Skip to comments.Mr. President, who let them die?
Posted on 10/27/2012 9:51:28 AM PDT by Perdogg
click here to read article
If you are referring to the broadcast media, yes there is a left bias. Newspapers are divided and are mostly concerned with revenue.
For example, The NY Times gains nothing for being pro-left except for their perception of that it will sell papers. Same goes for the NY Post, in reverse.
Did they scrub the article?
It has meaning to me, but does not apply to the point I made.
All of this is meaningless to me. All presidents are the same. The only difference is who gets appointed to the Supreme Court, the only reason to support Romney.
Bush acted. I lived thousands of miles away but within an hour of the second plane hitting the second tower, planes were scrambled over all San Diego military bases and snipers were watching from the top of the FBI building. Flights were cancelled and grounded shortly thereafter. There were police everywhere.
Obama watched it happen. And he did nothing as Americans died. He did nothing while they begged for help. And he lied about it.
2012.10.22 - TheBlazeTV - The Glenn Beck Program - Libya—The Real Story
Can’t speak for Twinkie, but I, for one, don’t believe Obama was watching the ambassador being murdered. I believe he had someone else watching for him. I believe this because a)he’s outsourced his job all year to campaign full-time and b)it gives him someone else to blame. (Note his “didn’t know personally” remarks regarding Beghazi security issues.)
As for shortselling our capabilities...reacquaint yourself with the hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the killing of Leon Klinghoffer. Compare President Reagan’s response back in ‘85 (without benefit of drones, real-time video, emails, or the hundreds of technological and military advancements since) to the response to Benghazi.
The real difference between the Achille Lauro and Libya? Reagan took the title Commander in Chief seriously, as opposed to pResident Boxholder, who uses it as male enhancement when wooing clueless voters.
And, yes. I do believe we could’ve found the exact perps and vaporized them, and wouldn’t give a damn if they bled into the masses, so long as they bled out. Stay charming.
Provide extra security WHEN it was asked for. Send in sufficient ARMED military to DEAL WITH THE SITUATION as it was happening (and NOT armed with rubber bullets!) - Obama HAD to pretend all was well in the Middle East that he had guided so carefully through the blessed “Arab Spring”.
Another thing; open microphone and Obama assures Medvedev that he’ll have “more flexibility” (to disarm us) AFTER he’s re-elected. . . AND THIS DOES NOT CONCERN YOU?! You are naive if you think Iran and Russia are going to concede ANYTHING to Obama’s WEAKNESS; and he IS a WEAK SISTER!!
Or maybe I should say, "is that you Mr. Axelrod?"
Worse, it sounds like there was a Spectre overhead that was told to “Stand Down”.
“All presidents are the same. The only difference is who gets appointed to the Supreme Court”
No difference? Your ignorance is amazing, but very liberal in its emotional assumptions. Bush would have given the order to take action and not have gone to bed as Obama did.
Take a look at the NYT latest earnings which were reported last week.
You’re the fool.
It’s not often you run into someone who doesn’t understand capitalism on FR. Businesses exist to turn a profit, not to promote an agenda. The agenda is secondary.
To the others here:
Presidents differ on social issues. They all hire the same economic people, and almost without exception, they come from Goldman Sachs.
I hope Romney wins because of the social issues but as we learned under W, his economic policies and foreign policies run similarly to Obama.
Romney will follow suit, and I predict that Romney will be hated at FR if he wins, not as much as Obama, but if anyone thinks Romney will be popular here, they are in for a rude awakening.
Yes, I guess that's true: I just can't fathom how capitalism works unless a little troll like you can enlighten me. I've only worked in mergers and acquisitions for the past twenty years.
I couldn't help notice how you managed to avoid the substance of my comment about the fate of the New York Times. If you'd bothered, you might have come to the conclusion that Pinch Sulzberger would rather run a far left-wing paper than a profitable one. His rather unfortunate shareholders probably have.
History contains a few examples of people and businesses and countries that preferred a ruinous ideology or course of action to a wise and common-sense one, but those examples are probably not of much interest to such a font of wisdom as yourself.
You just stay put in your self-satisfied little troll bubble, and come out and bite us when the mood suits.
If you believe anyone would rather run a business by agenda than by profit, you are a total simpleton and despite your “credentials” know nothing about business.