Gary Varvel for August 12, 2013

Throw caution to the wind and stack up the bodies makes a much bolder president. No thanks.

Right Wing hypocrisy makes me laugh. First you whine about how Obama is not protecting our Embassies and demand full investigations into a supposed ongoing scandal, then when he takes preemptive measures to protect those same Embassies you start yelling he’s a coward, and shaming American honor. I swear, if Obama came out in favor of toilet paper you guys would stop using it.

it is probably pointless to point out to you SeaFox that all of your solutions are not viable. First of, the countries involved are still sovereign states and embassies, while regarded as extensions of their home countries, are still guests. Secondly, driving an US Army tank through foreign capitals to the US embassy, or matching armed US troops down streets, would only increase the animosity towards the US, and be used by terrorist organizations to justify their actions. ( what would be your reaction to, let’s say IRAQ placing several tanks in it’s US embassy?) Third, the United States unfortunately must rely on the host countries to “go after” those responsible for any attacks on the embassy. Unless of course you want to launch a drone to blow em up, in which case you would need to declare war first, with the added benefit of again increasing hatred toward the US and helping the terrorist.

That worked really well in Vietnam, but you may be too young to remember that. Going after the bad guys in their territory is a pretty low-yield game. For homework, you should read the story of Brer Rabbit.Anyway, if they’re feeling ornery and there’s tanks parked in front of the gates, they would just need better bombs from their probably USA originated arsenal. Aiming wouldn’t be hard, the tank would be stationary.

US standing will NEVER be what it once was, no matter who is in charge. All that goes up must come down.

Our embassies already look and operate like fortresses so why are they so vulnerable? Puzzling.

The embassies have not been closed with the exception of Yemen. The consulates, who deal with the general public, have been closed but the ambassador, staff, State Department Civil Service, Marine guard at Post One and other staff are still there.

But yes, how about going after the Benghazi raiders after almost a year.

Still painting the opposition with a broad brush? Ad hominem attacks only demonstrate the weakness of your position.

Read my comment, the embassies were never closed, only the consulates.

Until the next one.

Must’ve been a REALLY serious threat then, eh? TOTALLY not just a puppet show to justify the total surveillance state at a time it’s facing heavy criticism and distrust. Nope, not at all. Big Brother LOVES us, and is watching us for our own good.

lets just install nuclear bombs under each american embassy as a deterrent eh, or perhaps the USA should invade other countries without provocation on the basis of a perceived threat proposedly perpetrated by proclaimed terrorists

Because that couldn’t possibly be perceived negatively by other countries, perhaps every other embassy in washington should start to store tanks, helicopters and garrison soldiers.

“How about parking a tank in front, or more troops, or how about the silly idea of going AFTER the ones that want to cause harm?!?!”You don’t seem to have any knowledge of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_consulate_attacksBesides Matt’s great explanation of how we can’t just send in troops, are you willing to pay more taxes for all those tanks & troops you want to deploy?Me? I agree with Bruce’s suggestion that Obama may be stealing more of Bush’s tricks. The timing of this announcement is awfully convenient in light of the NSA furor.

far better we kill millions for not sharing our views, you can protect yourself in your own home, you can’t break into your neighbors homes with a submachine gun and threaten to shoot if they disobey your whims

The only reason terrorists are a threat is because they are willing to die, as a result even being in retreat is not equivocal to not threatening to attack, the reduced scope of these attacks and increasingly political targets would hint that they are trying to gain strength by painting the USA as the enemy, stacking military and paramilitary forces into muslim countries would be playing right into the hands of Al Qaeda. essentially deal with the blows as they grow smaller and continue to do minor fighting. Any ramping up of large scale strikes (drones) or ramping up of military presence will be sized upon as being anti muslim

I’m confused. When we go to other nations & impose our values on them, we’re good guys. But, when if that happens here, we are being bullied by thugs.Keep in mind that the values we impose overseas aren’t so much freedom, democracy & local enterprise, but the right of multi-national corporations to exploit the local resources.We have propped up corrupt thugs from Nicaraugua to Kazakhstan. If you think our troops were deployed to Iraq & Afghanistan in order to bring peace, freedom & prosperity for all, why aren’t you outraged about those utter failures? Why aren’t you outraged that we don’t have troops in most every part of Africa?The real question, is what fool thinks foreign troops ever bring lasting peace & freedom? I guess you’d have been arguing to have the French army occupy the colonies in 1783.

Not so puzzling. Sometimes you don’t listen to warnings, and the GOP attacks you for that. Sometimes you listen to warnings and they attack you for that. And some people listen to the GOP but are too dumb to remember what they want the administration to do from week to week, which makes you wonder what’s worth protecting.