or at least his powers of understanding and discernment, will have to be considered unproven, to put the matter as charitably as possible.

here's one of my favorites, sorry I have been kinda busy providing excess income to the U.S. and CA governments by working,and I apologize once again pk for being bi partisan. I'll find the video if I have time over the weekend:
"There are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don't want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," he said. Obama did not answer the original question posed at the forum about why security wasn't tighter at diplomatic posts.

Here you go; I gotta get back to increasing the tax base; there's more and y'all know it so I'll find em and send em if I have time. ciao bella:
Obama Calls Deadly Libyan Protests "Natural" | RealClearPolitics
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/.../o......
Sep 20, 2012 – "We're still doing an investigation," President Obama said when asked if ... is that the natural protests that arose over the outrage over the video ...

The link doesn't work. But if you quote correctly what Obama said, perhaps you can explain which part of it is a lie? "I don't want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

Perhaps you can also explain how that comment is equivalent, from the point of view of partisan politics, to this, from the chairman of the Republican National Committee, "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic." Or this from Romney, "It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response [that is, the tweet from people inside the Mission -- not from the Obama Administration -- which was actually sent out the day before, and not after, the murders, in an attempt to defuse the attacks, facts that Romney chose to ignore because they didn't fit his standard scenario of Obama as apologizer for all thing USA] was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Let's not parse words. Of course people naturally protested something they found offensive. And like any criminal gang, al- qaeda took advantage of people enjoying freedom (after all it should be their right to protest, yes?) and turned it into an attack.
It's absolutely natural for me to protest mischaracterization of facts.

Italiansurg, you have NOT proved the purported Obama lie at all: scurrilous innuendo on your part. Oh, that's right, you're busy "providing excess income to the U.S. and CA governments by working" .. hey fella, lots of us work but we don't tell lies about the President...yeah, and the link doesn't work as pk stated. You practice driveby attacks under your pseudonym, real manly there, dude.

As a pseudonom myself (not to mention "DrDan"), I'd say that's the least of the problems with Mr. False Equivalence. italiansurg hasn't even been clever enough to engage in innuendo, scurrilous or otherwise. He flat-out claimed that Obama had LIED (his emphasis), and when asked to prove his claim, quoted a perfectly reasonable and politically innocuous statement by Obama while ignoring the erroneous and blatantly partisan nature of what Romney had said. I think we can use his performance as a basis for judging the value of italiansurg's future contributions.

OMG a new thorn post!!

1. Why bother even posting policy talking points?

2. Why can the Indy message boards support .png or .gif files so we can all see Diana post her favorite pic of the pres. wearing a headdress and a bone through his nose? LOLZ IT’S NOT RACIST, JUST TRUE ROFL LOLZ.

3. Agree with both sides of the aisle, Netanyahu is a hyperbolic politician seeking neither peace nor solutions but reelection, as Americans we can definitely relate.