Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by reflection

Keep in mind that these guys work for the President so what they tell the public will have some bias.

Former Commander in Afghanistan, Gen McChrystal got fired by President Obama for speaking his mind.  So other "military professionals" probably will think twice before speaking out.

If you ask anyone who has served directly for Gen McChrystal, they would say that he's the one of the best (if not best) leaders that US military had.  It was a great loss that he got fired.

He didn't get fired for speaking his mind.  He got fired for speaking his mind to Rolling Stone Magazine.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by k-troop

He didn't get fired for speaking his mind.  He got fired for speaking his mind to Rolling Stone Magazine.

Gosh, that's the thing with most conservatives in this era.

They don't care about facts, placing a situation in context, or being realistic.

At least moderates and some liberals can admit, we're not perfect and Obama made mistakes - we all do. Of course, there are mistakes and there are MISTAKES. Take Bush 43 - MISTAKES. Obama's Mistakes, in my view, were not embracing an imperial presidency, and not schmoozing and romancing the opposition enough - to have them buy in. Don't know if the GOP would have bought in since McConnell stated before Obama took office that his only intent was to defeat Obama in 4 years - and engaged in a daily strategy to thwart any progress the American people asked for and/or needed.

So this daily barrage of hate for Obama has resulted in setting aside any facts and jumping on any mis-step and blowing it up to 9/11 standards. The GOP doesn't want you to play politics with them, but they will play it at every opportunity - their message is clear - "We will smash this President. We want power."

Their message of blame is consistent and simple, and devoid of facts.

It serves their purpose.

People don't want complex even though it is a complex world. They want comfort.

So conservatives can't help it - when it comes to values, they will embrace their own. They are not generally open-minded individuals. It takes a lot to open their minds. And when they are barraged with a daily dose of hate, well, any sense of reasonableness is doomed.

You cannot reason with these conservatives.

You vote, and get others out to vote.

___

And as a note, I considered Romney carefully, looked at his program, his words, his actions, his history, and thought he could help - as Secretary of Commerce, or as a Czar of Government Reform - but not as President.

[dave67az]

I really don't get people sometimes.  For those of you who don't have military experience, let me clue you in on a little "secret".  The military doesn't always tell you everything they know about everything.  Because of all the red tape involved in releasing ANY kind of information about certain kinds of incidents (particularly when the result was deaths) sometimes it takes a while for the "truth" to get out.  There is an entire chain of command when it comes to release of information.  There's a good reason for this.  It's called National Security.  You like your freedom?  There's a reason some information is classified, and we don't need to be telling everyone on the planet everything we know about all of our foes.

I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt when you weren't told immediately all the facts regarding the situation in Libya.  Tough titties.  So tell me, exactly what would you have done with that information that would have helped the nation?  It was pretty clear to me that the administration knew it was a terrorist attack, so I don't have a problem with them not telling all the details right away.  I'm sorry if you feel like you have a right to know everything that's going on AS SOON AS IT HAPPENS.  You aren't the President.  You don't have to make the decisions regarding responses.  If you want to know everything that soon, get your butt in a position where it actually matters.

I love how all these "armchair Generals" are commenting as though they could have prevented a terrorist attack if THEY had been in the Oval office instead of a President they don't like.  Know what it reminds me of?  All the garbage being spewed by Democrats after 9/11 about how we didn't do anything to stop the towers from falling.

People are such hypocrites.  The same people who complained about Bush are now defending Obama for the same thing.  And the same people who defended Bush are condemning Obama.  You're not the President.  You're not the National Security Advisor.  Stop acting like you have a right to know everything they do as soon as they know it.  You sound like an egotistical control-freak when you say things like that.

[Mr. Desmond]

Well, if we're talking about Benghazi, it didn't take a rocket scientist to know it was an armed attack at the time, and that some type of terrorist group or band was involved. Whether it was motivated by a "movie" or not, I mean, really, who cares? Have we gotten so partisan that we really care if the "crowd' was terrorists blended with a mock or real protest to cover an attack?

I also have a question as to why it is taking so long for a timeline, but what if the administration wants to corner the terrorists before releasing additional information? I look at the history of the Obama Administration and decide whether I want to give them trust - well, they have withdrawn us from Iraq, they have gone along with a surge in Afghanistan (Okay - did it work? does anything work in Afghanistan? No), and they have prosecuted a war against AQ in Pakistan and Yemen. They've been very aggressive about cutting down AQ leadership. Of course, when you have countless number of jihadists and more converts every day, there is so little time and so many to ... well, you know. As Romney said, you can't kill your way out of it.

IOW, based on their history and Hillary being a no nonsense kind of woman (ok, she did publicly ignore Bill's dalliances) - I'l go with the Obama Administration as to their strategy - which is hopefully to capture these people. You can't do anything about the past but learn from it, but you can capture the responsible parties.

But once again, in the large scheme, this is a small issue. In war-torn and tribal military led Libya, and with little police, and a lot of jihadists -it's easy to become a target and die if you venture into remote outposts. Would any of you venture into a remote outpost in a lawless, Islamic, war-torn country with lots of weapons in the hands of very bad people?

I didn't think so.

So we're hassling over details - it's a right wing smokescreen to get people off the big issues, which is the direction of this country. Whatever direction you think it should take...

[newtogolf]

This was less about National Security and more about not wanting to take a hit on his mishandling the situation right before an election.  I worked at the Pentagon and other higher security locations, and fully understand the need for classified information.  This was about the POTUS trying to save face.

We knew people were killed and that additional security was requested and denied so what exactly was the purpose of lying about who was behind the attack or trying to play it off as a random act of violence?

Originally Posted by dave67az

I really don't get people sometimes.  For those of you who don't have military experience, let me clue you in on a little "secret".  The military doesn't always tell you everything they know about everything.  Because of all the red tape involved in releasing ANY kind of information about certain kinds of incidents (particularly when the result was deaths) sometimes it takes a while for the "truth" to get out.  There is an entire chain of command when it comes to release of information.  There's a good reason for this.  It's called National Security.  You like your freedom?  There's a reason some information is classified, and we don't need to be telling everyone on the planet everything we know about all of our foes.

I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt when you weren't told immediately all the facts regarding the situation in Libya.  Tough titties.  So tell me, exactly what would you have done with that information that would have helped the nation?  It was pretty clear to me that the administration knew it was a terrorist attack, so I don't have a problem with them not telling all the details right away.  I'm sorry if you feel like you have a right to know everything that's going on AS SOON AS IT HAPPENS.  You aren't the President.  You don't have to make the decisions regarding responses.  If you want to know everything that soon, get your butt in a position where it actually matters.

I love how all these "armchair Generals" are commenting as though they could have prevented a terrorist attack if THEY had been in the Oval office instead of a President they don't like.  Know what it reminds me of?  All the garbage being spewed by Democrats after 9/11 about how we didn't do anything to stop the towers from falling.

People are such hypocrites.  The same people who complained about Bush are now defending Obama for the same thing.  And the same people who defended Bush are condemning Obama.  You're not the President.  You're not the National Security Advisor.  Stop acting like you have a right to know everything they do as soon as they know it.  You sound like an egotistical control-freak when you say things like that.

[dave67az]

I honestly think a big part of the problem is these idiots who watch "reality television" shows.  They've become so accustomed to watching every aspect of people's private lives (many unaware that most of those shows are scripted) and they think they have the RIGHT to know everything that happens in the world as soon as it happens.

We elect people because we trust them to make the right decisions.  If you don't like a guy, vote him out and vote in someone you DO trust.  But don't expect them to tell you everything they know about everything that happens because many times there are reasons you aren't told.  Sometimes it's because multiple groups are claiming responsibility.  Sometimes it's because groups that claim responsibility aren't entirely honest (wow, ya think?).

Now, if you want to be paranoid and start thinking that just because you aren't told everything means that something illegal is being done, or there must be a conspiracy they're trying to hide, go right ahead.  But be warned that when you start saying stuff like that, you only make yourselves look like idiots.  You might as well run around with aluminum foil on your heads.

Conspiracies are rare.  Sadly, conspiracy theories are not.

Why?

Because there's a sucker born every minute, and the suckers LOVE conspiracy theories.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

This was less about National Security and more about not wanting to take a hit on his mishandling the situation right before an election.  I worked at the Pentagon and other higher security locations, and fully understand the need for classified information.  This was about the POTUS trying to save face.

We knew people were killed and that additional security was requested and denied so what exactly was the purpose of lying about who was behind the attack or trying to play it off as a random act of violence?

So if you worked at the Pentagon, I'm assuming you know that intelligence reports are often wrong.  Correct?

[newtogolf]

Under normal circumstances I'd agree, but let's not pretend elected officials are beyond coverups to save face or their job.  Just about every day a politician is lying about something he did in hopes that it won't cost him his job.  Remember when Bill Clinton swore he "didn't have sexual relations with that woman"?  Was that a matter of national security too?

Point is people lie to cover their own asses, sure there are times elected officials need to lie for the purpose of National Security.  Also let's not forget that one of Obama's issues with GW was his lack of transparency, isn't it interesting that Obama has been even less transparent that GW?

Originally Posted by dave67az

I honestly think a big part of the problem is these idiots who watch "reality television" shows.  They've become so accustomed to watching every aspect of people's private lives (many unaware that most of those shows are scripted) and they think they have the RIGHT to know everything that happens in the world as soon as it happens.

We elect people because we trust them to make the right decisions.  If you don't like a guy, vote him out and vote in someone you DO trust.  But don't expect them to tell you everything they know about everything that happens because many times there are reasons you aren't told.  Sometimes it's because multiple groups are claiming responsibility.  Sometimes it's because groups that claim responsibility aren't entirely honest (wow, ya think?).

Now, if you want to be paranoid and start thinking that just because you aren't told everything means that something illegal is being done, or there must be a conspiracy they're trying to hide, go right ahead.  But be warned that when you start saying stuff like that, you only make yourselves look like idiots.  You might as well run around with aluminum foil on your heads.

Conspiracies are rare.  Sadly, conspiracy theories are not.

Why?

Because there's a sucker born every minute, and the suckers LOVE conspiracy theories.

[newtogolf]

Correct, but if he wanted to ensure the intelligence was correct he could have simply stated, we deeply regret the loss of lives and are doing everything within our power to determine the series of events and the people responsible for their deaths.

He didn't do that, he provided a coverup story.

Originally Posted by dave67az

So if you worked at the Pentagon, I'm assuming you know that intelligence reports are often wrong.  Correct?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Correct, but if he wanted to ensure the intelligence was correct he could have simply stated, we deeply regret the loss of lives and are doing everything within our power to determine the series of events and the people responsible for their deaths.

He didn't do that, he provided a coverup story.

I'll admit I didn't follow the story THAT closely, because I honestly get tired of the political mud-slinging these days.

What I do remember is this:  shortly after the incident, Obama gave a speech (Rose Garden maybe?) where he talked about the attack and the way I understood it he characterized it as a terrorist attack.

Next thing I hear, other people in the administration are acting like they weren't sure if it was or not.

Then the Republicans started politicizing it and making it sound like Obama was trying to cover something up.

Think about this for a minute.  Why the hell would he mention terrorism in his address in the Rose Garden if he was trying to cover up the fact that it was a terrorist attack?

THIS is the problem I have with conspiracy theories.

Generally the simplest explanation is the actual cause of an event, and NOT the rare conspiracy theories that people come up with.  Given your time with the Pentagon I'm also betting that you've seen LOT of morons in every level of government who speak, sometimes publicly, before they have all the facts because they THINK they know what they're talking about when, in fact, they don't.  I've seen it many times in my military career.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

This was less about National Security and more about not wanting to take a hit on his mishandling the situation right before an election.  I worked at the Pentagon and other higher security locations, and fully understand the need for classified information.  This was about the POTUS trying to save face.

We knew people were killed and that additional security was requested and denied so what exactly was the purpose of lying about who was behind the attack or trying to play it off as a random act of violence?

What was the purpose of making a press release the night of the incident, before anybody even knew what was happening on the ground in Libya? Is that the guy you want as POTUS? You want the rockets' red glare, instead of sober reflection and review?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Under normal circumstances I'd agree, but let's not pretend elected officials are beyond coverups to save face or their job.  Just about every day a politician is lying about something he did in hopes that it won't cost him his job.  Remember when Bill Clinton swore he "didn't have sexual relations with that woman"?  Was that a matter of national security too?

Point is people lie to cover their own asses, sure there are times elected officials need to lie for the purpose of National Security.  Also let's not forget that one of Obama's issues with GW was his lack of transparency, isn't it interesting that Obama has been even less transparent that GW?

Donald? Is that you?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Correct, but if he wanted to ensure the intelligence was correct he could have simply stated, we deeply regret the loss of lives and are doing everything within our power to determine the series of events and the people responsible for their deaths.

He didn't do that, he provided a coverup story.

Which has been documented to have been provided by intelligence. I suppose you wanted them to go with the Facebook and Twiiter feeds that were claiming responsibility. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Correct, but if he wanted to ensure the intelligence was correct he could have simply stated, we deeply regret the loss of lives and are doing everything within our power to determine the series of events and the people responsible for their deaths.

This.    That answer is all that really needed to be said at the time.

What I find interesting is, Bush said he went in to Iraq because of intelligence reports (complete with pictures) of WMD.   Obama said intelligence reports indicated that the attack was the response to a youtube video.   Both times, the purported information was wrong and both times, the POTUS has been called a liar by people who oppose him.

We can all form our opinions about the veracity of the claim that intelligence reports are to blame but we can't really be certain in either case.  But since intelligence is, by design, a very secretive business filled with nameless and faceless people and very few are privy to what information they provide, they could be an easy scapegoat for a POTUS who stepped in it.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

This.    That answer is all that really needed to be said at the time.

What I find interesting is, Bush said he went in to Iraq because of intelligence reports (complete with pictures) of WMD.   Obama said intelligence reports indicated that the attack was the response to a youtube video.   Both times, the purported information was wrong and both times, the POTUS has been called a liar by people who oppose him.

We can all form our opinions about the veracity of the claim that intelligence reports are to blame but we can't really be certain in either case.  But since intelligence is, by design, a very secretive business filled with nameless and faceless people and very few are privy to what information they provide, they could be an easy scapegoat for a POTUS who stepped in it.

Yet, the majority of the intelligence provided to the Bush Administration demonstrated that there were probably no WMD. Maybe, but probably not. Basically it was, get us the information that supports our position.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

This.    That answer is all that really needed to be said at the time.

This

Is what Obama stated:

Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

(A couple of paragraphs later...)

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

(There is more)

[teamroper60]

Mr Desmond,

You are one of the ones who likes to argue about context, so let's run with that for a minute.

An organized group makes an assault on the embassy.  Information from one source says it was a group of protesters responding to a youtube video.   Information from another that says a terrorist group is claiming responsibility.

In general, protests that devolve into a riot are not well organized.

Terrorist groups, particularly those associated with Al Quaida, have shown a propensity for using internet sources to pronounce their "victories" .

The mere fact an Al Quaida affiliated group was taking responsibility for the assualt should have given pause to the concept of laying the blame on a video until more evidence could be gathered.

So regardless of what he said in the Rose Gardern (and we could argue over the context and verbiage of it as well but this is already well off the original topic), his administration went on a two week blitz blaming this on a video.   They could have avoided an entire discussion about cover-ups, lying, etc..   if they had simply said (in his own words), "We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."   That one sentence would have covered either scenario.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by phan52

Yet, the majority of the intelligence provided to the Bush Administration demonstrated that there were probably no WMD. Maybe, but probably not. Basically it was, get us the information that supports our position.

And yet, there was enough intelligence to convince both houses of congress, including 82 Democratic Representatives and  29 Democratic Senators, to vote in favor of the bill which authorized the war.   That bill BTW, was co-sponsored by a Democrat (Gephardt)...