SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (517388)10/28/2012 6:20:04 AM
From: unclewest22 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794294
 
Fair analysis. Exactly what I think. When I am not boiling with anger.


Anger is appropriate.

When under enemy attack, the appropriate term for doing nothing when you have the ability to fight is,

"Cowardice in the face of the enemy."

Abandoning the battlefield during enemy attack is,

"Desertion in the face of the enemy."

Under the US Military "Uniform Code of Military Justice" (UCMJ) both are punishable by death.

When America or Americans are under attack and the information is being received via live feed, I believe the White House oval office and /or situation room (Official presidential business is conducted in both) become part of the battlefield , especially when the observers in that room have the authority to and are making tactical decisions and giving orders to the fighters.



To: LindyBill who wrote (517388)10/28/2012 9:35:59 AM
From: skinowski3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794294
 
In hindsight, Obama made the wrong decision

That's plenty bad. But who made the decision to conduct a coverup? The attack was an act of war, perpetrated by a large group of well organized and well armed fighters. Why did Obama and "his" Administration try to explain it away as if this was merely part of the wave of protests against a lousy YouTube video?

The whole world is watching this circus.