So about General Petraeus

[Freedy500]

Please dear god I hate seeing politics on AO. "Your tearing us all apart!" is what this makes me feel like. Lives were lost, politics have been decided for the time being. What has been done is done, no changing it however much we all wish. Sure a different call could have been made, lives could have been saved, but they weren't and we cant change that from arguments. It may matter that we do our best to prevent that from happening but it is obviously not as simple as it seems. Some of you or the public in general are making it look like a call was made out to a figure of authority no matter who it was but it wasn't as simple as "Hello take a choice, There are Seals and military personnel here along with innocent american citizens, Do you want them to die at no benefit to you or anyone else in this world and have a ton of trouble on your hands or do you want to send in some armed forces and save the day with the public thanking you. All that matters now is that we correct our mistakes and we take the guilty to justice. Nothing more than that. No more pointing fingers because whoever's fault it was knows there mistake and should know that they have created widows and mourning families that have a child with no father. Further blame will not do anything at all but cause a delay of our governments work and arguments among its citizens.

What is this arguing getting you? What is it accomplishing? It will not bring back those who were lost. It will only cause further debate on them and keeping this tragedy fresh in our memory. All any of this is doing (besides bringing those who were responsible for the attack to justice) is putting salt in a wound.

[Lohman446]

The problem arises in partisinship that is so ridiculous as to hinder any reasonable conversation.

Look at this thread: the posters cannot even agree on one set of facts. Add to it the spin put on by various news outlets and they pick and chose whatever facts they want to. This is not meant to be partisan but anyone who did not know (or should have known) that a destablized middle east would present a threat to our embassies and personal is not fit to lead. I don't buy that our current President is stupid (you don't get to be President by being stupid) so I believe he, and those around him, knew these risks. I also assume they had reasons to not increase security. It worries me that said reasons might have been political.

When discussion leads to indicate a mistake may have been made by a Republican the instant call is "what about (insert whatever Democrat you want)". The same is true in this thread in reverse. How often has defense of our current President consisted of faulting the previous President?

The funny thing about this all is that people think that the two party system actually gives us a lot of choice. Who was the last serious candidate of the two parties for president that was not bought and paid for by special interests? If it is an "us vs them" thing as was suggested in the last campaign the "us" does not include either of those available to vote for.

In reasonable political debate reasonable people can come to differing conclusions however they must be able to have discussion without insisting that whoever they supported before the discussion was right and everyone else was wrong.

I do know this about the situation: An Ambassador is sent to another country to have peaceful and reasonable discourse. When that country kills said ambassador it should tell us what they think of peaceful and reasonable discourse and our response should take that into consideration. "Talk softly but carry a big stick" requires use of that stick when talking fails.

[MANN]

"Talk softly but carry a big stick" requires use of that stick when talking fails.

QFT. unfortunately I do not believe this administration will respond this way.

[going_home]

Agreed.
The government is broken.
The two-party political system is broken.
Goldman Sachs owns the whole bunch, both parties.
With Santa Claus as president the only thing left is the crashing of the economy.
Very sad.

[cockerpunk]

Lets keep our eye on the ball? You are the one who keeps trying to change the subject. This isn't about Bush. This isn't about the original 9/11. This is about the killing of a US Ambassador by terrorists. This is about Obama claiming it was just an accident when all the evidence proved otherwise. This is about requests for aid that were outright refused and thus American lives were just written off as collateral.

You make accusations against Bush... If what he did was wrong then you should also be screaming against these similar wrongs.

it about the selective rage. obama, and everything he does has been subjected to this selective rage. take any other president, doing similar things, and no one bats an eye. but the second obama does something, its impeachable. questioning the president on such matters, according to the right, was anti-maerican, now its a web of conspiracy theories. anotehr great example is healthcare mandate, a GOP idea, penned by the heritage foundation, an idea NEWT GINGRICH supported in the mid-90s, is now all of a sudden fascism. its pathetic.

the rage media has perfected this emotional and visceral reaction.

[Lohman446]

it about the selective rage. obama, and everything he does has been subjected to this selective rage. take any other president, doing similar things, and no one bats an eye. but the second obama does something, its impeachable. questioning the president on such matters, according to the right, was anti-maerican, now its a web of conspiracy theories. anotehr great example is healthcare mandate, a GOP idea, penned by the heritage foundation, an idea NEWT GINGRICH supported in the mid-90s, is now all of a sudden fascism. its pathetic.

the rage media has perfected this emotional and visceral reaction.

There was no rage with Bush? Really. Do you honestly believe that or are you that selective about your attention?

This is why we cannot have adult conversations about this here. Its always "the other side" that is doing things wrong. Both sides display the kind of behavior you rally about and you know it yet you whine when the other side does it. The hypocrisy displayed in these conversations is ridiculous.

[Lohman446]

When I suggested, in the other thread, that this board was intellectually honest enough to handle political discussion I was wrong.

[cockerpunk]

QFT. unfortunately I do not believe this administration will respond this way.

yup, drone strikes are up 100% over bush era levels, and we don't carry a big stick?

rage media in action.

[cockerpunk]

There was no rage with Bush? Really. Do you honestly believe that or are you that selective about your attention?

This is why we cannot have adult conversations about this here. Its always "the other side" that is doing things wrong. Both sides display the kind of behavior you rally about and you know it yet you whine when the other side does it. The hypocrisy displayed in these conversations is ridiculous.

yes.

funny, i already gave you multiple examples. but if you need more i can provide.

[cockerpunk]

When I suggested, in the other thread, that this board was intellectually honest enough to handle political discussion I was wrong.

the problem is not maturity, its that we live in a post-factual era. facts no longer matter in politics. if we cannot agree on our facts, we cannot have a reasonable conversation. this is, again, the rage machine in action. facts don't matter, 99% of what planned parenthood does is abortions right? obama is weak on terror, you know, despite getting osama (while bush let him into pakastan and refused to chase him), drone strikes up to 2x more then bush era etc etc etc

the problem is, facts matter. thats what the GOP learned last week. when the rage machine bubble hits reality ... reality wins.

[Lohman446]

the problem is not maturity, its that we live in a post-factual era. facts no longer matter in politics. if we cannot agree on our facts, we cannot have a reasonable conversation. this is, again, the rage machine in action. facts don't matter, 99% of what planned parenthood does is abortions right? obama is weak on terror, you know, despite getting osama (while bush let him into pakastan and refused to chase him), drone strikes up to 2x more then bush era etc etc etc

the problem is, facts matter. thats what the GOP learned last week. when the rage machine bubble hits reality ... reality wins.

So the facts you argue are correct are correct and the facts others argue are not? First hand knowledge?

Obama did not get Osama. The brave men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities did. Obama simply did not stop it.

Was our military incursion into Pakistan legal btw?

[cockerpunk]

So the facts you argue are correct are correct and the facts others argue are not? First hand knowledge?

Obama did not get Osama. The brave men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities did. Obama simply did not stop it.

Was our military incursion into Pakistan legal btw?

facts can be verified for accuracy.

obama ordered the strike, while bush refused to chase osama into Pakistan, even when they knew he was escapinghttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4494937.shtml

no, it was not legal, again, another strike on that whole "obama is weak" he did exactly what he had to, right or wrong, to get osama.

[Lohman446]

facts can be verified for accuracy.

obama ordered the strike, while bush refused to chase osama into Pakistan, even when they knew he was escapinghttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4494937.shtml

no, it was not legal, again, another strike on that whole "obama is weak" he did exactly what he had to, right or wrong, to get osama.

How are you verifying your facts? Through first hand accounts of non-vested individuals? The point is your ability to verify facts is as questionable as those who you instantly dismiss.

Where was the outcry from the left about the illegal strike?

The point is you have selective attention if you think that its only the right that has this selective rage and if you cannot see that your egocentricity makes mine look to be a minor quirk.

[cockerpunk]

How are you verifying your facts? Through first hand accounts of non-vested individuals? The point is your ability to verify facts is as questionable as those who you instantly dismiss.

Where was the outcry from the left about the illegal strike?

The point is you have selective attention if you think that its only the right that has this selective rage and if you cannot see that your egocentricity makes mine look to be a minor quirk.

not true at all. bush's negligence on getting osama is well documented, by first hand accounts and data, and video, etc etc etc

i don't think anyone had too big of an issue about having to illegally land troops in Pakistan to shoot osama. tell these firefighters that we shouldn't have done it:



i don't personally have any issue with what obama did, nor would i protest if bush had done the same. sometimes what is right, and what is legal are not the same thing. heck, even the Pakistani government wasn't too pissed off. everyone knew we'd do whatever it took to get him.

i think, if you want to claim that last one as a point, you have to come up with examples of selective rage from me. as of yet, you have not.

[cockerpunk]

here is just another example of selective rage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im8WhG-8FGw