US interventions in mideast are unravelling

Even the NYT has to pay attention after awhile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&

When will the American public demand that we stop intervening. It never works out as we plan.

If honorable men and women still exist

David Petraeus will surely do the honorable thing and set the record straight. Petraeus has dishonored the trust placed in him by the President, our representatives and the American people, but Petraeus didn't get to the level he's attained by being a cheat and a liar, so this is not in character for him. Affairs are something in which even the best of men and women find themselves entangled, so that can be overlooked. What can't be overlooked is the contradictions surrounding Petraeus's knowledge of what happened in Benghazi.

Petraeus has to stand up like a soldier and make this right. Petraeus has to break the cycle of lying and stonewalling and misdirecting. It's time to tell the truth. Likely, we're involved in covert actions that will be embarrassing if uncovered, but this is what foreign entanglements bring us. Even if Petraeus can't divulge the full extent of the covert actions, perhaps he can least speak to the overarcing problems with our interventions in the mideast, taking sides in civil wars with no good sides. Someone has to stand up and say enough is enough.

Brett Baier Fox All-Stars 10-17-2012

Baier and his guests discussed the part of last night's presidential debate in which Candy Crowley joined together with Obama to deceive the public about what was said and when it was said regarding the terrorist attack on Ambassador Stevens in Libya. The Obama/Crowley team said that Obama called the Libyan attack, which killed four Americans, a terrorist attack the following day in the Rose Garden. Romney disputed the claim, but Crowley had the transcript at her findgertips, and when Obama commanded her to get out the transcript, Crowley read a part at the ending of the speech which contained the word terror but wasn't directly related to the Libyan attack and spoke in general to mideast terror activity. It appeared the Obama team and Crowley planned to present the transcript at the right moment to derail Romney's attack when it came up as they knew it would.

It was brought up among Baier's guests, and it's refreshingly adult, that the real controversy is how the security at the Libyan embassy/consulate became such that 4 Americans were killed when requests for more security had been made by the ambassador prior to the attack. The compound had been attacked twice before. Media sources are actively aiding Obama in a coverup. What's happened to America?

Morning Joe 10/17/2012 -- Media have no integrity whatsoever

 I tried to watch Morning Joe this morning, but it started out so predictable and shamelessly biased I became sick to my stomach. I've realized for a long time that major US media sources are biased, but the arrogance with which they misrepresent facts with impunity is still startling and maddening. You would think that enough people of integrity would be left in media to fight against the bias, but apparently there is no integrity left in MSM.

As predicted, Democrat-biased media proclaimed Obama the victor. Morning Joe, including Scarborough, proclaimed Obama the victor, and Mark Halperin went so far as to say Romney's botched attack on the Libya tragedy takes the issue off the table. Incredible, simply incredible. So, after Obama and Crowley ganged up on Romney, with Crowley pulling the transcript at Obama's command, Crowley having the transcript at her fingertips, Obama and Crowley went on to say that Obama called the Libyan attack on Ambassador Stevens a terrorist act from the start. This is a blatant lie, and Halperin is saying that because Romney wasn't able to fully reveal it as a lie, because Crowley, the moderator, and Obama blocked him, the issue is off the table -- so, media will not pursue it? Journalists will not call it a lie? Halperin will not pursue it as an issue? Morning Joe will not pursue it as an issue? The President of the US lies to tens of millions of Americans on national TV, and because media sources say he wiggled out of it, he gets debate points and it becomes a non-issue! This is how low media has sunk. This is pathetic.

Everyone at MSNBC was crowing about Obama dominating the debate. Mika on Morning Joe started out talking about how Romney was intimidated, and Joe Scarborough criticized Romney for being tough with Crowley because she is a woman and with Obama because respect should be shown to a President. What? Why should anyone show respect to a President who disrepects the office and shows no respect for the intelligence of the American people? And why does the fact that Monica Crowley is A woman have anything to do with how tough Romney reacted to her? Most of us paying attention who aren't lackeys for Obama predicted media would call this for Obama no matter what, but this is surreal.

Perhaps Morning Joe will redeem itself later in the show, but the way it started prevented this viewer from finding out. A new low for Morning Joe.

A dangerous al Qaeda doesn't justify the Afghanistan War

Hawks on the Right and Left will patronizingly tell critics of the Afghanistan War and interventions such as the one in Libya that al Qaeda is still dangerous and terrorists still want to destroy our nation along with Israel. We're told that US military presence in the mideast is critical to succeeding in the the long, long war on terror. Many of the hawks are recommending military bases in the mideast.

None of the hawks have convinced me that protecting a country whose police we train kill our soldiers is somehow protecting Americans from al Qaeda. How did overthrowing Qaddafi help us or Libya? In Afghanistan, we'll be gone in a couple of years, so what will change between now and then? More of our troops will die and more crooks will skim more of our money, but we won't be safer and al Qaeda/terrorists will not be destroyed.

al Qaeda and other terrorist groups can form and plan anywhere in the world, so keeping troops in Afghanistan makes no sense at all. This war has become a political situation, and it leaves a dark stain on our government to put young men and women in danger, and for some of them to die, just because this particlar gang in DC wants to timely leave Afghanistan for political purposes.

We need to use our defense funds to build the greatest defense in the world at home, without violating the privacy rights of citizens, but we need to bring our troops home. Having troops abroad, especially in the mideast, is not improving national security, and an argument can be made that having troops all over the world actually puts our security at more risk. Our troops are in practically every region in the world. Why? It's a waste of money and it puts lives at risk for no good reason. If there are reasons then the President needs to make a clear case to convince the American people or else bring our troops home.