Questioning the timing

[BT]

His "the buck stops here" is nonsense.

Do we really expect a CEO to personally monitor emails and embassy visits to make sure the appropriate agencies are notified and the appropriate actions are taken. And the direct supervisors of the staff responsible for these deficiencies needs to correct them immediately. Obama is not responsible for their actions, the bureaucracy that is in place before he came on board and will be in place after he leaves is responsible, and they should be held accountable.

Anything else is just posturing.

[Michael Tee]

His "the buck stops here" is nonsense.

Do we really expect a CEO to personally monitor emails and embassy visits to make sure the appropriate agencies are notified and the appropriate actions are taken. And the direct supervisors of the staff responsible for these deficiencies needs to correct them immediately. Obama is not responsible for their actions, the bureaucracy that is in place before he came on board and will be in place after he leaves is responsible, and they should be held accountable.

Anything else is just posturing.

=============================================================

I agree with the whole of the post, BT.  Don't see where it fits into this thread, but it WAS nonsense, a pathetic excuse for his failure to take action against those who apparently failed in their job.

If indeed they DID "fail in their job."  If their job was to stage a provocation in the form of a fake attack on an airliner that was never meant to succeed, then they didn't pull it off completely, but had the misfortune to be overheard at a crucial point by a bystander who went public with what he overheard.

At this point, my mind is open to both possibilities - - one, he's just protecting those who tried to stage a provocation to justify the invasion of Yemen and had the misfortune to be overheard; or two, he's weaseling out of an obligation to fire underlings who have majorly fucked up.

[BT]

If indeed they DID "fail in their job."  If their job was to stage a provocation in the form of a fake attack on an airliner that was never meant to succeed, then they didn't pull it off completely, but had the misfortune to be overheard at a crucial point by a bystander who went public with what he overheard.

Seems posturing is the major fad of the day.

And really not helpful.

[Michael Tee]

I guess when you want to deny the obvious possibilities, "posturing" is as good an accusation as any.  Requires no proof, doesn't really address the issues and serves as a handy excuse for those who don't WANT to see to say they see nothing there.  Nice recovery.

[BT]

I guess when you want to deny the obvious possibilities

I deny no possibilities, i am waiting for more information before jumping on the conspiratorial bandwagon, just because the current theory happens to coincide with my worldview. And i don't think you can say the same.

What do you know about this attorney?

[Michael Tee]

<<I deny no possibilities, i am waiting for more information before jumping on the conspiratorial bandwagon, just because the current theory happens to coincide with my worldview. And i don't think you can say the same.>>

Sure I can.  I stated the conspiracy to fabricate a casus belli was one of two possibilities.  You seem to be saying that the attack is what the MSM claims it to be is one of one possibility.

<<What do you know about this attorney?>>

LOL - - on no evidence whatsoever, you're ready to shoot the messenger?  Believe me, if that attorney had any al Qaeda links, radical background, or even substantial income tax arrears, the whole fucking world would have known about it by now and the MSM wouldn't have to sweep him and his story under the rug.  Typical right-wing smear  - - knowing nothing whatever about the guy, you try to impugn his integrity.  Throw mud, see if any sticks.  Textbook example of the baseless smear, nice one.

[Amianthus]

Typical right-wing smear  - - knowing nothing whatever about the guy, you try to impugn his integrity.  Throw mud, see if any sticks.  Textbook example of the baseless smear, nice one.

Kinda like your comments about Geoffrey Canada?

[Rich]

>>The rightwing will not vote for ANY Black man, period ...<<

Typical drone. Must fit template.

As for democrats voting for Blacks, if the districts weren't gerrymandered to included a vast majority of Blacks, they wouldn't get elected either. Blacks of course can't be racist, so voting 98 percent for Black candidates indicates they are enlightened, not racist.

Sure.

[sirs]

The rightwing will not vote for ANY Black man, period, and the Democrats will not vote for any Black man, just one they can identify with.

    Color is rarely, if ever the issue Xo.  It's what they believe in, campaign on, and most notbaly, what their history of legislative, judicial, and/or executive actions demonstrate

Color is simply used by folks like yourself to inject race into the equation, when, as I noted, is rarely the case.  Obama could have been as white as Robert Byrd, he still wouldn't have had my vote.  You simply present it as some form of asanine racist act to disagree with Obama, minus even a shred of support to the accusation