Roms fuct.

Speaking of endorsements, the Chattanooga daily paper endorsed Gary Johnson yesterday.

I'm endorsing Mitt. O's fuct.

We will see all sorts of endorsements up until Nov 5. I respect General Powell for his service to this country. He certainly can endorse or vote for whichever candidate he chooses.

General Colin Powell says Obama's actions protecting us from terrorism have been "very, very solid." But everyone else here knows more about our nation's defense than he does so disregard that comment.

Who cares

Max is getting desperate

Orlando Sentinel and Tampa Tribune endorsed Romney. Liberal papers too,

Tampa endorsed McCain in 2008. Orlando did switch from Obama to Romney this time around.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/2012...ements.php

(10-25-2012 07:03 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  General Colin Powell says Obama's actions protecting us from terrorism have been "very, very solid." But everyone else here knows more about our nation's defense than he does so disregard that comment.

Let's get Mrs. Stevens in for a second opinion.

If you're referring to Stevens' mother, her name is Mary Commonday. Stevens was gay and not married.

BTW - I should amend that to say Stevens had not announced his sexuality so I shouldn't say he was gay. But he was not married.

Oh, Tampa, you suck...........

Gary Johnson or bust, yo.

(10-25-2012 07:03 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  General Colin Powell says Obama's actions protecting us from terrorism have been "very, very solid." But everyone else here knows more about our nation's defense than he does so disregard that comment.

And there are plenty of high ranking military/intelligence figures that have said that our foreign policy makes us less safe and more likely to be attacked again. I guess if you believe the best defense is to kill anyone you suspect of being a terrorist and anyone remotely close to them, then it's been pretty solid.

(10-25-2012 08:18 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  If you're referring to Stevens' mother, her name is Mary Commonday. Stevens was gay and not married.

BTW - I should amend that to say Stevens had not announced his sexuality so I shouldn't say he was gay. But he was not married.

Okay. I didn't know that. Let's try it this way: Let's ask anyone close to Ambassador Stevens personally for a second opinion. I'd suggest asking the ambassador, but we can't.

(10-25-2012 07:03 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  General Colin Powell says Obama's actions protecting us from terrorism have been "very, very solid." But everyone else here knows more about our nation's defense than he does so disregard that comment.

Think I'd rather take it from a general that actually worked for the idiot:

Quote:GENERAL JIM JONES (former Obama national security adviser): "Well, the whole setup for analyzing the world that we face was based on an initial premise that we needed to size up the problems, talk to the people that historically were causing us difficulties, and see if there was some way to proceed ahead, as we now know, in some cases we made some progress; I would cite the START Treaty as an example of a successful couple of years of hard work with the Russians. On the other hand, with the Middle East and Iran, we’re probably right back where we were three or four years ago. So, it is great to be able to come in and try to think strategically, but you’re really many times driven by the tactics of the moment. You find yourself responding to the tactical impulses that face us. And it’s very hard to keep that strategic focus." (PBS’s “Charlie Rose,” 10/23/12)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...obama.html

(10-25-2012 08:31 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 07:03 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  General Colin Powell says Obama's actions protecting us from terrorism have been "very, very solid." But everyone else here knows more about our nation's defense than he does so disregard that comment.

And there are plenty of high ranking military/intelligence figures that have said that our foreign policy makes us less safe and more likely to be attacked again. I guess if you believe the best defense is to kill anyone you suspect of being a terrorist and anyone remotely close to them, then it's been pretty solid.

Other than republican partisans, which high ranking military/intelligence figures are saying that our current foreign policy makes us less safe?

Only the leaders of terrorist organizations are being targeted, much like in the American Revolution Americans targeted British officers. What exactly do/did you want done with them?

(10-25-2012 08:36 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 08:18 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  If you're referring to Stevens' mother, her name is Mary Commonday. Stevens was gay and not married.

BTW - I should amend that to say Stevens had not announced his sexuality so I shouldn't say he was gay. But he was not married.

Okay. I didn't know that. Let's try it this way: Let's ask anyone close to Ambassador Stevens personally for a second opinion. I'd suggest asking the ambassador, but we can't.

Here is what his father said:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/1...ign-issue/

With all due respect to the senior Mr. Stevens, how the president dealt with the embassy's security issues before, during, and after the assault is an important consideration as America re-evaluates his fitness to lead.

(10-25-2012 08:45 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 08:31 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 07:03 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  General Colin Powell says Obama's actions protecting us from terrorism have been "very, very solid." But everyone else here knows more about our nation's defense than he does so disregard that comment.

And there are plenty of high ranking military/intelligence figures that have said that our foreign policy makes us less safe and more likely to be attacked again. I guess if you believe the best defense is to kill anyone you suspect of being a terrorist and anyone remotely close to them, then it's been pretty solid.

Other than republican partisans, which high ranking military/intelligence figures are saying that our current foreign policy makes us less safe?

Only the leaders of terrorist organizations are being targeted, much like in the American Revolution Americans targeted British officers. What exactly do/did you want done with them?

We targeted more than just British officers in the revolution and to compare the revolution to the war on terror is a reach to say the least. The common tactics in the revolution was to form lines and fire volleys into the oppositions lines. Those tactics were due to the inaccuracy of the muskets used at that time. Anybody wearing red was a target in the revolution.

(10-25-2012 08:56 AM)Smaug Wrote:  With all due respect to the senior Mr. Stevens, how the president dealt with the embassy's security issues before, during, and after the assault is an important consideration as America re-evaluates his fitness to lead.

So is how the House dealt with security funding.

My cousin was a high ranking diplomat who traveled with Condi Rice and was offered control over much of the eastern half of Iraq. He's told me stories about how when Abu Graib occurred, they had literally no security in his State outpost, and local Iraqis were screaming outside the gates because they wanted an eye for an eye. One diplomat went out to the gate and told the crowd the assault helicopters were on their way and he and the other diplomats went inside with handguns, knowing if the crowd didn't disperse (they did) they would all be dead. This **** happens all the time and you don't hear about it.

State has very little security throughout the world and what little they had was put on the chopping block by the GOP Teabagging House these past two years. Republicans like fighting these wars but then they deny our troops the armor and security they need and our diplomats the security they need-- and if a Democrat is in the White House, blame him when it goes wrong. Stop ignoring that fact and look in the ******* mirror. And then stop politicizing the death of an Ambassador whose parents ask you to stop.

(10-25-2012 09:07 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 08:56 AM)Smaug Wrote:  With all due respect to the senior Mr. Stevens, how the president dealt with the embassy's security issues before, during, and after the assault is an important consideration as America re-evaluates his fitness to lead.

So is how the House dealt with security funding.

They didn't cut funding for security; they just cut funding. It was up to the state department to allocate the funds to where they saw fit. If they didn't think they had enough to protect Chris, they shouldn't have had him there in the first damn place. AS for cutting funding, wonder what this would have paid for?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012...assy-gain/

Still doesn't answer why that idiot Kenyan refused to send in the Marines to either fend off or extract the embassy personnel. That's what they're there for, fool.