If it was George W. Bush in office...

[billc]

But it's just a movie...more union intimidation...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/27/free-speech-unions-harrass-wont-back-down

The intent, according to its website, which lists phone numbers and emails of agents and publicists, is to brand the film as a “feel bad, not feel good” movie. On their list: Davis and Gyllenhaal, plus Meryl Streep, Morgan Freeman, Jack Black, the Foo Fighters’ Dave Grohl, Maroon 5’s Adam Levine and Josh Groban.
One industry source yesterday confirmed reports that the Screen Actors union president was asked by union officials to warn the movie’s stars about union bashing.

 

[WC_lun]

Bill, you are starting to sound desperate. Are you that unconfident of Mr Romney and his campaign that you have to post trash like this in order to sway votes?

 

[billc]

And now on the OWS movement and its inherent tendency to actual violence...which is ignored...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...s-Concede-Revolution-as-Goal-Support-Violence

Late September brought a breakthrough as the CUNY Grad school hosted a panel of Occupy leaders and strategists. The panel, appropriately named “Occupy Tactics: Violence and Legitimacy in the Occupy Movement and Beyond,” featured some of Occupy’s foremost strategists identifying themselves with global and foreign revolutionary movements. The primary focus of the panel was the debate between “a diversity of tactics” vs non-violence. Perhaps the most telling aspect of the discussion was that all speakers believed in the justification of the use of violence. The debate was not about the morality of violence; it was about whether violence was an appropriate revolutionary tool at this particular time in the movement.

The CUNY Grad school panel was organized by Andy Stepanian, an activist convicted of domestic terrorism for his participation in radical far Left campaigns to stop animal lab testing by terrorizing shareholders of an animal testing company. Stepanian founded and runs The Sparrow Media Project and also contributes to the Huffington Post.
The panel was moderated by CUNY Associate Professor of Sociology Sujatha Fernandez. Fernandez covers political revolutions and “uprisings” for the New York Times.

The two notable panelists were Brian Travin, a Black Bloc advocate and self-described revolutionary, and Chris Hedges, a writer and journalist who covers revolutions and war, and who also participates in strategizing for Occupy.

Here are a few of their quotes from the panel:

“I’m not here to argue for violence, I’m here to argue for a more nuanced analysis of a more nuanced analysis of the use of force than the violence/non-violence dichotomy....”
Brian Travin
​

“Perhaps the Black Bloc is also singled out as a bugaboo, to scare us away from tactics that perhaps we need to be able to advance the social movements that we want to participate in.” Brian Travin
​

“I certainly support the diversity of tactics.”
Chris Hedges
​

“I’ve covered revolutions, insurrections, most of the revolutions in Western Europe, five years in El Salvador, two Palestinian Uprisings, I was in Sarajevo during the war... I’m not a pacificst, I understand that there are moments in human history when armed forces wish to destroy you...”
​

Chris Hedges

Hmmm...once again, you have the Tea Party, conservatives and republicans accused of being dangerous and extremist, and on the verge of violence. Since their is absolutely no evidence of this, and anytime you have rallies by these people, they are not only peaceful, they actually clean up after themselves. Here you have the OWS movement debating the use of violence, you have had OWS leadership actually trying to blow up a bridge in Ohio, and once again, accusations of extremism are pointed at conservatives and republicans.
​

 

[arnisador]

And now on the OWS movement and its inherent tendency to actual violence

Inherent?

 

[WC_lun]

Inherent?

"Inherent tendency to actual violence" is Bill speak for anyone that is not Republican. Don't read too much into it

 

[blindsage]

Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden, more than once, because of the threat he and Al-Qaeda were perceived to be by multiple domestic and foreign intelligence groups. The Bush administration chose to actively ignore the warnings they were given.

Dick Cheney and his people committed treason by outing the identity of a covert CIA operative in order to punish her husband for disproving his lies about Iraq and he was never held responsible. Let's all have a big LOL, about the violations of the Obama administration.

 

[billc]

You don't mean Valerie Plame do you...that joke...really, you can't be serious about her, she wasn't even covered by the act and parked every day in the C.I.A. parking lot.:s395:

 

[billc]

Some background on plame...

http://old.nationalreview.com/york/york200602060919.asp

Given that "the record omits specifics about Plame's work," Tatel based his analysis on a footnote in an August 27, 2004, affidavit submitted to the court by Fitzgerald. That document, too, was released last week. In the footnote, Fitzgerald wrote:

If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.​

That is the entire text upon which Tatel based his conclusion. Was Fitzgerald saying that he knew in fact that the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal Plame's identity and that she had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years? Or was he simply reciting the requirements for prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? It's not entirely clear. The only fully clear part of it is that Fitzgerald had no direct evidence that Libby knew Plame was covert.
Tatel also placed great emphasis on a statement by then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow in which Harlow asked journalist Robert Novak not to publish Plame's name. Tatel pointed out that Harlow told Novak that, in Harlow's words, it was "very unlikely that she will ever be on another overseas mission...it might be embarrassing if she goes on foreign travel on her own." That statement, Tatel wrote, "strongly implies Plame was covert at least at some point."
Indeed it did — at least at some point. Just when, though, is still not entirely clear. And Tatel himself hinted that he had some doubts about whether Plame's covert status had been fully established. But he wrote that he wanted Fitzgerald's investigation to go on, despite gaps in the record. "While another case might require more specific evidence that a leak harmed national security," Tatel wrote, "this showing suffices here, given the information's extremely slight news value and the lack of any serious dispute regarding Plame's employment."

 

[billc]

Yes, if libya had occurred during Bush's watch, it would be the lead story till after the election, that is if the bad economy, national debt, Fast and Furious, Castaway or any number of other problems and scandals that have come out about obama didn't lead the news...

On the attack on the consulate...they knew about the attack and apparently decided to wait and see...and people died...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...-Dismissed-Strong-U-S-Response-As-Unrealistic

[h=2]According to the Wall Street Journal, as the attack on the U.S. consulate was raging, Obama took a "wait and see" approach.[/h]Ninety minutes after news of the attack reached Washington, Obama, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, JCS Chair General Martin Dempsey, and a national security adviser convened for an oval office meeting in which they ultimately rejected the course of U.S. military intervention. Instead, they decided to reach out to the Libyan government to ask if they would send reinforcements.
When the U.S. personnel at the consulate left the main building for what was supposed to be a safe house, questions regarding the deployment of forces seemed moot.
But the battle was still raging, and Ambassador Stevens' life was close to its end.
In hindsight, anonymous officials privy to details of those Sept. 11 decisions asked why we didn't at least send aircraft from the U.S. base in Sicily -- which is less than 500 miles away from Benghazi. The line of thinking is that that such a show of force might have given the attackers second thoughts.

The State Dept. has dismissed this option has "unrealistic."

 

[WC_lun]

Your analysis is weak and comes from very little facts, both your assertion that the State Dept knew about the attack beforehand and that Mr Bush would have recieved any different coverage. Keep in mind, this liberal media you continue to harp about is also the same media that failed in its job when Mr Bush was convincing Americans to invade a country that did not attack us, even though many in the media had private doubts. What makes you think this same media would take Mr Bush to task on something not nearly so important? You are channeling Fox News, Sarah Palin, and the right wing talking heads, without taking into consideration history or logic...again.

 

[billc]

Well, the lack of security at the consulate in Libya is becoming more and more obvious...will the press cover it the same way they would if Bush had been in charge...no.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...security-flaws-for-libya-diplomats/?tag=socsh

Wood, whose team arrived in February, says he and fellow security officials were very worried about the chaos on the ground. He says they tried to communicate the danger to State Department officials in Washington, D.C., but that the officials denied requests to enhance security.

"We tried to illustrate...to show them how dangerous and how volatile and just unpredictable that whole environment was over there. So to decrease security in the face of that really is... it's just unbelievable," Wood said.The State Department official says there was a "constant conversation" between security details in Libya and officials in Washington D.C.Sources critical of what they view as a security drawdown say three Mobile Security Deployment teams left Libya between February and August in addition to the 16-member Site Security Team on loan from the military. That's 34 highly-trained security personnel moved out over a six month period.One State Department source told CBS News the security teams weren't "pulled," that their mission was simply over.​

And another report...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...uest-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/

The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August.
But the question – both for the State Department, which is conducting an internal investigation, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding hearings next week – is whether officials in Washington, D.C., specifically at the State Department, were as aware as they should have been about the deteriorating security situation in Libya, and whether officials were doing everything they could to protect Americans in that country.

They report on this, yet there isn't the intensity...what is missing...a Republican in office to blame...

 

[billc]

Well, apparently they lied about the video being the cause of the attack on our Libyan consulate, and now we find out they also lied about the "protestors," in front of the embassy...just imagine if Bush had done these things...a month before his re-election bid...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/on-eve-of-house-hearings-state-department-finally-admits-no-there-was-never-any-protest-outside-the-benghazi-consulate-before-the-attack/

McClatchy published an interview with a Libyan guard wounded in the attack just two days after it happened in which he claimed that there

was never any protest. Four days later, Fox News was hearing the same thing from an intelligence source on the ground. Four days after that, Eli Lake of Newsweek reported that there was intelligence early on that the attack was planned and that an Al Qaeda affiliate was involved. Right around the same time, Jay Carney started segueing from the White House’s initial ludicrous “spontaneous protest over the Mohammed movie” narrative to a “yes, of course this was a terrorist attack” admission. Not until tonight, though, I believe, did Chris Stevens’s superiors at State think to politely inform the public — not to mention Carney — that, oh right, there was never a protest. Let the fingerpointing begin:

The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S…
But asked about the administration’s initial – and since retracted – explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying.

​

 

[WC_lun]

If Bush had done these things a month before his election then you are right, it probably would have made a bigger difference. Why? Because Bush had already lied us into a war and this would have reminded people of that. At least the truth on Benghazi is coming out and there is a congressional investigation moving things along as well. If there was wrong doing it will come out. Bush himself lied about Iraq, with his own mouth. Over four thousand Americans are dead, many of our allies have dead, many Iraqis are dead, and trillions of dollars are just gone, in part because of those lies. The four deaths in Benghazi are tragic to be sure, but it is HIGHLY doubtful that Obama has anything close to the same direct culpability Bush had to Iraq. So your whining about people aren't up and arms about Libiya and the media is in Obama's pocket (which they are reporting on it) is just a ton of false equivelency...again.

 

[billc]

The Iraq war can be debated some other time...Libya is all on obama...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/15/obamas-unconstitutional-libyan-war/

President Obama’s decision to involve U.S. military forces in an unconstitutional, unexplained mission in Libya has left many Americans seeking answers and action from Congress. Why has Mr. Obama ignored the public and congressional questions regarding his actions? Why did he thrust our American soldiers into this battle without the consent of Congress? While Senate Democratic leadership has so far not acted, these are questions that the House of Representatives is attempting to have answered.

On June 3, the House passed a resolution demanding that the president provide the American people with specific answers and rational reasoning. So far, Mr. Obama has failed to provide compelling and legitimate logic behind U.S involvement in the Libyan mission. The House is requesting that the president be held accountable for his actions and provide the American people with answers. The U.S. Senate should follow their lead.
America was flung into a war that lacks congressional approval and fiscal discipline. The administration’s complete disregard for the Constitution has bothered many Americans, for the Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. armed forces are to engage in immediate hostilities only if the circumstances are “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

​

​

1)obama alone put us into the Libyan civil war to oust kadafi
2)he used American military power, while leading from behind the Europeans to destabilize Libya by helping rebels to depose kadafi.
3)knowing that Libya was destabilized, he failed to secure kadafi's weapons caches allowing untold amounts of deadly weapons to fall into the hands of radical islamists, some of which were probably used to attack our consulate and kill our ambassador
4)knowing Libya was unstable, with radical, anti-American islamists with ties to al queada in the country, his state department refused requests for additional security for the embassy.
5)knowing how exposed the embassy was on the anniversary of 9/11, he did nothing to prevent the consulate from falling into the hands of the terrorists, and having our embassy personnel murdered.

So yeah, if Bush had done all of this, it would be on every media station, 24/7 seven days a week going into the election.
​

 

[Xue Sheng]

The Iraq war can be debated some other time...Libya is all on obama...

aaaaaaaa..... not exactly

bill.... how soon we forget…George W Bush’s Axis of evil…Iran, Iraq and North Korea… January 29, 2002

Then on May 6, 2002, the Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton (Republican) gave a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil" and added to the list with Cuba, Libya, and Syria.

And then in January 2005, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice (Republican), made a speech using the terminology of "the outposts of tyranny", which consisted of six countries; Belarus, Burma (Myanmar), Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe

And since George Bush was the president from January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 and Bolton and Rice both served under the Bush administration it would appear that ‘W’ knew about Libya being added to his list and 'W" never refuted it so…… all of this makes it is kind of hard to say in all honesty that Libya is all Obama’s fault....you see Libya was on the list before Obama and as a matter of fact it was on the list before George W Bush too...you have to go all the way back the the Gipper (Ronald Reagan) for that

Now here is a good one I just discovered John R. Bolton is a foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney… so how do you think Romney will handle Libya

 

[Sukerkin]

Quote "So yeah, if Bush had done all of this, it would be on every media station, 24/7 seven days a week going into the election." - so says Bill Cihak on Martial Talk {in oversized font too so it must be extra true :lol:}.

Is that a fact? Or maybe it's just an opinion? The media bias 'thing' I am far from convinced about I have to say. As an interested outsider, I find the American media very uncritical of your politicians whatever their political colour and they are seldom challenged on matters of importance - get caught out shagging your secretary and it's a whole different ball game tho' !

Leaving such ball-gazing aside, the Congressional issue is indeed a matter worth looking into.

How many times has such a thing happened before now and under which Presidents? I am pretty sure it's not the first time ... so does precedent begin to hold weight or is such a thing un-constitutional each time it happens? If so, what are the political consequences for Presidents who act so?

I'd be interested in hearing what people think on this (answers not covered in partisan froth preferred).

 

[cdunn]

Sukerkin, there is tension built into the Constitution, pretty much by design. Every military action ever is under suspicion in one way or another. As Commander in Cheif of the US forces, the President has roughly 60 days of free reign under the War Powers Resolution. Every President since Nixon has claimed the act unconstitutional. But the Congress does have the power to regulate the army and declare war.

UN and NATO involvement clouds the matter. Our treaties are the law of the land, and we have agreed to act in the defense of the NATO treaty members, and we have agreed to respond to the resolutions of the UN security council, under the provision that it is a resolution to which all five of the permanent members of that council have concurred. (Which consists of the US, Russia, France, China, and the United Kingdom - All members of the security council are supposed to be a part of enacting that resolution.) So there is a body of law underwhich it can be argued that pre-emptive consent of Congress existed because of those treaties.

Clear as mud? Good, cause it is, and there's not too much case law to clarify it.

 

[Tez3]

Quote "So yeah, if Bush had done all of this, it would be on every media station, 24/7 seven days a week going into the election." - so says Bill Cihak on Martial Talk {in oversized font too so it must be extra true :lol:}.

Is that a fact? Or maybe it's just an opinion? The media bias 'thing' I am far from convinced about I have to say. As an interested outsider, I find the American media very uncritical of your politicians whatever their political colour and they are seldom challenged on matters of importance - get caught out shagging your secretary and it's a whole different ball game tho' !

Leaving such ball-gazing aside, the Congressional issue is indeed a matter worth looking into.

How many times has such a thing happened before now and under which Presidents? I am pretty sure it's not the first time ... so does precedent begin to hold weight or is such a thing un-constitutional each time it happens? If so, what are the political consequences for Presidents who act so?

I'd be interested in hearing what people think on this (answers not covered in partisan froth preferred).

When I've finished rolling around at the bit I've put in bold, I'll answer! I can't believe you wrote that ...brilliant!

 

[cdunn]

Oh, yeah, and if Dubyah had been president durimg the Libya Crisis, he would have found a way to use it as the excuse for neo-conservative's current war of choice, Iran. Given that he decided he was going to war with Gog and Magog when he invaded Iraq, I wonder if he would mistake Iran for Calormen.

 

[billc]

The intervention in the Libyan civil war was all on obama...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war

The Royal Canadian Navy frigate HMCSCharlottetown was on 2 March 2011 deployed to the Mediterranean, off the coast of Libya, but did not take immediate action once arrived.[SUP][282][/SUP] Seventeen days later, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the Libyan civil war. That same day, military operations began, with US forces and one British submarine firing cruise missiles,[SUP][283][/SUP][SUP][284][/SUP]the French Air Force, United States Air Force and British Royal Air Force[SUP][285][/SUP] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by the Royal Navy.[SUP][286][/SUP][SUP][287][/SUP][SUP][288][/SUP]

Yeah, I don't remember Bush being in office for this little adventure...

Sure, he probably had to help the Brits. they were running out of missles at the time...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/report-british-navy-could-run-short-of-tomahawk-missiles/

Four days into the operations in Libya, and the British Navy is already thinking about potential supply problems:

The Navy could run out of Tomahawk missiles after a fifth of the Navy stockpile has been used against Libya, sources disclosed yesterday.
Defence insiders say as many as 12 of the weapons have been fired from the hunter-killer submarine Triumph in the past four days.
If this is correct, the Navy will have used up to 20 per cent of its 64 Tomahawks in the opening salvos of the war, leading to fears that it is “burning through” its armoury.
The situation could become an embarrassment for the Government if the submarine were the only vessel within range of a number of targets but could not fulfil the mission.
​

Imagine if the Brits actually had to do something important and the U.S. wasn't there to lend a hand. Perhaps we could have loaned them a few missles. Well, if they need more military help for anything they better get it done soon. We are adopting their social policies over here so we'll be as bad off as they are soon enough.