1 Dead in Pakistan Consulate Attack

[saxitoxin]

It seems like Saxi gave these reality checks a long time ago, before embassies were being stormed and before NATO began their genocide campaign against the Libyan people. Should Saxi be in charge of U.S. foreign policy? No, all I was doing was regurgitating what the Brother-Leader said. And he's been proven right. And so has Dr. Saif al-Islam al-Gatafi:



In all the history of the whole modern world the Great Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahiryah was the most ideal, libertine, democratic, secular system of government ever devised by the mind of man until it was destroyed. But he left us with The Green Book | The Third Universal Theory that it can be recreated.

[saxitoxin]

Aid
Attack



Zionism
NATO - al-Qaeda - Islamic Republic of Iran
Russia/China - Arab Republics - Arab Monarchies

[Phatscotty]

So, it only took a week for Obama to identify the attack in Libya as terrorism (wtg mr. President), and all during that week Obama was ripping on Mitt Romney for "not aiming before he shoots" (so much for civility! hypocrite!). Well, it turns out Mitt Romney was right from the start, and Obama could not have been more wrong or appeared any dumber as he not only failed to take aim, but was shooting blanks and he even dropped the gun. But what else would you expect from the guy who refused to call Fort Hood terrorism, and went out of his way to make sure everyone knows it was just regular plain old "workplace violence"

uh huh



I am very impressed with Romney's handling of this situation, and Obama's blundering performance with the terrorist attack is pathetic and disgusting.

+5 for Romney in my book

[saxitoxin]

I am very impressed with Romney's handling of this situation

Obama's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to help the NTC.
Romney's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to avenge the attack.
Johnson's Position: We were wrong to go into Libya and we need to respond to the attack by retreating.

[Phatscotty]

I am very impressed with Romney's handling of this situation

Obama's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to help the NTC.
Romney's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to avenge the attack.
Johnson's Position: We were wrong to go into Libya and we need to respond to the attack by withdrawing immediately.

Obama was wrong to go into Libya. However, Obama went into Libya (without even addressing Congress ), and now we have to deal with it.

[saxitoxin]

I am very impressed with Romney's handling of this situation

Obama's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to help the NTC.
Romney's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to avenge the attack.
Johnson's Position: We were wrong to go into Libya and we need to respond to the attack by withdrawing immediately.

Obama was wrong to go into Libya. However, Obama went into Libya (without even addressing Congress ), and now we have to deal with it.

The way to deal with it is immediate retreat. The way not to deal with it is forging ahead with the master plan of transforming the country into the San Diemes Mall Food Court.

I was wrong to start raping this girl, but now that I've started I'm just going to have to finish.

[Phatscotty]

I am very impressed with Romney's handling of this situation

Obama's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to help the NTC.
Romney's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to avenge the attack.
Johnson's Position: We were wrong to go into Libya and we need to respond to the attack by withdrawing immediately.

Obama was wrong to go into Libya. However, Obama went into Libya (without even addressing Congress ), and now we have to deal with it.

The way to deal with it is immediate retreat. The way not to deal with it is forging ahead with the master plan of transforming the country into the San Diemes Mall Food Court.

I was wrong to start raping this girl, but now that I've started I'm just going to have to finish.

no no no Saxi. Cmon now. The analogy is not that you have to finish raping, it just acknowledges that there was a rape.

But yes you still have wrinkled blue balls.

[saxitoxin]

Obama was wrong to go into Libya.

MITT ROMNEY (March 21, 2011): "I support military action in Libya."

Operation Unified Protector would have proceeded like clockwork if Romney were president (in which case Obama would be the one making criticisms over minor decisions while tacitly supporting the larger strategic agenda). Romney is arguing about the color of the campaign streamers. This isn't a substantive debate. It's a desperate, tortured attempt to find some minor difference to highlight in a foreign policy that is completely unified in lock-step.

[Phatscotty]

Obama was wrong to go into Libya.

ROMNEY (March 21, 2011): "I support military action in Libya."

Don't delude yourself. Assignment Libya would have proceeded like clockwork if Romney were president (in which case Obama would be the one making criticisms over minor decisions while tacitly supporting the larger strategic agenda). Romney is arguing about the color of the campaign streamers. This isn't a substantive debate. It's a tortured attempt to highlight differences in a foreign policy that is unified in lock-step.

Oh, I would not even attempt to guess what Romney would have done. I only addressed how Romney handled the situation as a candidate.

[saxitoxin]

Obama was wrong to go into Libya.

ROMNEY (March 21, 2011): "I support military action in Libya."

Don't delude yourself. Assignment Libya would have proceeded like clockwork if Romney were president (in which case Obama would be the one making criticisms over minor decisions while tacitly supporting the larger strategic agenda). Romney is arguing about the color of the campaign streamers. This isn't a substantive debate. It's a tortured attempt to highlight differences in a foreign policy that is unified in lock-step.

Oh, I would not even attempt to guess what Romney would have done. I only addressed how Romney handled the situation as a candidate.

You don't need to guess:

Romney - "I support military action in Libya."

[Phatscotty]

Obama was wrong to go into Libya.

ROMNEY (March 21, 2011): "I support military action in Libya."

Don't delude yourself. Assignment Libya would have proceeded like clockwork if Romney were president (in which case Obama would be the one making criticisms over minor decisions while tacitly supporting the larger strategic agenda). Romney is arguing about the color of the campaign streamers. This isn't a substantive debate. It's a tortured attempt to highlight differences in a foreign policy that is unified in lock-step.

Oh, I would not even attempt to guess what Romney would have done. I only addressed how Romney handled the situation as a candidate.

You don't need to guess:

Romney - "I support military action in Libya."

Do you think Romney would have taken a week to realize we got hit by a terrorist attack? Afterall, that would be a great excuse for Rom-bo to kick off the theocracy we all know he can't wait to implement!

[BigBallinStalin]

I am very impressed with Romney's handling of this situation

Obama's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to help the NTC.
Romney's Position: We were right to go into Libya. We need to stay in Libya to avenge the attack.
Johnson's Position: We were wrong to go into Libya and we need to respond to the attack by retreating.

This was interesting:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/thedc ... y/?print=1

[saxitoxin]

Obama was wrong to go into Libya.

ROMNEY (March 21, 2011): "I support military action in Libya."

Don't delude yourself. Assignment Libya would have proceeded like clockwork if Romney were president (in which case Obama would be the one making criticisms over minor decisions while tacitly supporting the larger strategic agenda). Romney is arguing about the color of the campaign streamers. This isn't a substantive debate. It's a tortured attempt to highlight differences in a foreign policy that is unified in lock-step.

Oh, I would not even attempt to guess what Romney would have done. I only addressed how Romney handled the situation as a candidate.

You don't need to guess:

Romney - "I support military action in Libya."

Do you think Romney would have taken a week to realize we got hit by a terrorist attack? Afterall, that would be a great excuse for Rom-bo to kick off the theocracy we all know he can't wait to implement!

LOLWUT?!

You wouldn't have been hit by terrorists in the first place if you hadn't attacked Libya!

1. Obama supported attacking Libya.
2. Romney supported attacking Libya.

C'est fin!

[BigBallinStalin]

It seems like Saxi gave these reality checks a long time ago, before embassies were being stormed and before NATO began their genocide campaign against the Libyan people. Should Saxi be in charge of U.S. foreign policy? No, all I was doing was regurgitating what the Brother-Leader said. And he's been proven right. And so has Dr. Saif al-Islam al-Gatafi:



In all the history of the whole modern world the Great Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahiryah was the most ideal, libertine, democratic, secular system of government ever devised by the mind of man until it was destroyed. But he left us with The Green Book | The Third Universal Theory that it can be recreated.

lolsax

[saxitoxin]

By day Canadian pilots were bombing Libya to smithereens.

By night they were enjoying poolside Mai-Tais in Sicily.

Libyan mission racked up $11M in hotel bills

When the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed over Libyan skies, its pilots bedded down safe and sound in hotels in Sicily.

In fact, all Canadian troops there in support of the UN-backed mission in Libya were booked into hotels — an initially ad hoc solution that lasted for nearly nine months and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

CBC News has learned the Armed Forces likely spent about $11 million on hotel bills, which amounts to more than 10 per cent of the military's $103 million total cost of the mission.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... hotel.html

[Phatscotty]

Obama was wrong to go into Libya.

ROMNEY (March 21, 2011): "I support military action in Libya."

Don't delude yourself. Assignment Libya would have proceeded like clockwork if Romney were president (in which case Obama would be the one making criticisms over minor decisions while tacitly supporting the larger strategic agenda). Romney is arguing about the color of the campaign streamers. This isn't a substantive debate. It's a tortured attempt to highlight differences in a foreign policy that is unified in lock-step.

Oh, I would not even attempt to guess what Romney would have done. I only addressed how Romney handled the situation as a candidate.

You don't need to guess:

Romney - "I support military action in Libya."

Do you think Romney would have taken a week to realize we got hit by a terrorist attack? Afterall, that would be a great excuse for Rom-bo to kick off the theocracy we all know he can't wait to implement!

LOLWUT?!

You wouldn't have been hit by terrorists in the first place if you hadn't attacked Libya!

1. Obama supported attacking Libya.
2. Romney supported attacking Libya.

C'est fin!

okay, but do you think Romney would have allied with and armed Al-Qada like Obama did?

[BigBallinStalin]

By day Canadian pilots were bombing Libya to smithereens.

By night they were enjoying poolside Mai-Tais in Sicily.

Libyan mission racked up $11M in hotel bills

When the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed over Libyan skies, its pilots bedded down safe and sound in hotels in Sicily.

In fact, all Canadian troops there in support of the UN-backed mission in Libya were booked into hotels — an initially ad hoc solution that lasted for nearly nine months and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

CBC News has learned the Armed Forces likely spent about $11 million on hotel bills, which amounts to more than 10 per cent of the military's $103 million total cost of the mission.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... hotel.html

ALERT THE CANADIANS!

[saxitoxin]

okay, but do you think Romney would have allied with and armed Al-Qada like Obama did?

WTF? Who do you think he would have armed? The only substantial anti-Jamahiryah ground forces through July were Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghred (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) partisans.

Obama didn't arm al-Qaeda because he was presented with a menu list of different belligerents he could support and al-Qaeda just tickled his fancy. That was who was available.

If you supported military action in Libya, you supported AQIM and LIFG. That's it.

[BigBallinStalin]

okay, but do you think Romney would have allied with and armed Al-Qada like Obama did?

WTF? Who do you think he would have armed? The only substantial anti-Jamahiryah ground forces through July were Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghred (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) partisans.

Obama didn't arm al-Qaeda because he was presented with a menu list of different belligerents he could support and al-Qaeda just tickled his fancy. That was who was available.

If you supported military action in Libya, you supported AQIM and LIFG. That's it.

They seemed like nice guys at the time!

[Phatscotty]

okay, but do you think Romney would have allied with and armed Al-Qada like Obama did?

WTF? Who do you think he would have armed? The only substantial anti-Jamahiryah ground forces through July were Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghred (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) partisans.

Obama didn't arm al-Qaeda because he was presented with a menu list of different belligerents he could support and al-Qaeda just tickled his fancy. That was who was available.

If you supported military action in Libya, you supported AQIM and LIFG. That's it.

I see. Well, I can understand 100% Barack Hussein Obama helping out Al-Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood....but Romney......ehhhhhhhh I have a hard time buying that, because Barack Hussein Obama is the only president that is able to get away with shit like this.

IDK who supported military action in Libya, according to that poll I made there were 6 people who voted to support it. However, in all fairness, they voted before we actually went into Libya. I have a strong suspicion that had I waited until after Obama went in, the results would have been divided among political lines. Of course, that was my whole mission, to get people on the record as opposing invading Libya before Obama could tell them that they needed to drop their principles and get on board the Obama war machine

[Symmetry]

Barack Hussein Obama

Romney

Kind of a double standard going on here Phatcotty, no?

Surely you meant Willard Mitt Rommey?

[Phatscotty]

[Symmetry]

In your own words, Scotty...

[saxitoxin]

okay, but do you think Romney would have allied with and armed Al-Qada like Obama did?

WTF? Who do you think he would have armed? The only substantial anti-Jamahiryah ground forces through July were Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghred (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) partisans.

Obama didn't arm al-Qaeda because he was presented with a menu list of different belligerents he could support and al-Qaeda just tickled his fancy. That was who was available.

If you supported military action in Libya, you supported AQIM and LIFG. That's it.

I see. Well, I can understand 100% Barack Hussein Obama helping out Al-Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood....but Romney......ehhhhhhhh I have a hard time buying that, because Barack Hussein Obama is the only president that is able to get away with shit like this

SCOTT - I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN PUT THIS ANY MORE SUCCINCTLY: THE ONLY GROUP AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT WERE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Mitt Romney, 2011 - "I SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA."

The USA Army itself, when it analyzed the Sinjar Records in '06, found 1 out of every 5 foreign fighters in Iraq were of Libyan origin. They weren't being sent by the Jamahiryah - they were the handful that managed to sneak out of Libya - the Jamahiryah was trying to intercept them.

When the Warfalla, Col. Qaddafi, and the Revolutionary Command Council overthrew Idris it was to build a secular state. They have been battling the Benghazi caliphate for 50 years, long before 9/11, and they've sacrificed more to suppressing fundamentalism. The Libya "insurrection" of 2011 was one in a long line of bi-annual insurrections by fundamentalists that have occurred in Libya since then. The only thing that made it special is that NATO joined in and tipped the scales.

So you can't say "Romney wouldn't have supported the Islamic fundamentalist rebels" when the entire war was a Secular vs. Fundamentalist conflict to begin with. It was either support the Islamic fundamentalists or support Qaddafi. There was no third party involved. Obama and Romney threw their support to al-Qaeda for reasons we may never know - kicking Petro-China out, Qaddafi's introduction of the gold dinar, orders from Tel Aviv, who knows? But, whatever the reason, it was more important to them than the safety of the tens of thousands of Americans who will be killed in the coming years by a now-unchecked outflow of AQIM, LIFG, P&C fighters from the Maghreb. This is what Saif meant when he said "You have no idea what you have unleashed."

[saxitoxin]

BTW, this dude has a nice, English-sounding last name - Bush - and he has no trouble getting the cokehead rapist also appearing in this photo to pay for his vacation home remodel from the same checking account he uses to fund your friendly neighborhood skyjacker. So the idea that an English surname disinclines one from backing Islamic fundamentalism when the price is right is an unsound idea at best and nuttery at worst.



Col. Qadafi making an utter fool out of the Saudi King. (This part is often quoted out of context by western politicians when Col. Q says he is "King of Kings and Imam of all Muslims" as being indicative of delusions of grandeur. He was actually making an ironic insult at all the titles the King gave himself.)