Posted on 10/28/2012 5:15:50 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
October 28th, 2012
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va.; Mark Udall, D-Colo.; Rob Portman, R-Ohio; and Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Govs. John Kasich, R-Ohio; John Hickenlooper, D-Colo.; Scott Walker, R-Wis.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama's re-election campaign; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): David Axelrod, adviser to the Obama campaign; Reince Priebus, Republican National Committee chairman; Gov. Bob McDonnell, R-Va., and former Gov. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio.
Would they create the Egyptian riots as cover and already have their video excuse in the bag waiting for this kidnapping? They would then have a reason to negotiate for the Blind sheik.
Or, the riot in Cairo could have been a “found object” that they jumped on.
In Cairo, the blind sheik was the object of the protest but lickety-split the Administration contrived the video explanation. Start there and ask why?
Maybe they were trying to set up Romney—??
But I don’t know why they did it, just that they did start lying about a video. It does look suspicious and begins to resemble the way the KGB used to run ops in Africa back in the day.
A lot of those were ineptly executed too. Almost laughable.
Yeah, it all doesn’t “fit” in their stories...and why do you need stories when you have a live feed?
I finally have a chance to follow-up. Got sorta sidetracked:
Please don’t get me wrong; what Eric Nordstrom did and said really is / was extraordinary. But I’ve seen people destroyed in the private sector too, for standing up, and they did it knowing what the consequences would be. This in no way diminishes my admiration and respect for Mr. Nordstrom. :-)
I hope your suggestion regarding his future employment is heeded somewhere. (Maybe you have a few contacts still?)
If Romney is elected, and Nordstrom has the overall capability / experience, maybe he (Nordstrom) should be top dog in charge of day-to-day security for all our Embassies, answering directly to the Sec. of State? (I don’t actually know if such a position exists.)
BTW, thanks for your service to our country!
I understand your assessment, but is there not also considerable risk to air strikes if the terrorists / attackers have some of those MANPADs, and in fact have anticipated a response by air power, as that tends to be US SOP.(?)
In this situation, it seems to me that we at least have both ground and air power “on the move”, and decide on deployment as the situation evolves...
One thing I have not been able to determine is what kind of laser was on the roof of the annex. Was it just a pointer (useful to a machine gunner and also useful to an AC-130, but not useful, as I understand it, with laser-guided munitions that can be deployed from high altitude)?
There was risk to any form of intervention, but would that not be reduced somewhat with a powerful, flexible response? (Overwhelm the enemy.) Of course, that TOTALLY blows Obama’s AQ narrative. (We’d have to hide all the dead terrorists’ bodies, just for starters.)
As far as your bottom line goes, though, we are in 100% agreement. This was a political decision, or cowardice, or both, and it stinks, stinks, stinks.
We sell arms to the Turks directly all the time, and they can buy what they want from other countries too. Why go through the trouble of moving them from Libya to Turkey to Syria when the Turks could just give them what they already have and save all the time and trouble and shipping?
But Obama's 'rebel army' apparently is in Libya. Somebody has to be available to use all those weapons.
Unmaned armed drones would reduce the personnel risks and they are very accurate.
That is true, and we already had a drone, or perhaps two in succession, at the scene. That however leads to the maddening non-answer to the question of whether the drone was armed. Except of course that the media doesn’t ask that question, either. Pat Caddell is right...
Another consideration, though, is that while a drone could certainly have taken out that mortar, a drone by itself could not hold off a sustained attack, if the attackers were determined and well armed.
However, as you said, the question is less that of the means, and more that of the decision makers and their mindset.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.