U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, I'm not saying there wasn't a certain amount of incompetence with regard to Benghazi. Others may deny it but I don't. The bottom line is that they publicly misrepresented the cause of the attack, and they did it far longer than they should have. That's a screw up plain and simple, no getting around it.

Where we apparently disagree is on two points: first, although it was a screwup, I don't think, based on the info that we know, that it rises to the level of severe incompetence that you seem to think it does. It was a screwup, but there was good reason for it.

More importantly, I don't think it's at all representative of the level of competence of this administration, as you seem to think it does.

I think my point about the HC website was to show an example of how incompetent this administration could be, this not to say that the Benghazi incident or HC.gov means everything they do is incompetent. I just thought it needed to be established they are capable of this kind of thing.

We're getting pretty close here.

that it rises to the level of severe incompetence

MS. RICE: David, I dont think so. First of all we had no actionable intelligence to suggest that-- that any attack on our facility in Benghazi was imminent. ...

“Security vacuum,” Ambassador Stevens wrote in his personal diary on Sept. 6 in Tripoli, in one of the few pages recovered from the Benghazi compound.

“Militias are power on the ground,” he wrote. “Dicey conditions, including car bombs, attacks on consulate,” he continued. “Islamist ‘hit list’ in Benghazi. Me targeted on a prominent website (no more off compound jogging).” A map of his Tripoli jogging route had appeared on the Internet, seemingly inviting attacks, diplomats said.

In his diary, Mr. Stevens wrote, “Never ending security threats…”

Mr. Stevens, who spent the day in the compound for security reasons because of the Sept. 11 anniversary,

There was even less security at the compound than usual, Mr. Akin said. No armed American guards met him at the gate, only a few unarmed Libyans. “No security men, no diplomats, nobody,” he said. “There was no deterrence.”

Those are from the original NYT report.

I think the severity here, as you put it, depends on how "spontaneous" this thing is viewed. It wasn't a "protest" we all agree about that now, I think.

 

[timschochet]

Why do you think it's important to establish that the Obama administration is capable of incompetence? As I pointed out earlier, there is not a single administration in my lifetime, or probably ever, that hasn't proven itself capable of immense incompetence. We can take that for granted.

Which President in modern American history do most historians regard as our most competent, with the best run White House? That would be FDR. What event is generally regarded as the most shocking in American history, chalk full of screwups, sheer incompetence, lies and cover ups, passing the blame on others, lying to the public and the press? That would be December 7, 1941.

 

[timschochet]

And as for our greatest President ever, can you imagine if he had been held to the "Benghazi" level of scrutiny for blunders such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorville? Lincoln would have been impeached well before his first term was up.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why do you think it's important to establish that the Obama administration is capable of incompetence?

You are trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is unreasonable. He will spew long before he ever thinks.

Hell, he complained about the President visiting the troops on Memorial Day. Tried to make that an issue.

You literally have nowhere to go.

 

[timschochet]

Why do you think it's important to establish that the Obama administration is capable of incompetence?

You are trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is unreasonable. He will spew long before he ever thinks.

Hell, he complained about the President visiting the troops on Memorial Day. Tried to make that an issue.

You literally have nowhere to go.

I think Saints is a very reasonable guy. It's just that unfortunately like so many conservatives these days, his reactions to President Obama are decidedly UNREASONABLE, at least IMO.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why do you think it's important to establish that the Obama administration is capable of incompetence?

You are trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is unreasonable. He will spew long before he ever thinks.

Hell, he complained about the President visiting the troops on Memorial Day. Tried to make that an issue.

You literally have nowhere to go.

I think Saints is a very reasonable guy. It's just that unfortunately like so many conservatives these days, his reactions to President Obama are decidedly UNREASONABLE, at least IMO.

You just contradicted yourself in your own post. And in the end you came to the obvious conclusion that didnt need any of your preface.

 

[Chaka]

Certainly, for instance, when we compare how the Obamas handled Benghazi to how the Bushes handled Hurricane Katrina, it's not even remotely close. If the Democrats had held hearings about Katrina in the same manner as the Republicans are now investigating Benghazi, far far worse would have been uncovered, IMO- a much higher level of incompetence for a much longer period of time, with far greater catastrophic consequences.

The gift that keeps on giving....

I'm hoping that Saints will respond to my posts. Though we disagree a lot, he is a very thoughtful guy and I learn quite a bit even by disagreeing with him. You may also be a thoughtful guy but unfortunately I would never know it from your posts. You offer nothing of value. All you do is attack anyone who takes issue with your partisan conservative point of view- and you don't even rip them with argument or humor, just emoticons. It's boring and sad. Hopefully in the future you'll contribute something worthwhile to these discussions.

Yet....you have to write all of this for my response of



It's just too easy with you.

Soooooo...you approve of the way The Bush administration handled Katrina?

I am taking this as you punting on the question.

Use your words.

 

[FlapJacks]

And as for our greatest President ever, can you imagine if he had been held to the "Benghazi" level of scrutiny for blunders such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorville? Lincoln would have been impeached well before his first term was up.

With the exception of the Emancipation, which is the legacy that puts him on Rushmore, Lincoln was kind of a bad President.

 

[Bogeys]

Why do you think it's important to establish that the Obama administration is capable of incompetence? As I pointed out earlier, there is not a single administration in my lifetime, or probably ever, that hasn't proven itself capable of immense incompetence. We can take that for granted.

Which President in modern American history do most historians regard as our most competent, with the best run White House? That would be FDR. What event is generally regarded as the most shocking in American history, chalk full of screwups, sheer incompetence, lies and cover ups, passing the blame on others, lying to the public and the press? That would be December 7, 1941.

Not to speak for Saints, but I what I get from the conversation is that he is leaning towards incompetence over an outright lie because he thinks it has to be one or the other. You are saying that you don't believe that the administration lied so he is falling back on incompetence.

I could be completely wrong about his point but that is how I read it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why do you think it's important to establish that the Obama administration is capable of incompetence? As I pointed out earlier, there is not a single administration in my lifetime, or probably ever, that hasn't proven itself capable of immense incompetence. We can take that for granted.

Which President in modern American history do most historians regard as our most competent, with the best run White House? That would be FDR. What event is generally regarded as the most shocking in American history, chalk full of screwups, sheer incompetence, lies and cover ups, passing the blame on others, lying to the public and the press? That would be December 7, 1941.

Not to speak for Saints, but I what I get from the conversation is that he is leaning towards incompetence over an outright lie because he thinks it has to be one or the other. You are saying that you don't believe that the administration lied so he is falling back on incompetence.

I could be completely wrong about his point but that is how I read it.

That's right, thanks. I was actually attempting to reach some minimum level of agreement on something in an actual discussion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why do you think it's important to establish that the Obama administration is capable of incompetence?

You are trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is unreasonable. He will spew long before he ever thinks.

Hell, he complained about the President visiting the troops on Memorial Day. Tried to make that an issue.

You literally have nowhere to go.

I think Saints is a very reasonable guy. It's just that unfortunately like so many conservatives these days, his reactions to President Obama are decidedly UNREASONABLE, at least IMO.

You just contradicted yourself in your own post. And in the end you came to the obvious conclusion that didnt need any of your preface.

BST, this is where Tim previously left it:

Where we apparently disagree is on two points: first, although it was a screwup, I don't think, based on the info that we know, that it rises to the level of severe incompetence that you seem to think it does. It was a screwup, but there was good reason for it.

At this point if it was the right time of day I would buy him a pint and thank him for hearing me out. I merely tried to carry the conversation forward one more bit, trying to establish the difference between "severe" and "not severe", which didn't seem too, too bad to me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And as for our greatest President ever, can you imagine if he had been held to the "Benghazi" level of scrutiny for blunders such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorville? Lincoln would have been impeached well before his first term was up.

About this:

More importantly, I don't think it's at all representative of the level of competence of this administration, as you seem to think it does.

I really don't mean to argue that. Even Lincoln's most ardent admirers (we all are, he's Top-3 all time) would concede he made some military blunders in ridiculously tough circumstances. That doesn't make him a bad president. Obama is no Lincoln, and Benghazi isn't .0001100% of the Civil War, but I am not claiming that Benghazi by itself makes him a bad president. I was just pointing out one example, HC.gov, where we can all agree that he screwed up, was completely out of touch, and no one is claiming the GOP had anything to do with it. That's all it was intended as. And so Lincoln had blunders, but Obama did not? Ok, that sounds even more ridiculous.

 

[urbanhack]

Why do you think it's important to establish that the Obama administration is capable of incompetence?

You are trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is unreasonable. He will spew long before he ever thinks.

Hell, he complained about the President visiting the troops on Memorial Day. Tried to make that an issue.

You literally have nowhere to go.

I think Saints is a very reasonable guy.

 

[Politician Spock]

WTF happened in here?!?

The anti-Obamites are off the rails.

Tim can derail any poster faster than GM can down a McDonald's cheeseburger.

 

[tommyGunZ]

And as for our greatest President ever, can you imagine if he had been held to the "Benghazi" level of scrutiny for blunders such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorville? Lincoln would have been impeached well before his first term was up.

About this:

More importantly, I don't think it's at all representative of the level of competence of this administration, as you seem to think it does.

I really don't mean to argue that. Even Lincoln's most ardent admirers (we all are, he's Top-3 all time) would concede he made some military blunders in ridiculously tough circumstances. That doesn't make him a bad president. Obama is no Lincoln, and Benghazi isn't .0001100% of the Civil War, but I am not claiming that Benghazi by itself makes him a bad president. I was just pointing out one example, HC.gov, where we can all agree that he screwed up, was completely out of touch, and no one is claiming the GOP had anything to do with it. That's all it was intended as. And so Lincoln had blunders, but Obama did not? Ok, that sounds even more ridiculous.

Perhaps if you simply said Obama has had a few blunders as opposed to "this administration is incompetent", folks would not disagree with you so vehemently.

 

[Chaka]

HC.gov was so screwed up that only 7+ million people got health insurance.

At this point who cares if the rollout was a disaster?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

HC.gov was so screwed up that only 7+ million people got health insurance.

At this point who cares if the rollout was a disaster?

Chaka, I'm not raising that. - I merely was pointing out that the site was clearly not ready when it was rolled out and the administration and Obama personally were shocked, surprised to find that out. I used that as an example because they were clearly not in touch with the facts and everyone agrees, Demo, Repub, liberal, prog, con, indy, that the thing did not work when it rolled out and it took a whole month for the administration to even claim that the initial kinks were worked out. Again, it was just an example of how, yes, they could in fact be completely clueless about reality.

I'm not even talking about the success of the ACA at this point, that's a whole other thread. Again, the point was just to show one clear example we can all agree on where they had no idea what was going on in their own administration.

 

[Ghost Rider]

HC.gov was so screwed up that only 7+ million people got health insurance.

At this point who cares if the rollout was a disaster?

Do we ignore the millions of people who now have worse coverage while also paying more per month?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And as for our greatest President ever, can you imagine if he had been held to the "Benghazi" level of scrutiny for blunders such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorville? Lincoln would have been impeached well before his first term was up.

About this:

More importantly, I don't think it's at all representative of the level of competence of this administration, as you seem to think it does.

I really don't mean to argue that. Even Lincoln's most ardent admirers (we all are, he's Top-3 all time) would concede he made some military blunders in ridiculously tough circumstances. That doesn't make him a bad president. Obama is no Lincoln, and Benghazi isn't .0001100% of the Civil War, but I am not claiming that Benghazi by itself makes him a bad president. I was just pointing out one example, HC.gov, where we can all agree that he screwed up, was completely out of touch, and no one is claiming the GOP had anything to do with it. That's all it was intended as. And so Lincoln had blunders, but Obama did not? Ok, that sounds even more ridiculous.

Perhaps if you simply said Obama has had a few blunders as opposed to "this administration is incompetent", folks would not disagree with you so vehemently.

Just to be clear, Gunz, Tim made the leap from saying that Benghazi had anything to do with the incompetence of the administration in general. I brought up one discreet example to demonstrate that we could all agree that there was at least one instance where the administration had no clue about the real facts about a very important component of a very dearly held program that no one else had a hand in but them, the HC.gov website. Tim dragged in other areas which he claimed were "competent", which i agreed were valid. Tried to get some closure here, phew.

 

[tommyboy]

HC.gov was so screwed up that only 7+ million people got health insurance.

At this point who cares if the rollout was a disaster?

Do we ignore the millions of people who now have worse coverage while also paying more per month?

or the 3 million people that lost insurance so then had to go re-get insurance after the law hit.

 

[tommyboy]

And as for our greatest President ever, can you imagine if he had been held to the "Benghazi" level of scrutiny for blunders such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorville? Lincoln would have been impeached well before his first term was up.

About this:

More importantly, I don't think it's at all representative of the level of competence of this administration, as you seem to think it does.

I really don't mean to argue that. Even Lincoln's most ardent admirers (we all are, he's Top-3 all time) would concede he made some military blunders in ridiculously tough circumstances. That doesn't make him a bad president. Obama is no Lincoln, and Benghazi isn't .0001100% of the Civil War, but I am not claiming that Benghazi by itself makes him a bad president. I was just pointing out one example, HC.gov, where we can all agree that he screwed up, was completely out of touch, and no one is claiming the GOP had anything to do with it. That's all it was intended as. And so Lincoln had blunders, but Obama did not? Ok, that sounds even more ridiculous.

Perhaps if you simply said Obama has had a few blunders as opposed to "this administration is incompetent", folks would not disagree with you so vehemently.

you should probably go back to some of your own posts from 2006-2008 and see how many times you gave Bush the benefit of the doubt with such "had a few blunders" talk.

At this rate, Obama is making Carter look like an upgrade

 

[Ghost Rider]

HC.gov was so screwed up that only 7+ million people got health insurance.

At this point who cares if the rollout was a disaster?

Do we ignore the millions of people who now have worse coverage while also paying more per month?

or the 3 million people that lost insurance so then had to go re-get insurance after the law hit.

Exactly. Hell, I am an independent who voted for Obama in '08, but there is no spin that makes Obamacare a success at this point; it hasn't been. Blindly saying, "But this many more have insurance," is ignoring the many negatives. I think the GOP has overreached in regards to many of the scandals they try lumping on to the president, but when it comes to Obamacare, he deserves pretty much all of the criticism he has gotten for that.

 

[Bucky86]

HC.gov was so screwed up that only 7+ million people got health insurance.

At this point who cares if the rollout was a disaster?

Do we ignore the millions of people who now have worse coverage while also paying more per month?

or the 3 million people that lost insurance so then had to go re-get insurance after the law hit.

Exactly. Hell, I am an independent who voted for Obama in '08, but there is no spin that makes Obamacare a success at this point; it hasn't been. Blindly saying, "But this many more have insurance," is ignoring the many negatives. I think the GOP has overreached in regards to many of the scandals they try lumping on to the president, but when it comes to Obamacare, he deserves pretty much all of the criticism he has gotten for that.

I thought this thread was about BENGHAZI?!

 

[tommyGunZ]

HC.gov was so screwed up that only 7+ million people got health insurance.

At this point who cares if the rollout was a disaster?

Do we ignore the millions of people who now have worse coverage while also paying more per month?

Worse coverage?

 

[tommyboy]

just in the last year or two many lefties were bragging about how the VA model was the epitome of gov't managed health care, and how Obamacare would similarly usher in a new era of happy happy fun fun.

yeah, not so much now

 

[pizzatyme]

Saints, I'm not saying there wasn't a certain amount of incompetence with regard to Benghazi. Others may deny it but I don't. The bottom line is that they publicly misrepresented

the cause of the attack, and they did it far longer than they should have. That's a screw up plain and simple, no getting around it.

Where we apparently disagree is on two points: first, although it was a screwup, I don't think, based on the info that we know, that it rises to the level of severe incompetence that you seem

to think it does. It was a screwup, but there was good reason for it.

More inportantly, I don't think it's at all

representative of the level of competence of this administration, as you seem to think it does.

Publicly misrepresented longer than they should have= lied to the public. Can you just say that?

 

[drummer]

just in the last year or two many lefties were bragging about how the VA model was the epitome of gov't managed health care, and how Obamacare would similarly usher in a new era of happy happy fun fun.

yeah, not so much now

Bitter loser

 

[MaxThreshold]

HC.gov was so screwed up that only 7+ million people got health insurance.

At this point who cares if the rollout was a disaster?

Do we ignore the millions of people who now have worse coverage while also paying more per month?

Worse coverage?

worse [wurs] Show IPA
adjective compar. of bad and ill.1.bad or ill in a greater or higher degree; inferior in excellence, quality, or character.
2.more unfavorable or injurious.
3.in less good condition; in poorer health.
noun4.that which is worse.
adverb5.in a more evil, wicked, severe, or disadvantageous manner.
6.with more severity, intensity, etc.; in a greater degree.

 

[drummer]

Lock this thread now.

 

[Chaka]

 

[timschochet]

Saints, I'm not saying there wasn't a certain amount of incompetence with regard to Benghazi. Others may deny it but I don't. The bottom line is that they publicly misrepresented

the cause of the attack, and they did it far longer than they should have. That's a screw up plain and simple, no getting around it.

Where we apparently disagree is on two points: first, although it was a screwup, I don't think, based on the info that we know, that it rises to the level of severe incompetence that you seem

to think it does. It was a screwup, but there was good reason for it.

More inportantly, I don't think it's at all

representative of the level of competence of this administration, as you seem to think it does.

Publicly misrepresented longer than they should have= lied to the public. Can you just say that?

No, because it's not the same thing.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Saints, I'm not saying there wasn't a certain amount of incompetence with regard to Benghazi. Others may deny it but I don't. The bottom line is that they publicly misrepresented

the cause of the attack, and they did it far longer than they should have. That's a screw up plain and simple, no getting around it.

Where we apparently disagree is on two points: first, although it was a screwup, I don't think, based on the info that we know, that it rises to the level of severe incompetence that you seem

to think it does. It was a screwup, but there was good reason for it.

More inportantly, I don't think it's at all

representative of the level of competence of this administration, as you seem to think it does.

Publicly misrepresented longer than they should have= lied to the public. Can you just say that?

No, because it's not the same thing.

 

[Josie Maran]

And as for our greatest President ever, can you imagine if he had been held to the "Benghazi" level of scrutiny for blunders such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorville? Lincoln would have been impeached well before his first term was up.

With the exception of the Emancipation, which is the legacy that puts him on Rushmore, Lincoln was kind of a bad President.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Movie = Act of War

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/north-korea-calls-the-seth-rogen-james-franco-comedy-89863655502.html

If the United States administration tacitly approves or supports the release of this film, we will take a decisive and merciless countermeasure.” The statement also described the movie as “an act of war that we will never tolerate.”

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Movie = Act of War

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/north-korea-calls-the-seth-rogen-james-franco-comedy-89863655502.html

If the United States administration tacitly approves or supports the release of this film, we will take a decisive and merciless countermeasure.” The statement also described the movie as “an act of war that we will never tolerate.”

That's funny. Yeah, let's unpack that.

Let's imagine if NK actually did something horrible, like took a running ICBM hook shot at Maui (say it barely missed and "only" 4 or so Americans were killed).

The equivalent response from Obama in front of the UN would go something like:

This was a a crude and disgusting video, whose message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to all Koreans, but to America as well. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. It is repulsive to our most sacred beliefs, it contains hateful speech which has created chaos around the world. The future must not belong to those who slander the Great Leader.

And he would say all this without mentioning the word communism or stalinism or totalitarianism.

Ridiculous, right?

 

[drummer]

I can't see how anybody is proud of themselves now.

 

[timschochet]

In the book I am currently reading about the 2012 Presidential election, (The Center Holds by Jonathan Alter) there is this sentence in the section on Benghazi:

Lost in the cross fire were legitimate questions about why the US government didn't do a better job protecting its personnel abroad. Hillary Clinton had made repeated attempts to beef up security at US embassies, but the House of Representatives never provided the money.

I'm curious if anybody knows how true this is, and if this has at all been explored.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In the book I am currently reading about the 2012 Presidential election, (The Center Holds by Jonathan Alter) there is this sentence in the section on Benghazi:

Lost in the cross fire were legitimate questions about why the US government didn't do a better job protecting its personnel abroad. Hillary Clinton had made repeated attempts to beef up security at US embassies, but the House of Representatives never provided the money.

I'm curious if anybody knows how true this is, and if this has at all been explored.

In her interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer last week, Hillary Clinton said "I was not making security decisions" about Benghazi, claiming "it would be a mistake" for "a secretary of state" to "go through all 270 posts" and "decide what should be done." And at a January 2013 Senate hearing, Mrs. Clinton said that security requests "did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them."

...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/victoria-toensing-doesnt-hillary-clinton-know-the-law-1403047339

Open question exactly what she is claiming.

 

[Kevrunner]

At this rate, Obama is making Carter look like an upgrade

Jimmy Carter is doing cartwheels, he's longer is the worse player on the team.

 

[Todd Andrews]

All right, fine. I'm not trying to turn this into a contest about which side's lunatic fringe is kookier. We can agree that there is little to choose between them.

Back to my main point- on the whole, I think the Obama Administration has shown a much higher level of competence than you seem to want to give them credit for. I make that argument without regard to their political attitudes- whether or not you like or dislike a President's politics should have nothing to do with how you regard their competence.

Hey I fully admit that if we look at examples of incompetence it's only logical to look at examples of competence. However if the Obama administration was acting in full consciousness of what it was doing, that's not very good for them in this particular situation.

This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that-- what has happened is condemnable, but this is a-- a spontaneous reaction to a video ...

GREGORY: Was there a failure here that this administration is responsible for, whether its an intelligence failure, a failure to see this coming, or a failure to adequately protect U.S. embassies and installations from a spontaneous kind of reaction like this?

MS. RICE: David, I dont think so. First of all we had no actionable intelligence to suggest that-- that any attack on our facility in Benghazi was imminent. ...

Goals: ... To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

If the Obama administration was fully conscious in saying these things then the GOP just looks stronger in their theories IMO.

OK so now I don't quite understand. Are you suggesting now that they were incompetent in this situation, or that they deliberately lied? Which is it?

Well I keep arguing for incompetence but you keep trying to persuade me that these guys are constantly in charge of the situation and so... if the above was intentional then... but that's where you come in. But I'm sticking with incompetence.

Look at this phrase from Rice as one example:

a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world

Now I want you to imagine for 5 seconds that George W Bush had said that.

It's Youtube.

Youtube. As in it was put on the internets.

But Susan Rice thinks that means it was "widely disseminated throughout the Arab and muslim world"???

Hey Suze, here's a hint: anyone anywhere in the world can see it.

Who cares?

 

[Josie Maran]

At this rate, Obama is making Carter look like an upgrade

Jimmy Carter is doing cartwheels, he's longer is the worse player on the team.

You two want some privacy?

 

[Daywalker]

just in the last year or two many lefties were bragging about how the VA model was the epitome of gov't managed health care, and how Obamacare would similarly usher in a new era of happy happy fun fun.

yeah, not so much now

I would assume VA patient satisfaction is below industry standards. Would make sense.

 

[Apple Jack]

If only they had a slam dunk source like curveball.

 

[Hang 10]

And as for our greatest President ever, can you imagine if he had been held to the "Benghazi" level of scrutiny for blunders such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg, or Chancellorville? Lincoln would have been impeached well before his first term was up.

About this:

More importantly, I don't think it's at all representative of the level of competence of this administration, as you seem to think it does.

I really don't mean to argue that. Even Lincoln's most ardent admirers (we all are, he's Top-3 all time) would concede he made some military blunders in ridiculously tough circumstances. That doesn't make him a bad president. Obama is no Lincoln, and Benghazi isn't .0001100% of the Civil War, but I am not claiming that Benghazi by itself makes him a bad president. I was just pointing out one example, HC.gov, where we can all agree that he screwed up, was completely out of touch, and no one is claiming the GOP had anything to do with it. That's all it was intended as. And so Lincoln had blunders, but Obama did not? Ok, that sounds even more ridiculous.

Perhaps if you simply said Obama has had a few blunders as opposed to "this administration is incompetent", folks would not disagree with you so vehemently.

Which folks?

Poll: Obama administration less competent than Bush’s or Clinton’s, more sayBY SEAN SULLIVAN [SIZE=1em]June 4[/SIZE]
A majority of voters say the Obama administration is less competent than Bill Clinton's and a plurality say it is less competent than George W. Bush's according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Sixty-eight percent say the Obama administration is less competent that the Clinton administration. Forty-eight percent say it is less competent than Bush's, compared to 42 percent who say it is more competent. Seven percent judge Obama's and Bush's the same.

Fifty-five percent say that the Obama administration has made the country weaker; 35 percent say his administration has made it stronger.

The poll was conducted June 1-3 by the Democratic Anderson Robbins Research and the Republican Shaw & Company Research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/04/poll-obama-administration-less-competent-than-bushs-or-clintons-more-americans-say/

 

[cstu]

Which folks?

Poll: Obama administration less competent than Bushs or Clintons, more say

BY SEAN SULLIVAN June 4

A majority of voters say the Obama administration is less competent than Bill Clinton's and a plurality say it is less competent than George W. Bush's according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Sixty-eight percent say the Obama administration is less competent that the Clinton administration. Forty-eight percent say it is less competent than Bush's, compared to 42 percent who say it is more competent. Seven percent judge Obama's and Bush's the same.

Fifty-five percent say that the Obama administration has made the country weaker; 35 percent say his administration has made it stronger.

The poll was conducted June 1-3 by the Democratic Anderson Robbins Research and the Republican Shaw & Company Research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/04/poll-obama-administration-less-competent-than-bushs-or-clintons-more-americans-say/

SMH.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

All right, fine. I'm not trying to turn this into a contest about which side's lunatic fringe is kookier. We can agree that there is little to choose between them.

Back to my main point- on the whole, I think the Obama Administration has shown a much higher level of competence than you seem to want to give them credit for. I make that argument without regard to their political attitudes- whether or not you like or dislike a President's politics should have nothing to do with how you regard their competence.

Hey I fully admit that if we look at examples of incompetence it's only logical to look at examples of competence. However if the Obama administration was acting in full consciousness of what it was doing, that's not very good for them in this particular situation.

This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that-- what has happened is condemnable, but this is a-- a spontaneous reaction to a video ...

GREGORY: Was there a failure here that this administration is responsible for, whether its an intelligence failure, a failure to see this coming, or a failure to adequately protect U.S. embassies and installations from a spontaneous kind of reaction like this?

MS. RICE: David, I dont think so. First of all we had no actionable intelligence to suggest that-- that any attack on our facility in Benghazi was imminent. ...

Goals: ... To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

If the Obama administration was fully conscious in saying these things then the GOP just looks stronger in their theories IMO.

OK so now I don't quite understand. Are you suggesting now that they were incompetent in this situation, or that they deliberately lied? Which is it?

Well I keep arguing for incompetence but you keep trying to persuade me that these guys are constantly in charge of the situation and so... if the above was intentional then... but that's where you come in. But I'm sticking with incompetence.

Look at this phrase from Rice as one example:

a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world

Now I want you to imagine for 5 seconds that George W Bush had said that.

It's Youtube.

Youtube. As in it was put on the internets.

But Susan Rice thinks that means it was "widely disseminated throughout the Arab and muslim world"???

Hey Suze, here's a hint: anyone anywhere in the world can see it.

Who cares?

I don't think the American people care about the movie one bit, that's my point, but I can think of three people: Hillary, who just devoted a chapter in her book to it and is making her record as SOS the centerpiece of her presidential campaign (and the media who keep asking her); Pres. Obama who obsessed over the movie in his speech to the UN about the attack; and Susan Rice herself who made it the heart of the administration's explanation to the country as to what happened.

Oddly enough the people who cared least about the movie may have been the attackers themselves.

 

[Chaka]

Oddly enough the people who cared least about the movie may have been the attackers themselves.

Or not.

 

[matuski]

Saints out timming tim.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Oddly enough the people who cared least about the movie may have been the attackers themselves.

Or not.

Ok - or not!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints out timming tim.

I'm aware of it, I've just been fascinated by the issue. I may take a long pause and pray for football.