Ok, so just after we learn the NSA is spying on us, that the Benghazi scandal is worse than we thought and that the IRS scandal is right outside the Oval Office door, we get this story that al-Qaeda is about to launch the biggest attack since 9/11…politicians and talking heads are everywhere saying the threat is specific and credible and so specific that we have to close 21 embassies and consulates for a week…so, “specific” means we’ve narrowed the attack down to 21 possible targets over a 7 day period? Meanwhile, Obama goes golfing and appears on Leno – just the sort of thing you’d expect from a leader who has specific and credible evidence on an impending enemy attack.
With this Administration, our default position has to be that they are lying unless proven otherwise – right now, I see no actual evidence of any particular pending attack (though, of course, the enemy is out there, getting stronger and does want to attack us) which justifies the story that we’re about to be hit 9/11-style and so 21 facilities have to be closed. Leaving aside the fact that if this is true then the Administration is leaking operational intelligence (you don’t tell your enemy who is about to attack that you are in on the secret – you lay your plans to thwart and counter-attack and then hit him when he’s not expecting it), this whole thing seems to be cooked up (perhaps out of general intelligence which is likely always out there of possible terrorist attacks) to (a) deflect attention from scandals; (b) make it look like the NSA spying program is vital; (c) make Obama – who’s foreign policy is in shambles – appear that he’s on top of things.
The world watches and laughs at the vaunted United States of America…run by fools, crumbling in power and wealth and unable to influence the course of events.
Blogs For Victory 
No problemo Valerie Jarrad is in charge as usual……
LOVE the BDS…even after all these years,
some one please give j6206, the memo that the LOON echo chamber is a few clicks down the dial.
Who Is Valerie Jarrett & Is She The One That Gave The “Stand Down” Order In Benghazi?
Here we can see the many types of association that may well have influenced Valerie Jarrett. One can also see the influence of Communism, of which her family seemed to be involved. Jarrett’s family also had direct links to Frank Marshal Davis, a mentor for Barack Obama who was on the FBI watch list due to his aggressive background in Communism. Her affiliation with Communism did not stop there because it seems that the man she married also had a family deeply rooted in the Communist ideology.
“In 1983 she married Dr. William Robert Jarrett, son of the Chicago Sun-Times reporter Vernon Jarrett. Vernon Jarrett was a pioneering black journalist who in the 1940s wrote columns for the communist-influenced Chicago Defender extolling Communist poet Langston Hughes and lifelong Stalinists W.E.B. DuBois and Paul Robeson. Also in the 1940s, Mr. Jarrett was a leader of the Chicago chapter of American Youth for Democracy—youth wing of the Communist Party USA.
He also served on a publicity committee for the Packinghouse Workers Union, a Chicago-based entity dominated by the CPUSA. In each of these endeavors, Mr. Jarrett had close contact with Frank Marshall Davis.” With all the Communist influence in her background, it could be easily stated that she was a type of “closet” Communist, since she has really not come directly out front and made that statement.
However, just like Obama, her background is heavily influenced with Communist type. There are deep-rooted problems with Valerie Jarrett and her family that seem to have some sort of communist ideology, either linked directly to them or they are a part of it. We need only go to Discover the Networks to find the links and her base of thought when it comes to where she may have obtained the ideologies she now seems to be using.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/who-is-valerie-jarrett-is-she-the-one-that-gave-the-stand-down-order-in-benghazi/#ixzz2bbaGTsfR
neo, there is abundant info on how strongly Obama is controlled by Jarrett. The account of Obama’s dithering on whether to go through with the attack to get Bin Laden is a perfect example. He would give the OK, then be seen being scolded by Jarrett and come back and withdraw his approval. He would be convinced we had to act, she would line him out, and he would sheeplshly come back and say “no go”. The adults in the room finally just put the mission in motion and then told him it was too late to stop it.
This is why he looked so surly in the photos of the group waiting for news on the mission. He not only did not OK it, he had the humiliation of being told he could sit in for a photo op so he was photographed slouched in the background wearing his golf jacket and pouting, and on top of that he knew he had to go out and face the wrath of Jarrett.
How implausible is that?
not implausible at all,
after all barry/barky is conflicted whether he is tra von or tra von is his son.
Golfing a response to a pending attack?
Sure….
We have already seen what he does during an actual attack.
There are reports that two high-ranking military officers, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette and General Carter Ham, were fired by Obama for wanting to come to the assistance of the beleaguered U.S. missions in Benghazi.
(right after that Petraeus Resigns )
via Michael Savage
“Is Going Golfing the Normal Response to a Pending Enemy Attack?”
Well, I guess to some it might be, as going to bed (without even a “wake me up if something happens”) is considered by the kneepadders as a normal response to an actual, ongoing, attack being watched in real time in a White House “command center”.
You do realize that the term ‘kneepadder’ is a reference to a person wearing pads on the knees while he/she is performing fellatio. It comes from the old joke “Q: In a hospital how can you tell the head nurse? A: She’s the one with knee pads”
I knew all along it was the HNIC
Just for laughs and to throw some gas on the embers of a thread with ony 7 responses thread, consider which is a better course of action:
1. Play golf during a crisis?
2. Sleep during a crisis?
3. Continue to read a children’s book about goats?
Discuss.
stutz
at least he wasnt reading that book from a teleprompter like some other nitwit had to.
whoah
mod please delete the link below…….
Good one.
stutz
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQf6SWK_ZkAIcJdm3qSfutziaiI8Pj0Dp8eacFBrqAI1xe6xJqMxQ
Oh, Norma Norma Norma…..what on earth prompted you to lurch in here with this latest in Lefty silliness?
But let’s look at it anyway.
Obama was in the White House when the attack in Benghazi took place. He was at his place of business, with his Secretary of State (who was in charge of embassies, etc.) and his staff. And after the attack had been going on for a while, with no intervention from him or his staff, knowing not only that Americans were IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ATTACKED, and refusing to do any of the things available to him to intervene and possibly save their lives, he just strolled off to bed, without even saying to anyone to wake him up if anything else happened.
Obama, as the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief, knew in advance of the threats in the Middle East and the pending attacks on Americans and American property abroad. This was considered serious enough to close down embassies and warn Americans who are traveling abroad. Yet after knowing all of this—did you catch that key word “AFTER”?—–he v chose to go ahead with the fun things, like going on Leno, visiting his Hollywood elite buddies, and playing golf.
Now—to the My Pet Goat thing that tickles you guys so much it appears you still pee down your legs in hilarity when you think of it. President Bush was not in his office, but in public, reading to young children. When he was informed of a terrible incident, which at that time still might have been simply an awful accident, he was smart enough to understand that at that precise moment in time, there was absolutely nothing he could do. Oh, to appease the hair-on-fire hysterics on the Left I suppose he could have leaped out of his chair, frightening the children, and started yelling or something. But he acted like a calm, rational, adult—a calm rational adult with a skilled staff he trusted to keep him informed, and to immediately make plans to get him back to DC as soon as possible.
You see, people with management experience know how to handle crises, and it is not to fall apart and start to react when they don’t yet have enough information to know what is happening. People with management experience have trained staff people who can be counted on to know how to put necessary things in motion (such as alerting Air Force One to an immediate departure) without micromanagement, and they trust these people to do what they are trained to do. People with management experience know that projecting panic is the worst reaction to a crisis. And people with management experience know that when there is something they CAN do, they have to do it, and that their jobs are to be on top of important events—not ignore it in favor of playing a game or grandstanding on TV.
To someone like you, maybe it seems that there was something the man could or should have done in those three or four minutes that still have your panties in a wad. To intelligent people, not so much.
But what really stands out is that you are trying so hard to excuse Obama’s incompetence, and that you are still clinging to the silly My Pet Goat whine. Really, Norma? Really?
You can’t say I didn’t liven up a dead thread…
Anyhow, there is a difference between being “informed of a terrible event” and being told only “the country is under attack,” knowing nuclear missles are capable of attacking the country in minutes from a sub and using four of those minutes to keep reading.
Perhaps keeping that class calm for four more minutes was more important than trying to flesh out what “the country is under attack” meant.
You are right, Amazona, where ARE my silly priorities?
It is true, there was nothing Bush could do in that moment…
…except contact the Strategic Air Command, as every President since Truman would have done.
Perhaps he wasn’t aware of that option, it was missed at Predential Orientation Day.
Uh, presidential
Gee, Norm, you forgot to mention the Presidential Crystal Ball that told President Bush the nation was under attack, as at that time all we knew—-all anyone knew—was that a plane had hit a World Trade Tower.
It was not till the second plane hit that we knew we were under attack. Was he supposed to intuit that this was an attack, when no one else had?
You didn’t “liven up a dead thread” you just dumped some of your Lib s**t on it.
Nuclear missiles are, as I write this, capable of attacking the country in minutes from a sub. Duh. And they were in 2001 and they were in 1999 and they will be next month. Is this supposed to be a point?
Do you truly believe that the SAC had not been informed of this event as soon as the second plane hit? For all I know, before the second plane hit? Really? Did YOUR presidential briefing say that only the President can do this?
Do you truly believe that the entire security apparatus of the nation was sitting around waiting for the President to put that book down? Really? Interesting, especially when in fact the President was waiting to hear from THEM.
That’s right, Norma. The President gets reports from the various agencies on what is going on. In no known universe does the President of the United States run around and gather intel and then disseminate it to the various security agencies. In no known universe does our emergency alert system, our missile defense, or any other security system wait on notice from the President.
My goodness, you are even sillier than I remembered.
What you are really saying is that if President Bush had just done something to LOOK like he was doing something, in spite of the fact that there was at that point nothing to be done, you would not be criticizing him—-right? Of course this would be a lie, as you would invent any reason to wallow in your insane BDS, but there would be a tiny kernel of truth in that, as you people really care about someone LOOKING like he might be doing something, and are completely satisfied by being TOLD that the President is doing his darndest, really he is, by golly, to get SOMETHING done, if it weren’t for those wascawwy wepubwicans just being so darned OBSTRUCTIONIST.
We have the incompetent elected by the clueless defended by the brainless, and we do appreciate you dropping by to remind us of this.
The way Bush could have known the country was under attack was because he was interrupted during the book reading and told the very words “Mr. president, the country is under attack.”
Given his only information was a vague but catastrophic statement he might have broken the reading to find out the nature of the assault. Instead he pondered this grave statement for four minutes.
And in the movie put out by Satan (Michael Moore), we can see firsthand that he had a literal “deer in the headlights” look the whole time.
Shame on Obama and his golf game.
BLAME BUSH!!!!! EVIL BUSH!!!!
Norma, if you were not addicted to BDS you would not have been lurking in the background of this blog waiting for a chance to BLAME BUSH BLAME BUSH BLAME BUSH !!!!! It’s pretty much what we expect from people like you.
So you pounce on the expression on the man’s face, which was admittedly one of surprise and concern but one which normal people also see reflecting thoughtfulness, and you rummage around in the cesspools of your minds to find a description for it that appeals to you. You come up with “deer in the headlights”.
You completely ignore everything I said about the fact that the President does not acquire information and then disseminate it to people—-it is the other way around. People acquire information and present it to the President. You are quite happy inventing something the President OUGHT to be doing while people are learning about the situation, putting together data, evaluating what was going on, and preparing reports for him, and although you are not honest enough to say what your personal scenario would look like, it evidently includes lurching to his feet in the middle of a classroom of children and saying, or doing, SOMETHING, even though at that time there was nothing that he could do.
To try to make your insane BDS seem more credible, you have to invent a world in which our entire national security apparatus sits, immobile, waiting for the President to activate it. It seems to include a nation in which no action can be taken without the express direction of the President. Once you have created this bizarre alternate reality, you can then smugly declare that his not doing SOMETHING for four minutes meant that the entire security apparatus of the nation was frozen—FROZEN, I tell you!!—-waiting for him to finally stir himself into action.
And this probably makes sense to a Lo-Fo bottom-rung drone who has never held an executive position of any kind, who has always been one of those at the bottom who sit around waiting to be told what to do. It evidently makes a lot of sense to a Lo-Fo bottom-rung drone who is quite impressed by a President who treks around the country explaining, in speeches written by someone else, speeches he has to read, that he is not responsible for anything that has happened since his inauguration, that he is trying very hard, oh so hard, to do SOMETHING but the sad fact is that it is all out of his control. To a Lo-Fo bottom-rung drone, this is proof the Prez is DOING SOMETHING, and this might be why the lack of frantic activity to create the fiction that something is being done in front of the camera is exactly the same thing as nothing being done at all.
That, and a truly sick need to wallow in a toxic pathology.
I am an executive in a small company, and even at this level when I am told of a problem my people understand that their jobs are to collate information and give me a report on what is going on. If I am told that a truck has broken down 15 miles from the job site, no one expects everything to shut down while I go out and repair the truck. No, I am told, and then people come back to me with information—here are the name and phone number of the company man who is waiting for the truck, so I can call him and tell him what has happened. Here is the information that someone is on the way with a mechanic or a tow truck, and here is the info on which truck can be dispatched in case the first one can’t be put back into service right away. For one to five minutes or so after I am told that a driver has called in with a problem, there is nothing I can do, but I know that trained and competent people are doing their jobs and that within minutes they will come back to me with the information I need. Then, and only then, do I decide if I need to send out another truck, or how to handle the problem.
And this is a company with 30 employees. Even at this level micromanagement is counterproductive. Imagine the silliness of me getting a note during a meeting saying that the truck has broken down and me leaping to my feet in a flurry of meaningless activity, ordering people to do what they are already doing, issuing orders without any hard facts to back them up.
You see, people in the real world, people who make decisions instead of just being lower-rung drones obsessed by toxic pathology, people with a grasp of reality, are completely understanding of why people react to crises the way the President did. But then, we are people who make meaningful decisions based on facts, not people who engage in meaningless activity to impress others who don’t know or care that the activity is meaningless.
So let’s compare the early moments of 9/11 to the scenario of the Benghazi attack.
The President did not have someone whisper in his ear that our people in Libya were under attack. No, he received a report from the State Department that this was going on, and at that point the situation was being monitored by both State and the military. He was not expected to take raw data and then tell people how to handle it. He received processed data, and the significant fact is that this was not about something that had already happened and was over, but about something that was ongoing.
Perhaps in Loony Libland, it is possible to change the past, but in reality we know better. So while President Bush, after getting reports on actions already in motion by the various security agencies, could determine what actions he thought most important, he could not affect what had already happened. But President Obama was informed of something that was underway, and furthermore of actions that could reasonably be taken to alter what was happening. And even with all this information, all this data, all the options available to him, he chose to vote “Present” and then head off to beddy-bye, refusing to intervene in a situation in which intervention could have saved American lives.
It is not as if President Bush was told that there were planes approaching NYC and that we already knew an attack was so likely we wanted to evacuate the WTC, and he was immobilized by indecision due to concerns over political fallout, concerns over his personal political future based on how his decisions might be viewed, general inability to be decisive, and a cocktail of various elements such as those that impacted the Benghazi decisions, or lack of same. It’s not as if President Bush dithered until lives were lost because he just didn’t have the spine to do what needed to be done.
No, the ginned-up hysteria on the Loony Left is based upon a wholly imaginary concept of what should have been done in reaction to what had happened. And not even that, as no one seems to have come up with any reasonable alternative action. Norma seems to think that the SAC, etc., were sitting on their hands waiting for permission to do something, but that is just the bleating of ignorance. Interestingly enough, hindsight tells us that everything that could have been done after the fact was, in fact, done. Air Force fighters had even been dispatched to shoot down an airliner full of passengers to keep it from being used as a weapon. I don’t think even the looniest of the Loony Left have come up with something that the Prez SHOULD have done, other than scare a bunch of kids and engage in some theatrical antics to impress those who confuse such antics with action.
Benghazi? A very very different scenario, one in which actual immobility and indifference to the loss of American lives resulted in our abandonment of people who had every right to believe that we, as a nation, would step in to protect them. It was a disgusting combination of weakness, callous disregard for human life as well as for the responsibilities of an office sought with such vigor, and the weighing of possible political advantage and disadvantage vs the moral implications of looking the other way and inventing lies to cover their donkeys.
Let’s see, State slept thru the Benghazi attack. So did Obama. So much for that 3am call. They didn’t even have an excuse like reading My Pet Goat to children. Going golfing is great, it just looks bad when you close your embassies b/c of impending attacks. Maybe we should call that guy who owned the boat where Boston bomber Tsarnaev was hiding. Maybe that guy could at least give Obama a clue on how to catch terrorists.
Ah, nothing beats a 5,000 word reply from Amazona.
1. I am not blaming Bush for anything. The thread asked what an appropriate response to an attack should be and I simply stated the response of one particular president as inept.
2. Your point hat people give info to the President is exactly MY point. The President RECEIVED info that the nation he is chaged with is being attacked and he did nothing. He didn’t ask, “what do you mean, undr attack?”
If your kid is in the front yard while you watch football and a neighbor runs in, whispers “your kid is being attacked” and leaves, would you wait for a commercial to find out what was going on?
norma “boobie” stizeta
Sir, terrible accident, an airplane just struck the WTC, ………..OK Ill finish up in a minute dont want to panic the kids alert the airport we will be on our way in minutes.
END of story
too bad your brain isnt 1/10 the size of your chest.
Hmmm. How would you know my chest size. Interesting, your thought process…
I suppose if you extrapolate how big my chest is from my words then your words clearly delineate small proportions are on your part.
Unfortunately, Bush was not informed planes crashed the WTC. He was informed the nation was under attack.
I guess not scaring 30 five-year-olds was more important than finding out how 300 million were being attacked. My priorities are all backwards.
finding out how 300 million were being attacked.
pure drivel, 3 airplanes and two crash sites are not …….300 million being attacked, but hey never let a good lie go untold…. alinsky 101
back on topic, seems ole barry/barky/tra von has been derelict of duty, golfing, or spending HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of OPM vacationing during many many many national crises.
Where was he again during the terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, Boston, bengazi,?
reading off a teleprompter?
Norma,
When you get to be President and are faced with an attack like that, then you may judge Bush’s immediate reaction, not before. Bush just happened to be the first national leader caught on camera the moment an attack was made…we don’t know what FDR did in the first 7 minutes after the Pearl Harbor attack.
That is the first proper response to my point this entire thread. No attacks, no excuses and a very cogent point. I appreciate your maturity and intelligence.
You are absolutely right, we do not know what is a reasonable first reaction of a president when such grave news is received. Stalin famously hid under his desk when he learned Hitler attacked the USSR for fear his aides would kill him. For all I know, FDR soiled himself upon hearing of Pearl Harbor.
Perhaps I hold Mr. Bush’s reaction to too much scrutiny. Thank you for changing (improving) my point of view.
Amazona and Neocon have a lot to learn from you, Mark.
Norma, I see you have gone from opining on the proper response to bad news when received by a president to judging the proper response to a silly poorly thought-out posting on a blog.
It is amazing you can subsist solely on your own misguided feeling of signifigance. Kudos.
Oh, and back to the point that Bush had no options but he could have APPEARED to be doing something, I’m guessing there is a protocol of a bajillion thing the President should do when he county is under attack.
Top on the list would be to ask the nature of the attack. “Hey, uh, wht exactly did you mean when you said ‘the country is under attack?”
Also, I don’t think the President’s staff interrupts public affairs if the attack is minor. They interrupt for the big things, the things the President is supposed to manage cause, you know, it’s his job.
stizita
all chest no brains, or blood enough to support both.
nice try TROLL 🙂
You are good, sir. I can’t think of anything to compete with how clever your responses are. Subtle, intelligent and to the point. Are you a profesional writer?
are you a professional Troll?
Norma Stitz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Norma Stitz
Born Annie Hawkins-Turner
(Moderator note: edited for privacy purposes)
Neocon,
To be fair, you do not know if they are one in the same person – and even if they are, its not really relevant. I’m a bit sympathetic on this point because I’ve been hacked and stalked and even been confused with other people found on the internet…to be sure, it was liberals doing the hacking and stalking and confusing, but as a victim of that I’m disinclined to have it done to others.
BREAKING………… Tra von aka barry,- bark – hussein MIA during Ft Hood terrorist attack..
Mark
I just pointing out who the person she is posting as. I make no judgement it that is she or not.
Neocon – indeed, one has to be careful. I’m certainly never going to use Carlos Danger as a web handle!
Mark
I’m a bit sympathetic on this point because I’ve been hacked and stalked and even been confused with other people found on the internet…to be sure,
Me too my friend believe me…….
I’m certainly never going to use Carlos Danger as a web handle!
ROTFLMAO……
although carlos danger is much more believable than a man who is named anthony weiner posting pictures of his wei… junk…. 🙂 LOL
“… I’ve been hacked and stalked and even been confused with other people found on the internet..” and so have I. I have had no land or auto titles in my own name, or utility bills, or other means of finding me on the internet, for nearly two decades, yet a couple of Lib blogger/stalkers have claimed to have “found” me. I have set up two revocable trusts and an LLC so you would have to know which names of any of these to search for, for the very reason that there are crazy people out there.
As for the grotesquely endowed Ms. Stitz, the diversion of significant blood flow away from the brain to support such massive mammaries would be one explanation for her cluelessness, but not for her addiction to spite and malice and her sad sick need to hate, even for the flimsiest of reasons. So I don’t find your link to the internet Ms. Stitz to be compelling.
The use of the name of a grotesquely endowed female does bring to mind one from the pitchfork who paid to have grotesquely huge plastic mammaries attached to her body, so if I cared about who is writing this pap under the name of Norma Stitz I would probably look there, as this seems to be a fetish of this person.
Yeah yeah yeah Norma. You have thoroughly identified yourself as simultaneously dumb as a box of hair and addicted to toxic BDS rhetoric, and nothing you babble indicates that you have the slightest idea of how people should handle crises. As I have pointed out, all you now squeal about is that the President didn’t put on the right kind of show for you. You have no idea of what his organizational plans were for situations of crisis, you have no idea of what was going on behind the scenes.
Actually, I think your posts can be summed up as “you have no idea”. Just as your silly whine “Also, I don’t think the President’s staff interrupts public affairs if the attack is minor.” can be more accurately summed up as “I don’t think…”
And you continue to just ignore the often-repeated observation that no “management” can be done until intel is received, and facts are laid out. You are also oblivious to just what kind of visible manifestation of “management” you might find satisfactory.
” I’m guessing there is a protocol of a bajillion thing the President should do when he county is under attack. ” Well, you just keep guessing, sweetie, and leave the thinking to people equipped to do so. If you come up with any of these “bajillion” things that involve going off half-cocked before knowing any details of the attack, you be sure to get back to us, OK? So far all you have come up with is having a different facial expression and scaring the snot out of a bunch of kids. And based on your idiotic posts and your abysmal spelling, it looks like these two conclusions represent the best of your thought processes.
You are whining because you have eagerly swilled the slop fed to you in the BDS trough that the expression on Bush’s face and his lack of hysterical knee-jerk reaction are proof of incompetence. And this is brought out because of the accurately stated examples of REAL incompetence by your hero. You know you can’t possibly explain or excuse his behavior, so all you can try to do is distract from it by shrilly squealing “BUT LOOK AT WHAT BUSH DID!!!”
The thing is, no one with your limited intellect should ever be sent in to try to accomplish diversion, and you are really really bad at it. You see, we are quite capable of recognizing and understanding your many shortcomings, or at least the half dozen or so most visible ones, without being distracted for a moment from the colossal failure your guy is, has been, and no doubt will continue to be.
Example of one of the bajillion things Bush might have done: after the guys told him America is being attacked he could have asked, “what do you mean?”
I know, such a response would just be showboating for the press. And of course, this example shows my seething hatred of Bush, for whom I voted for President twice (even after watching footage of him freeze up when informed of the attack).
As for my breasts, I am a 34b and have been all my adult life (except when pregnant with my two boys).
Lastly, my shrilling response of “But look what Bush did” isn’t 100% accurate. The thread asked what an appropriate response to an attack on this nation should be, and I answered saying, in effect, it shouldn’t be like what happened last time the country was assaulted.
The only shrilling going on seems to come from you, Amazona.
Amazona,
If I had it to do over again, I never would have used my real name on the internet – not anywhere. But you demonstrate that even with a handle, people will still try to dig. I never understood why. I admit that on the internet from about 1998 until 2004 or so I could lob a verbal grenade – but since my “reversion” back to Catholicism I have made a concerted effort not to – and I think I’ve largely succeeded. But even back in my worst days, I never pursued people who angered me. I have been kicked off blogs before – including blogs of people who have an ideological and/or theological affinity with me. It does irritate, so I can understand people being irritated with me…but to take the time and trouble to rake over my past in the hopes of finding something to wound me with? That I don’t understand.
Of course, I am also a bit blessed in this area – I do have an Irishman’s temper but it is curbed by a general inability to stay mad for more than a few minutes.
I know what you mean, Mark. Just recently Spook posted something posted on another blog, by someone whose toxic posts were, I gather, part of the decision to just not allow certain people to post at all, in which he referred to me by a series of extremely vulgar words and then expressed a desire to “confront” me.
I would hate for someone mistaken for me to be approached by someone like this.
I do not suffer fools gladly, but I don’t get emotionally vested in things like anger or hatred, and while I, too, have an Irish temper, I also don’t stay mad long when it does get stirred up.
A friend once told me he thought every girl he had ever met from the Czech Republic was wonderful, and I replied that I think it is the Czech in me that makes me hot (remember, this was all tongue in cheek, just banter, so I don’t need a lecture on ego), it is my Irish that makes me like to drink, it is the German that gives me the discipline to not drink to excess, and it is the Russian that makes me bossy. And, unfortunately, all of them contribute to skin so white I nearly glow in the dark.
A cross between Slav and Irish probably would look pretty good – but it would be rather pasty-white. I’ve also got that ultra-white Irish skin…but living in the southwest and having a pool, I got a pretty good tan as summer goes along.
Be careful of that sun, Mark. My sun exposure is catching up with me and I am facing having to have acid smeared on my fact to remove sun damage that my doctor says might be a precursor to skin cancer. I’ve had one small squamous cell cancer removed and now have to deal with a full-face acid peel to head off others.
Ouch. I am a little freaked out by the acid-on-face thing.
I know what you mean, Mark. Just recently Spook posted something posted on another blog, by someone whose toxic posts were, I gather, part of the decision to just not allow certain people to post at all, in which he referred to me by a series of extremely vulgar words and then expressed a desire to “confront” me.
I went there and gave them a taste of their own medicine, they almost immediately moderated it which I find hilarious.
they use the “c” word for you, accuse me of being a perv like those on the pitchfork and one wants to beat me with a baseball bat….a very revealing place to see the insanity, and psychosis of these cretins close up.
Scotch Irish here ….but dark skin. used to get in fights with my fellow “micks” for being a “dago” in their/my hood…… go figure.
neo, I am not sure if there is a delicate way to put this—but in my opinion those who toss around the “c” word either have very little personal experience with the real thing or are exhibiting a sad pathological hatred for it. This is why I was a little surprised to see a forker who claimed to not only be a woman but a lesbian use this as an attack word–“she” sounded like a self-hating woman and a very poor lesbian, if you get my drift.
As for going to their pathetic little site, which for some reason was started in part by one of our own, Cluster—–just remember the old cowboy adage: “You don’t ever want to rassle with a pig. You can’t do it without getting as dirty as the pig is—-and the pig LIKES it”.
They tried to make this blog a cesspool and when it was not allowed they ran off and created one of their own, where they wallow and enjoy the smell of each other’s, uh, discharges. What is so funny about it is that it is still about this blog, and about us.
. What is so funny about it is that it is still about this blog, and about us.
OMG I KNOW……..it is hilarious watching the fools melt down railing against conservative boogeymen from another blog of all things. Could you imagine being neighbors to these LOONS??
911 was a TERRORIST attack, by muslim cutthroats, NO foreign country was involved.
tra von watched in real time while the US embassy was attacked, ambassador slaughtered went to bed then to Las Vegas to partaaay
Mr. neocon
When one is told the nation is under attack, it means 300 million people are undr attack. If Bush had been told the WTC is under attack then perhaps keeping things calm would be in order. But hearing a nation of 300 million is under attack – something that has been a real possibility sonce he invention of the ICBM – perhaps that would spur a lesser president to action.
In re: my name, why would you check Wikipedia and not more common places, like Facebook. You can see my face, my grandkids, anything you want to see. Considering my (married) name is also a common punchline to jokes (say it aloud) I’m surprised your search didn’t bring you to an adult site.
As for being a troll, professional or otherwise, This is the first time I’ve posted something liberal in my time on this site.
While I loved President Bush I was aghast when I watched footage of his reaction to being told the nation was under attack. When I saw this thread with so little action I thought it would be interesting to stir the pot. Instead of anyone saying, “that wasn’t Bush’s best moment but he was a great president” I hear weak defenses (there was nothing for him to do) and attacks (I’m an all boobs and no brains troll).
I’d say this thread wasn’t Blogs for Victory’s best moment.
Say what you like, Norma. Go ahead and say it with invented words that don’t mean anything (“shrilling”). Whatever.
The thing is, you had a negative reaction to the way Bush acted in the first few minutes after being told of the attack. For some reason you decided that his reaction was not the right one.
Well, I saw the same reaction by the President, and I thought it prudent and pragmatic and the right way to handle the situation as he understood it at that time. As a history buff I have read a lot about various crises in various circumstances over periods of centuries and my personal opinion is that the best initial response is one of calm and collected thought, while necessary information is being collected. It is possible that I approve of the steady and calm reaction of the President because this my personal standard for how best to deal with an emergency. Maybe you have never been in an emergency situation so you can’t understand or appreciate how foolish or dangerous a rash and spontaneous reaction can be. Lucky you.
I, however, have, in situations in which I had to be the person in charge and in others when someone else has been. So my perception is that when nothing can be accomplished by an immediate response, it is always better to take a minute, or two or four, to acquire necessary information, mentally sort out which people or agencies have to do what, and prepare for the emergency. It’s a form of mental triage, very necessary in a complex situation in which there are many moving parts, where there are so many factors, and where accurate intel is crucial to avoid making a rash or stupid or even dangerous snap decision.
I also seem to have a much better grasp of the structure of the government and military than you do, as well as of things like chain of command, duties of subordinates, etc. So I never had a problem understanding that President Bush, having chosen his staff, had confidence in them. You seem to think, for some reason, that without Bush telling people what to do they would not know what to do. I have more faith in a well-trained staff. It never occurred to me that the President would have to issue orders regarding contacting the Vice President, contacting Cheyenne Mountain, contacting various military agencies, contacting various domestic intelligence agencies, getting Air Force One read to take off, etc. I always had complete faith that a skilled and trained staff was in motion from the get-go, and I prefer an executive who has this kind of faith himself, because it means he has done his job well. Clearly you needed to see President Bush issuing orders, waiting for people to come on the line, etc. I didn’t. I had complete faith that his people knew what to do, the Air Force knew what to do, the White House staff back in DC knew what to do, etc. At least they knew what to do until the picture was clearer. And I was glad the President knew and understood this. If he had freaked out and started tossing off orders and so on, showing no faith in his staff or his military, and acting without enough data to make informed decisions, THAT would have bothered ME. As it was, I fully expected that when he stepped out of that room, a very few minutes after being informed of the crisis, he would be updated on everything the staff had been able to learn, and that none of this information would have been more readily available if he had been the one on the phone asking the questions.
I also understand that there are sequences of action that are put in place when certain things occur. So it never entered my mind that while the President processed the little information given to him, remaining calm and collected, this meant that critical actions were not already in motion. Because of my interest in military history and my friendships with many military people, and my extensive reading, I knew that certain alerts and alarms had already been triggered. I live really close to Cheyenne Mountain. I have known people who work there. I have a pretty good idea of what is put into action when a threat is detected that involves aircraft, and I know damned well that no one there, or at Offutt, or at any of the other air defense bases, was sitting around waiting for a call from the CinC to tell them what to do.
You just go right ahead and fret because the man did not leap into whatever action, or pretense of action, you personally might have thought better. Fine. For your own personal reasons you would have been comforted by a show of activity, an illusion of achieving something immediately. But just remember, there are a lot of people who are smarter, better read, better informed, better educated, and with more knowledge and understanding of what goes on behind the curtain who think you are just a silly goose emoting over something you simply do not understand. For some internal, personal, reason, you had an internal, personal, reaction which you now seem to think reflects an accurate assessment of what happened.
You are wrong.
And neo, shame on you for trying to drag in some goofy internet thing.
And you didn’t “stir the pot” so much as throw crap at it. Don’t you worry about how quickly people post, or how many post. It’s not your concern. The blog has gotten along quite well without your misguided efforts to jazz it up. And if you can’t think things out better than you did with this, it will get along a lot better without you in the future as well.
You said something really stupid, you got called on it. Call it a teachable moment and let it go.
I’m sorry for not having such deep knowledge of crisis management, presidential protocol and general business management as you clearly do not possess. I was unaware you are a former ambassador, chief of staff and wildcat firefighter as you seem to claim.
Your words tell all readers so much about you, Amazona. Keep writing, it is hilarious.
You could learn a lot from Mark Noonan if you weren’t so closed-minded as to think you know everything..
In other words, you got nothing. Go have a nice saucer of milk and try to calm down, and get more comfortable with awareness of your own limitations. I am only one of millions with vastly greater experience and knowledge than you, so you are going to have to come to grips with that. It doesn’t really take all that much to know more than you do, you know. Or you can just continue to come up with feeble pseudo-clever little spit-and-snarl efforts to defend the indefensible.
Whatever.
You never disappoint, Amazona, with your…what was that, a victory lap? Mission accomplished, is it?
Thank you. Really. Thank. You.
The use of the name of a grotesquely endowed female does bring to mind one from the pitchfork who paid to have grotesquely huge plastic mammaries attached to her body, so if I cared about who is writing this pap under the name of Norma Stitz I would probably look there, as this seems to be a fetish of this person.
BINGO!!