[enron_by_the_sea]

I don’t understand this paranoia.

First of all, do you really think that three supreme court judges will retire in next two years? Why would Kagan, Sontomoyor, Alito or Roberts retire? They just started. Then if Ginsberg or Breyer retire and get replaced by any of these three what difference does that make? Finally is there any realistic chance that Thomas, Scalia or Kennedy could retire in the next two years? I don’t think so!

Second point: how will any of these three (polarizing) figures that you cite ever get confirmed in the senate where GOP still has probably 45 senators (+2 independents & 11 blue-dog Dem senators from deep-red states ) and filibuster that is alive and working.

United States Senate is the greatest political entity constructed by our founding fathers to keep short-term political extremism in check. I am forever grateful to them for having the foresight to think of it more than 300 years ago.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=AN]What’s very interesting is, even though the electoral vote was won by a landslide, the popular vote is much closer at 49% vs 49% right now with only 291097 vote separating the two.
[/quote]

That is one way to look at it.

The other way to look at it is that at about 50% of popular vote, Obama is doing about as good as other re-elected presidents in recent history

For example

Clinton (1996) – 49.2%
Bush (2004) – 50.7%

Getting reelected with a landslide in national vote seems to be more common before Clinton.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Thanks and sorry for any hard feelings that I may have caused. 🙂

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=SD Realtor]Feel free to answer the question directly. This subject is a rescue mission of American citizens.

While my personal opinion is that I would have like to seen an attempt at a military rescue operation or even a diversion during the attack, it is only that, an opinion. If the call was made by the White House, or a given general of Central Command to do or not do something, it would be nice to know who made that final call.

I think I am more troubled by the way things are coming out after the fact.

it is quite easy to look back and find huge mistakes, corruption and blunders with any administration. That does not excuse the current one. Also I am not referencing any other foreign policy decisions by this administration. I may not agree with them and whether they were blunders or not would also only be my opinion.

Please try not to confuse wanting to understand what happened as well as the subsequent lack of clarification with war mongering if you can.[/quote]

There should be an investigation and I assume there will be in the coming days. If not, I am sure Fox News will make sure it happens.

The difference between me and Fox News is that I do not speculate that there was a mistake, blunders or cover-up until the facts of the case are clear. I give benefit of doubt to administration, just as others gave benefit of doubt to Bush administration in the previous case that I brought up even till today. If one doesn’t do that then I must conclude that they are not objective.

Is Fox News is kidding that this is just about what happened in Libya? No, it always was about the election that will happen next week. As long as it is about the election, everything about foreign policy of Mitt Romney and his advisers (who were basically Bushies) is a fair game in this discussion.

Now SDR you answer directly if (1) are you only interested in getting facts of Libya out or (2) You are trying to say that Romney should be elected because somehow Obama was a failure as illustrated by Libya

If your direct answer (if you choose to give it) is (1) then you can certainly wait some more time and truth will be out anyway. You are entitled to your opinion till then but that will be just an opinion – not reality. I will respectfully disagree because I can not form opinion on this matter in advance of facts.

If your answer is (2) then my bringing up any issue related to foreign policy is fair game in this discussion.

P.S: The only reason Bush even came in this discussion is because you said that media was harsh on Bush and I pointed out how friendly media was to Bush in such cases (at least in the immediate aftermath).

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=SD Realtor]So obviously you find nothing peculiar about this entire incident enron?

You seem to indicate that the American public should not question what we have been told. That all the correct decisions were made and we should all accept this without question?[/quote]

American public should be questioning both sides.

Both sides are naive on matters of foreign policy and interventions. Currently one side is close to war-mongering!

[enron_by_the_sea]

So when its Bush/GOP we should assume that they get benefit of doubt about something that happens in the heat of the moment on foreign soil and trust their judgement.

But when its Obama/Dems running the show we should constantly question them about what happened in the heat of the moment on a foreign soil and always assume that there is a scandal happening in the background unless otherwise proven beyond a shred of doubt?

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=KSMountain]
ucodegen is correct or mostly correct. There are several books written on this subject by U.S. folks who were there at the time, in different branches of service. It is possible to educate oneself on this matter…[/quote]

I am a dumb guy so why don’t you educate me… The only accounts of US folks that I can find go like this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4494937.html

They all seem to suggest that Delta force presented several plans to take out Bin Laden, but Bush administration/Gen Tommy Franks did not approve any of them and decided to let Afghans do it…

Do you disagree with such a characterization? If yes, then educate me!

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=ucodegen]Inaccurate. He allowed some of the Afghanis to be included in surrounding Tora Bora. These Afghanis got ‘bought off’. If you also remember, they were pounding Tora Bora from the air. If you know anything about Switzerland, you will know why you just don’t waltz into Tora Bora to get Bin Laden. The tunnels are constructed to create a large killing zone around Tora Bora.[/quote]

Bottom line is Bin Laden was in Tora Bora and our military leadership and possibly even Bush administration had enough reason to believe that Bin Laden was there. I think we at least agree on that.

1 – In no way do I believe that the military/special forces do not prepare for such a situation as taking Bin Laden out in Tora Bora with ground assault. certainly 2 months after 9/11 there was no higher priority in front of our military than take out Bin Laden. At least that’s what I think!

2 – I believe that even with preparation, there was substantial risk involved in such an operation on ground.

3 – I believe that several options were presented to the Bush administration for going after Bin Laden with military assets and that these options were high risk.

4 – I also believe that another option presented was to let Afghans/northern alliance to largely attempt to take out Bin Laden on the ground and that this option was selected by them…

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Point 2 however makes no sense and in retrospect is more then likely not true at all. Bin Laden was not only not in Tora Bora, but we probably had no clue where he was.
[/quote]

Google “Bin Laden Tora Bora” throws plenty of links..

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14190032

I believe there was a 60-minutes story on that too..

[quote=SD Realtor]
Also how do you conclude Mitts foreign policy to match GWBs?[/quote]

Well, I have not heard anything otherwise. But just look at who he hangs out with or who speak in support of him with on foreign policy issues. I see the same Bush people – Condy Rice, Cheney, John Bolton etc.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Ask yourself, and be very honest here, if this happens on Bush’s watch is the media behavior the same?

[/quote]

Let’s see what happened when Bush was in the white house.

1) 9/11 happened, media did not ask any questions about how Bush could have missed this for many years. Fox news & GOP does not ask that question even today.

2) Bin Laden was holed up in Tora Bora and Bush decided not to pursue him. No one questioned that wisdom for years to come. Fox News and GOP do not bring that up even today.

3) Iraq WMD intel was cooked up by Cheney,Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and gang. Any media that dared to question them were labelled anti-american (usually by Fox News).

So when the same people come on Fox News and now rant against Obama on Libya, is not natural for me to be skeptical? Seems to me like, it is not very credible to accuse someone when one themselves have been involved in similar shady businesses in the past …

If Obama’s foreign policy has failed, Mitt’s solution is GWB’s foreign policy – which was even a bigger disaster!

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=flu]

For example, as you might know. I.I.T. is very very cream-of-the crop school in India. A few friends advised me one time while looking at resumes, that there were a few knockoff schools that had similar names…

So, I think all we need here…Is instead of Harvard…we can create an accredited school like “Havard”…Then when someone writes “Havard” on a resume, people just think it’s a typo for “Harvard”….[/quote]

Btw there are at least two M.I.T.s in India too!

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: There was considerable intel and in the MONTHS leading up to the Benghazi attack and this intel came from US, Western (largely British) and Libyan sources.

[/quote]

I hope that this “intel” about imminent attack in Bengazhi did not come from the same sources as those who provided intel about Iraq WMD! I ask because the same people who belived in Iraq WMD are the people who are hyping up this “intel”.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Federal: Obama,Feinstein,Scott Peters,
City:DeMaio,
county: Dave Johnson
SDUSD: Bill Ponder, vote against John lee Evans, non-vote for Barrera
Props: yes on 32,36
Non vote on 34
No on everything else

[enron_by_the_sea]

I look at the crowd that is going hysterical about Obama’s failure in Libya and then realize that most of them were running this country when the worst terrorist attack on US soil happened. There were enough insinuations in the media that they should have seen them coming but did not do anything. From my memory the crowd that is going blood-red over Libya today was nowhere as worked up over that failure.

Somehow I do not buy this notion that we will have a better foreign policy by going back to the George W Bush’s foreign policy run by the same people who run it under Bush administration.

If Romney is going to do something different than Bush in foreign policy that message surely has not got to me…

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=flu]
Anything else?[/quote]

Is it customary to consider vacancy (2-3 weeks) & repairs in cap rate calculation?

[Author]

Posts