Democracies risk 'losing souls' as media freedom erodes, group says

[Cuddles]

Bottom line if Obama wanted to stay he could have stayed, he loudly took credit for the exit when it was politically expedient, then he decided to shift gears when it blew up in his face. Im not going to pretend im some genius when it comes to that as i thought just pulling the pin and bailing was the best idea at the time too.

But clearly that decision turned out to be a colossal disaster, and now that it blew up in his face Obama wants to make it out as if he wasnt the one who made the call when he spent a half a year campaigning on it while it was politically expedient.

Then not only that screw up, but Obama and Hillary decided regime change was still a good idea after that, which makes them even dumber than Bush, we saw what happened in Iraq, then Obama and Hillary decided regime change was a good idea in libya, syria, egypt, etc....... They didnt even learn the lesson from the train wreck in Iraq, they all believed in the Bush doctrine, "If we can just spread democracy in the middle east they will all turn more liberal"

LOL, the neocons of old were actually smarter than us when they put all these dictators in charge in the first place.

Fair enough...I find hypocrisy abhorrent and often have to check myself if I'm being one at times. I hate media that present narratives and don't back them up with facts. I take my news dry and boring.

I seldom change opinion on things I know about or have an ethical stance on. If I do change my mind is out of lack of information on a previous standing or after years of introspection. I hope your change of opinion on Obama pulling out is not driven by media bias but by facts.

I seemed to remember the move was pretty popular back home, and who knows how the Iraqis would've seen that broken promise. Just shows how fickle the masses are and how going by mob rule is not the right approach.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Thank you so much. I personally did not find any "attack" there.

Yet you were outraged over Trump's response to that Khan character at the democrat convention.

 

[piezoe]

Yet you were outraged over Trump's response to that Khan character at the democrat convention.

I don't recall, you can perhaps find a post of mine to remind me. My guess is that I was too reserved, if I commented on it. I certainly should have been outraged. I do hope I was, but probably not.

P.S. I also think it inappropriate of you to refer to Mr. Khan "as that Khan Character."

 

[piezoe]

I agree 100%, the sign of poor/failed leadership is when you need to pin your failings on someone else. But this is one area where Trump has deftinitely not created a precedent, Obama was blaming Bush well into his second term, but the media didnt choose to frame it that way.

I mean how bad would Trump have gotten mocked if he tried to pull the stunt Obama did in the media, Obama was a narcissist like Trump so he always loved saying "I" "I" "I" instead of "We" he wasnt as bad as Trump like that but its pretty fucking embarassing that he was able to get away with pulling the pin on Iraq letting the country turn into a cluster fuck, and only tried to shift the blame years later when it back fired.

I can't come close to agreeing here. Obama shows , and showed, the confidence of those successful in politics. He does not, however, show obvious evidence of a clinical psychological disorder. Trump does!

When we got to the question of whether to pull out of Iraq it became a question of whether we had already paid enough under the "We Break It, We Buy it " principle. Not an easy question, and in the end, Obama did the right thing, don't you think, in insisting on the Iraqi puppet government being a part of the decision.

Because we violated international law and morality when we invaded Iraq on trumped up charges, it was right that we should have been bound by the 'We Break It Policy'. That has to trump, in this specific case, the general rule that no matter how far we have progressed down the wrong road, we should turn back. Did we stay long enough, yes we did. We are still there! Did we keep enough troops there, that can only be answered in conjunction with, and in the context of, the decisions made by the Iraqi government. But we also should recognize our hypocrisy in breaking rules and then pretending to be righteous. These are transgressions that will be ascribed to our nation, regardless the specific locus of real fault.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

P.S. I also think it inappropriate of you to refer to Mr. Khan "as that Khan Character."

He put himself into a political fight by a mean-spirited attack on Trump based on ludicrous legal reasoning, and he shamefully used his son's death to give himself human shield properties. So no, I have zero respect for him and his day job as some sort of muslim immigration activist doesn't help.

 

[vanzandt]

I don't recall, you can perhaps find a post of mine to remind me. My guess is that I was too reserved, if I commented on it. I certainly should have been outraged. I do hope I was, but probably not.

P.S. I also think it inappropriate of you to refer to Mr. Khan "as that Khan Character."

He's not the first parent to lose a child to military service. To exploit that (becoming a willing puppet for a political agenda) is sickening imo. Sometimes you have to wonder if wishes fulfill themselves.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Its generally not possible to have all of the facts correct in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. It happens all the time that events are initially incorrectly reported, or people jump to incorrect conclusions. It's an everyday occurrence. To make a story that rational people, i.e., those without a predisposition, would accept, you would have to come up with a motive for intentionally lying. There have been motives advanced, however the motives ascribed are themselves not very rational.

And saying 'she lies all the time' is not defensible. Has she said things that turned out not to be true, yes of course. Is there anyone alive who hasn't? She did "mis-remember" running for cover. This is more worrisome to me, then her initial thinking that a video that had sparked demonstrations in the Arab world caused the Benghazi attack. (As we later found out, that video was a motivating factor for Benghazi participants, but the not the reason for the attack.) Actually Hillery had the most sensible comment of all when she said, "what difference does it make?" In a non-political context, it wouldn't make a difference, but in the highly partisan context of U.S. politics it made a difference!

Please provide evidence that the YouTube video was the motivating factor.

I think that it is unlikely that even one person in the Bengahzi attack watched the video on YouTube.

 

[newwurldmn]

He's not the first parent to lose a child to military service. To exploit that (becoming a willing puppet for a political agenda) is sickening imo. Sometimes you have to wonder if wishes fulfill themselves.

Like the lady who lost her husband in Trump's Yemen raid and trump used to "become presidential"

There is a certain decorum in politics: you don't go after politician's underage kids and you don't go after families who have made grave sacrifices for this nation.

 

[piezoe]

Please provide evidence that the YouTube video was the motivating factor.

I think that it is unlikely that even one person in the Bengahzi attack watched the video on YouTube.

It's extremely easy to find. See the politifact article. Interview captured perpetrators. Also you are aware of numerus demonstrations in arab world.. Look them up yourself if you're inclined, or stay silent as you prefer, but don't expect to be spoon fed.

You have tried unsuccessfully to put words in my mouth by changing my indefinite article "a" to the definite article "the". In the future, either quote me accurately, or not at all.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

you don't go after families who have made grave sacrifices for this nation.

In general of course this is true, but you forfeit that protection when you enter the political arena and use a national platform to launch a vicious personal attack against someone who has done nothing to you.

And why doesn't this same "rule" apply to the Benghazi families? Why does Hillary get a free pass for suggesting they were delusional or mentally incompetent?