Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-condoleezza-rice-libya-obama-20121025,0,4555322.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/po...ories%29</a> What she essentially says here is that she's familiar with how things are in a war zone, and it isn't always easy to clearly tell what's going on for some time after an event has occurred. Colin Powell, another former Secretary of State, said the same thing. What's clear here though is people without any clue what really happens during war, like Romney, Ryan, Giuliani, Palin, pick your GOP clown, criticize without any basis in knowledge. Those in the know hold back.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 So blame it on a video and call it a day? That's the problem, if they would have just shut up for a few days until the facts came out, sure...But they immediately jumped on the idiotic video excuse which I criticized on these boards right when it happened.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Considering that there were protests about that video happening in a dozen surrounding countries, it wasn't the most "out there" possibility. And they didn't "blame it on a video and call it a day" - they launched an investigation right away. That it took a while to determine what happened is not surprising. As SPP (and Rice) said, " it isn't always easy to clearly tell what's going on for some time after an event has occurred." That must come as news for those looking for conspiracy or who just want to think the worst of Obama, but that's the real world.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "But they immediately jumped on the idiotic video excuse which I criticized on these boards right when it happened." They jumped on the video or the media did?
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf It's nice to see that there are still some reasonable, moderate Republicans out there like Powell and Rice. What's right is right snd politicians shouldn't be afraid to stand up for it, but sadly way too many are.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Powell, BTW, endorsed Obama today. "You know, I voted for him in 2008 and I plan to stick with him in 2012, and I'll be voting for he and Vice President Joe Biden next month," he said on CBS' "This Morning." Asked whether it was an endorsement, he said, "Yes." Powell praised the president's handling of the economy and ending of the Iraq War. "I think we ought to keep on the track we are on," he said. Powell said he had the "utmost respect" for Mitt Romney, but criticized his tax plan. He said Romney's foreign policy was a "moving target." "One day he has a certain strong view about staying in Afghanistan, but then on Monday night he agrees with the withdrawal. Same thing in Iraq. On every issue that was discussed on Monday night, Gov. Romney agreed with the president with some nuances. But this is quite a different set of foreign policy views than he had earlier in the campaign."
Originally Posted By Ivan %%%%%%so blame it on a video and call it a day%%%%%% Interesting how both Rice and Powell are black conservative republican people who think it's Ok for Obama to quickly blame the deaths on a video instead of Muslim terrorists. When will racism end? I hope soon.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Interesting how both Rice and Powell are black conservative republican people<<< Speaking of racist! Rice and Powell are extremely intelligent, conservative republican people that are supporting Obama. In their case, it is just a blatant racist statement to say it's because they are black. They, unlike so many in the wonderful world of politics care a great deal about how they are perceived. I trust them way more than Romney to make a wise choice based on what is right as opposed to blindly following some party line. And I am an old white man. Go figure!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 FWIW, I don't think Rice is endorsing Obama's election. She's just making a point that it can be very difficult to know exactly what happened in the immediate aftermath of a chaotic event.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 FWIW, I don't think Rice is endorsing Obama's election. She's just making a point that it can be very difficult to know exactly what happened in the immediate aftermath of a chaotic event.<< Which is why you keep your mouth shut until you know what is going on... President Bush was criticized after 9/11 for not stopping reading a story to kids and reacting immediately, but he knew there was really nothing he could have done immediately following the attacks, he didn't rush to judgement or point fingers immediately after the attack... I don't blame the President as much as I blame his press team, they should have known better...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Which is why you keep your mouth shut until you know what is going on... > Romney released a press release the very night of the attack, politicizing it before he knew one damn thing. <I don't blame the President as much as I blame his press team, they should have known better...> Well, they were certainly more at fault than the president, if there's any fault to have here. Still, the press was demanding answers, and they'd have been criticized for saying nothing, too, either as "stonewalling" or "covering up" by the noise machine. They relayed what was relayed to them by the intelligence community, which indeed did change as the days went on, but only because what the intelligence committee itself understood changed as the days went on. It's really a damn shame such an event is being politicized at all.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Trust me, Romney isn't in the right here either, but the topic is on the President... Romney would be a disaster in regards to relationships with foreign countries....We would have very few allies after 4 years of him in office. The problem is Americans are used to getting information immediately, and the press is only looking out for ratings, so they want to "scoop" their competitors, this sometimes leads to misinformation being reported... Politicians should not cave in to the media, they need to keep quiet until at least the basic facts are known.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh, I agree. I was more outlining how things happened than whether they should have happened that way. But in the end the response wasn't any sort of "disaster" except in the media's need to label things as such.
Originally Posted By TMI "President Bush was criticized after 9/11 for not stopping reading a story to kids and reacting immediately, but he knew there was really nothing he could have done immediately following the attacks" This is ridiculous, he had no way of knowing if the attacks were over, and indeed at that point I don't believe they were. In addition, there were still hundreds or thousands of planes in the air and no way of verifying that they were all in good hands at that early stage. There was plenty of reason for the President to be engaged and busy at that time, and he was deservedly scorned for his bizarre reaction.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 This is ridiculous, he had no way of knowing if the attacks were over, and indeed at that point I don't believe they were. In addition, there were still hundreds or thousands of planes in the air and no way of verifying that they were all in good hands at that early stage. There was plenty of reason for the President to be engaged and busy at that time, and he was deservedly scorned for his bizarre reaction.<< So what is the President going to do? Grab an airplane and shoot the terrorists from the sky? This isn't a movie, his reaction was adequate as nobody knew the full extent for what was going on. The proper individuals who could react (Sec of Defense, National Guard, etc) were notified and were reacting to the situation. Can you imagine the outrage if the President stopped everything and announced that the attacks were based on a video or an accidental crash into a building" without waiting to get the proper information from the media... It's better to wait until you understand the fulle extent as to what is going on. I would never fault any Commander for waiting to issue an announcement rather than rush to judgement, unfortunately I am in the minority.
Originally Posted By Ivan %%%%%So what is the President going to do?%%%%% how about tell the children that something very important and unexpected needs to be addressed immediately. This way he could stop reading and leave the kids fast without scaring them. Then talk with his advisors and act like a president and get to work on the problem.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "President Bush was criticized after 9/11 for not stopping reading a story to kids and reacting immediately, but he knew there was really nothing he could have done immediately following the attacks" At the time, I was very pro-Bush. I was pro-Bush even through two invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, until it became clear we invaded Iraq for all the wrong reasons. I voted for the guy twice. I never criticized his reaction to 9-11 while telling kids that story. People only jumped on him for that until after it became fashionable to get on him about everything else. I still don't agree for criticizing him for it. If Bush's time was going to teach us anything about war and/or terrorists, it should have been that our reaction should be muted until we know as much as we believe we can. Romney and his sycophants haven't learned that yet. Romney, if he were to win, would be a foreign policy disaster of the type yet to be seen unless cooler heads were to prevail.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, Bush had the proper response to the initial reports, which was not to say ANYTHING until some details were known.
Originally Posted By Ivan %%%%Rice and Powell are extremely intelligent, conservative republican people that are supporting Obama.%%%%% No you got it wrong. Because they support your boy you label them intelligent. If they gave your boy a hard time would you still call them intelligent? I bet not.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox General Powell is one of the very few Republicans I happen to admire and respect. And I've felt that way about the man long before W's reign of terror in the White House. What Team Bush and Team Romney have done to Powell is indefensible. Throwing this man under the bus just because he's more moderate and centrist than they are is unethical if not immoral, given that Bush ran as a 'uniter not divider' moderate in his 2000 campaign. Romney is now trying to distance himself from his 'severe conservatism' to appeal to the undecided centrist voters, so he's also guilty of hypocrisy regarding Powell. And you can take your 'if they gave your boy' tainted racist remarks, Beau, and stick them you-know-where. I've had plenty of criticism for President Obama, as have other progressive Dems. Obama is not liberal enough for my taste, but I'm smart enough to know that the alternative candidate would be far, far worse. So, in that sense, Powell is definitely "intelligent" for supporting Obama, especially when it comes to foreign affairs and the military. Romney is incompetent beyond measure with regard to these matters.
