Libya and Egypt Attacks (Page 5)

My personal opinion is that I have a hard time putting my finger on what the administrations Middle East Foreign Policy has been to this point.  Regardless of my opinion, the Administration is facing its first real foreign affairs issue in the Middle East on such a large scale.  Rioting in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, The Sudan,  IRaq, Yemen, and Bangladesh (non-M.E. I get it).

The situation is fluid and novel at this point, and certainly the administration should be given time, certainly more than one day, to formulate and express a foreign policy statement, that is in the best interest of the U.S.

But, the administration will have to do something, it will be interesting to see how the administration handles this.  This is not a theoretical exercise in foreign affairs, this is the real deal now.

Please send this memo to the Obamba "Truth" team before I have to start deleting FB friends for passing on their stupidity.

Also anyone catch Faud Ajami on CNN last night. Ajami is the senior fellow and co-chair of the "Working Group on Islam and International Order" at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

He really came down hard on the Presidents foreign policy regarding Egypt.  Said that the President ignored long standing anti-American feelings in Egypt and said the President's belief that his post Arab Spring speech in Egypt would mend Anti-American sentiments was nieve.  (I'm paraphrasing) 

I'll admitt I didn't see the entire interview, just bits and pieces of it.  (I was switching between CNN and the NFL channel)

What i said applies to both sides....And do not worry, stupidity is not contagious, at least for the most part.

As a last resort, you can choose "key words" and hide friends that use them, no need to remove them.  In my particular case i have designated "Reagan" and "communist" as key words, quite a few friends have been hidden and so far and i still haven't been infected with stupidty.

Not even sure where to start.

The Presidential Daily Brief is a document, not a meeting.  It's presented to the President, and other top cabinet officials ( Sec of State, National Security Advisor, Sec of Def, ... ).  Whether the president has someone read him the document or reads it himself, he's getting it daily.  Trying to spin the president not having someone read him the document each day into him "skipping out on intel meetings for weeks" is just lame.

There are differences between consulates and embassies.  Benghazi was a consulate, not an embassy.  Embassies are located in capitals.  Consulates are satellite offices located in other cities than the capital.  Neither are fortified military installations, they are extensions of our diplomacy, not our military. 

Obama did a bit more than "call it a tough day and jet off to Vegas".  You're being silly again at best, or purposely misleading at worst.

Inviting the president of Egypt to meet is not the same as inviting the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House.  Unless you also want to claim that Reagan invited communists to the White House for meeting with Gorbachev.

The issue of meeting with Netanyahu is debatable.  The administration says no meeting was requested.  So it's matter of which side of the story you choose to believe.  Of course, you believe the side this counter to Obama.  For me, I'll withhold judgement on it for now.

FYI ya'll - the Hoover Inst. is a conservative public policy think tank, so take his comments with that grain of salt.  It is part of Stanford, but runs completely separate with its own board and funding, etc.

I understand what the Hoover Inst. is.  I also understand that Ajami has been very critical of the administrations Middle East policies, one need only go to the Hoover Inst. web page and read some of Ajami's articles.  (Which I did prior to posting). I listed who the person giving the opinion was, what network it was on, the date it appeared, and where the speaker was from.   Rather taking it with "a grain of salt" how about letting people simply go to the page, read the piece and form their own opinion. 

I'm not sure what the "grain of salt" statement means.  Are you making the assertion that the opinion is less valid because it is a conservative giving an opinion on the President?  Or are you implying that the opinion is given, not as a genuine opinion on policy matters, but rather as some type of propoganda simply meant to obscure the truth and demean the oposition?  Are you asserting that a conservative's opinon on the opposition can never be correct because of the inherent conflict between their world views? Or are you saying that the fact that it is a conservative writer is simply something that should be taken into consideration when determining the validity of the opinion?  If it is the later, then why?

The simple fact that a person either liberal or conservative is giving an opinion regarding the other side of the political spectrum does not in an of itself mean anything.  It certainly does not mean that the opinion is per se wrong or incorrect or should be given less credibility and weight.

Are you going to be as consistent and take what say an Ari Shapiro of NPR reports with a "grain of salt" when he reports about Romney? Or when say MSNBC praises the President for positive policy initiatives?  Are you then going to say well Shapiro reported adversley on Romney and Shapiro is a self described liberal so that report should "be taken with a grain of salt?"

Perhaps the answer to the above is a resounding "yes" if it is then you are very consistent in your analysis of news stories. Something I think that most people are not willing to do.

I thought I was pretty clear that I wasn't suggesting that was the case. I did raise the question.

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility for either the Dems or Repubs to consider such things for their own political gain. Now be clear, I said possibility, NOT probability. I like you would be incensed and outraged if it ever came to light that something of this nature occurred by either party.

The big question that I've heard asked but NOT answered is why on the 11th anniversary of the biggest terrorist attack in the US history were our embassies and consulates so vulnerable and exposed. 

Yeah because I indicated that's where I primarily got my information....

1. Sorry I mis-interpretted your comment.  I misread what you posted and came to the incorrect conclusion that you were saying something that you clearly weren't.  My bad.  I thought you were being "snarky" specifically towards me.  I was wrong. I owe you an apology, and I freely offer it.

2.  The "chill the eff out" is neither funny, cute, nor endearing,  So "turbo" it's dismissive and belittling.  My suggestion "dude" is remove it from your rhetorical bag of tricks.  You're not Sgt. Hulka and my name ain't Francis.

Things have gone too far now...protestors have over run a Hardees and KFC in Lebanon. 

At least I understand the KFC as a military target being run by the colonel and all.

I understand what the Hoover Inst. is.  I also understand that Ajami has been very critical of the administrations Middle East policies, one need only go to the Hoover Inst. web page and read some of Ajami's articles.  (Which I did prior to posting). I listed who the person giving the opinion was, what network it was on, the date it appeared, and where the speaker was from.   Rather taking it with "a grain of salt" how about letting people simply go to the page, read the piece and form their own opinion. 

I'm not sure what the "grain of salt" statement means.  Are you making the assertion that the opinion is less valid because it is a conservative giving an opinion on the President?  Or are you implying that the opinion is given, not as a genuine opinion on policy matters, but rather as some type of propoganda simply meant to obscure the truth and demean the oposition?  Are you asserting that a conservative's opinon on the opposition can never be correct because of the inherent conflict between their world views? Or are you saying that the fact that it is a conservative writer is simply something that should be taken into consideration when determining the validity of the opinion?  If it is the later, then why?

The simple fact that a person either liberal or conservative is giving an opinion regarding the other side of the political spectrum does not in an of itself mean anything.  It certainly does not mean that the opinion is per se wrong or incorrect or should be given less credibility and weight.

Are you going to be as consistent and take what say an Ari Shapiro of NPR reports with a "grain of salt" when he reports about Romney? Or when say MSNBC praises the President for positive policy initiatives?  Are you then going to say well Shapiro reported adversley on Romney and Shapiro is a self described liberal so that report should "be taken with a grain of salt?"

Perhaps the answer to the above is a resounding "yes" if it is then you are very consistent in your analysis of news stories. Something I think that most people are not willing to do.

i assumed this was a joke, but i googled and not so much.

if nobody was killed or hurt, i'm pretty sure i find this awesome.

I added my note to assist the forum reader (ya'll) who might not know what the Hoover Institution is, and, as a Stanford Grad and left leaning, I like to distance myself from that unfortunately placed and named organization.  The "grain of salt" comment is my editorial just to let the reader beware that the writer may have a bias in his opinion of our current President.  Of course the reader can go and do their own research, but someone just breezing through the thread might not have the time or inclination.

Not according to the white House.

 http://freebeacon.com/carney-protests-not-directed-at-the-united-states/

The "grain of salt" comment is my editorial just to let the reader beware that the writer may have a bias in his opinion of our current President.  Of course the reader can go and do their own research, but someone just breezing through the thread might not have the time or inclination.

I guess I have to ask this.  If a right-leaning person gives an opinion about a left-leaning person, then you can take it with a grain of salt. 

Does that work the other way as well? 

Because if it does, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC cannot be taken seriously as they report on Mitt Romney whereas Juan Williams is the only person to be taken seriously as he reports on Barack Obama...

I actually heard Wolf Blitzer say "we" when referring to people who support Barack Obama last night when he was running Piers Morgan's show...

I guess I have to ask this.  If a right-leaning person gives an opinion about a left-leaning person, then you can take it with a grain of salt. 

Does that work the other way as well? 

Because if it does, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC cannot be taken seriously as they report on Mitt Romney whereas Juan Williams is the only person to be taken seriously as he reports on Barack Obama...

I actually heard Wolf Blitzer say "we" when referring to people who support Barack Obama last night when he was running Piers Morgan's show...

Isn't that what people already do? I'm not going to give full weight to Obama when he talks about Romney any more than I would Romney about Obama. There are agendas at play and in this political climate most of what is said is pretty well a lie.

That's why I say vote Gary Johnson.