I don't get the Libya thing

[manchambo]

It seems to me that there are two basically separate issues. First, there's the question of why additional security wasn't provided. A very serious question. Then there's this issue about when exactly the administration should have said it was a terror attack. Basically a side show compared to the first very serious question.

In the debate a guy asks a tough question about the first issue. Obama basically dances his answer. Romney, instead of going for the throat on that issue, goes after the second issue and flubs that attack. Why are they getting so side tracked on this issue?

[ant1999e]

Not what they should have said but what they knew. Claiming there was a protest over a video when there was no protest. They ran that story for over a week. They avoided admitting it was a terrorist attack. They either lied or were clueless. Either way it's a problem.

[manchambo]

Not what they should have said but what they knew. Claiming there was a protest over a video when there was no protest. They ran that story for over a week. They avoided admitting it was a terrorist attack. They either lied or were clueless. Either way it's a problem.

Maybe, but the actual issue the voter was concerned about was why security wasn't increased. Seems like a much more serious (and legitimate) issue to me.

[ZONA]

Facts will never get to the media that are not skewed to one party's liking or the other. Face it, you could say red and white make pink but somebody else will say it's light red or reddish white. It's all about what you want to hear and except for a very small amount of people in this country, most people will bend the truth and facts to favor their view. Just how it is.

[nyuk nyuk]

It seems to me that there are two basically separate issues. First, there's the question of why additional security wasn't provided. A very serious question. Then there's this issue about when exactly the administration should have said it was a terror attack. Basically a side show compared to the first very serious question.

Obama didn't answer this point and chose to hide behind a torrent of manufactured outrage.

On the second point, Obama lied outright. I was howling HERE and elsewhere that it was an obvious terror attack when Washington was shuffling its feet. I was pointing out HERE and elsewhere that there were people in the US Embassy grounds in Egypt waving hundreds of AL QAIDA FLAGS while Washington was shuffling its feet.

Even NOW we are only beginning to hear that Washington is just now considering how to strike back.


WHAT THE HELL?

[nyuk nyuk]

Facts will never get to the media that are not skewed to one party's liking or the other. Face it, you could say red and white make pink but somebody else will say it's light red or reddish white. It's all about what you want to hear and except for a very small amount of people in this country, most people will bend the truth and facts to favor their view. Just how it is.

Mostly Democrats/liberals.

The media are curious animals. Due to them, the Western World actually has TWO versions of science: one from the scientists, and the other from the media.

Example.

The media keep harping on "sex addiction" as an unquestioned fact when in fact there is no such diagnosis or disorder as sexual addiction. Debate on this topic is ongoing among psychologists. There is no consensus and there is no designation as sexual addiction, period, yet you wouldn't know that by watching/reading the media.

These people are seriously screwed up.

[Kaylore]

It is two issues but they are related. 1. Not providing enough security on freaking 9/11 - that seems like a "durrrrrr" thing.

2. Mishandling explaining what went wrong. Rather than admitting the mistake, the administration first gave incorrect information (the right say they lied to cover themselves, the left says that was the information they were given, even when it was wrong.) then back tracked.

So yes, there are two issues. The chief is why wasn't more security provided. The second is why couldn't the white house get their facts straight.

[NUB]

Why wasn't the debate over it more nuanced? Simple. Because we still don't have a lot of answers about what happened. There was a lot of confusion over what was going on because of the Prophet Mohammed-movie pissing a lot of people off. And groups in these regions are so diverse that it can be difficult to track down the whos and whys. What's remarkable about the question is that Romney so badly screwed up in pressing the issue that he ended up receiving a debate-KO punch and the crowd was literally laughing at him. It was not a good moment. Other than that, the night was pretty even.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/hillary-embassy-funding_n.jpg

[lonestar]

I suspect that Nobama does not get it either.

[lonestar]

Why wasn't the debate over it more nuanced? Simple. Because we still don't have a lot of answers about what happened. There was a lot of confusion over what was going on because of the Prophet Mohammed-movie pissing a lot of people off. And groups in these regions are so diverse that it can be difficult to track down the whos and whys. What's remarkable about the question is that Romney so badly screwed up in pressing the issue that he ended up receiving a debate-KO punch and the crowd was literally laughing at him. It was not a good moment. Other than that, the night was pretty even.

The state department was watching it live time. Or so they said.

How could they not know what was going on ?

[NUB]

The state department was watching it live time. Or so they said.

How could they not know what was going on ?

Just because you witness a crime does not mean you automatically understand who is doing it or why.

[ZONA]

Just because you witness a crime does not mean you automatically understand who is doing it or why.

I also think there is a HUGE misconception that even if security was beefed up a bit that it would have prevented the attack or even that Americans would not have died. That is probably not the case. As many have said, it was 9/11 and I'm pretty sure an attack was going to happen no matter what. Terrorists probably would have just increased their #'s if the security was increased. Let's not forget, Ryan as well as many other Republicans chose to reduce spending on security for over seas embassies. Hate to say it this way but you get what you pay for. You want to cut spending on security but cry wolf when something goes down. You can't have it both ways.

[Willynowei]

Slashing the budget for embassy security while pushing for hire pentagon spending?

I'm leaning Romney because i like the conservative economic policies... but this kind of stuff just makes me shake my head regardless of which side is doing it. Just obvious what's going on there...

As for white house reaction, or more specifically what the president should or shouldn't have said - i couldn't care less. it's not a spending issue, and its a joke trying to grill the man who caught Bin Laden on these type of things. He's got that area won until he make some serious mistakes.

[DenverBrit]

Not what they should have said but what they knew. Claiming there was a protest over a video when there was no protest. They ran that story for over a week. They avoided admitting it was a terrorist attack. They either lied or were clueless. Either way it's a problem.

Why do Romney supporters keep repeating the same lie??

We all heard Obama's comments the day after the attack, when he clearly described the attack.

The facts: On September 12, the day after the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Obama said in comments in the Rose Garden that he had learned about the attack on the consulate the night before.

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

[manchambo]

Why do Romney supporters keep repeating the same lie??

We all heard Obama's comments the day after the attack, when he clearly described the attack.

They also are using a pretty shabby false dichotomy. That it arose out of protests would not disqualify it from being an act of terror. That's why Obama said it was an act of terror while at the same time indicating that was related to the movie protests. But Fox News still says over and over again the administration was somehow covering up that it was a terror attack by saying it was related to the movie.

[ZONA]

I'm leaning Romney because i like the conservative economic policies.

Yeah, because they were such good policies that Bush wiped out a huge surplus and left a nice chunk of debt. The policies were so good that Romney and folks didn't even want Bush and Chaney (among others) to even attend the RNC this year. There may be some differences between the Bush and Romney but they're virtually the same when it comes to economics. Tax cuts for the rich, promise to cut taxes for middle class (which we all know is a lie). Instead of closing corporate loop holes to force corporations to pay their fair share, instead, the choose to cut programs and deductions which heavily favor the middle class and not the rich. But, at least Bush didn't try to turn Medicare into a voucher program and seals it's fate by 2016. Also wants to increase military spending by 2 billion, so now instead of the US paying military almost 7 times the amount of the next 10 largest countries (as that's not ridiculous enough) it will go to something like 8 times the amount. That kind of spending is not needed, they are only doing it so those large military contractors get jobs. So say you like Romney for anything else but don't think his economic plan spells relief. Guaranteed the debt will not go down with him as president. Within hist first few years I promise he will go to war with Iran while China pays for it. He will continue to outsource jobs in China. He tries to say if you have a fund, some of it's investments could come from China. Yeah, fine, that's a fund dude. It's not being the president of the USA and moving jobs to China and putting American workers out on their butts, which he has already proven he is doing, even right now, he's got a company he's literally moving to China, now.

[maher_tyler]

If there wasn't an embassy there it wouldn't have gotten attacked. We need to let the people in the middle east figure their own problems out. What goes on in these embassies anyway? What is the point of them being there? Do we have other countries embassies here in the US??

[barryr]

Why do Romney supporters keep repeating the same lie??

We all heard Obama's comments the day after the attack, when he clearly described the attack.

LOL, yes, despite Crowley and her pom poms trying to help Obama, he and his admin. went on airwaves for weeks stating as if fact, that the attack in Libya was a spontaneous response about a result of a clip from a movie that was 2 months old. We know that was wrong and since the Obama admin. was told at the start the movie had really nothing to do with it, they decided to use that narrative anyway. That is lying in my book at least.

[DenverBrit]

The day after the attack, Obama called it a terrorist attack.

But keep denying it if that makes you feel better.

[Rohirrim]

It seems to me that there are two basically separate issues. First, there's the question of why additional security wasn't provided. A very serious question. Then there's this issue about when exactly the administration should have said it was a terror attack. Basically a side show compared to the first very serious question.

In the debate a guy asks a tough question about the first issue. Obama basically dances his answer. Romney, instead of going for the throat on that issue, goes after the second issue and flubs that attack. Why are they getting so side tracked on this issue?

Simple answer. Politics.

[DenverBrit]

They also are using a pretty shabby false dichotomy. That it arose out of protests would not disqualify it from being an act of terror. That's why Obama said it was an act of terror while at the same time indicating that was related to the movie protests. But Fox News still says over and over again the administration was somehow covering up that it was a terror attack by saying it was related to the movie.

There was no way of knowing at that time if the attack was from a terrorist organization or one of the militias. There would have been no way to get out front of the story without more intel from the CIA. It was easy for Romney to play politics with the event while the administration needed to wait. Either way, it's really a non story, when getting it right matters.

The real story was whether it could have been prevented.

[zdoor]

There was no way of knowing at that time if the attack was from a terrorist organization or one of the militias. There would have been no way to get out front of the story without more intel from the CIA. It was easy for Romney to play politics with the event while the administration needed to wait. Either way, it's really a non story, when getting it right matters.

The real story was whether it could have been prevented.

While you can claim Romney played politics with the event. You are kidding yourself if you think inferring it was a spontaneous event caused by a video and perpetuating that myth for weeks wasn't driven COMPLETELY by politics.

They knew the night of the attacks there was no riots or demonstrations. And Obamas inference he called it an attack of terror on the day after was in the same speech where he again he apologized for a video. He used the words "acts of terror" but for weeks his administration drove a storyline that it was a spontaneous event. They did not want to call it terrorism because it hurts their campaign claims of progress on the war on terror...

[DenverBrit]

While you can claim Romney played politics with the event. You are kidding yourself if you think inferring it was a spontaneous event caused by a video and perpetuating that myth for weeks wasn't driven COMPLETELY by politics.

They knew the night of the attacks there was no riots or demonstrations. And Obamas inference he called it an attack of terror on the day after was in the same speech where he again he apologized for a video. He used the words "acts of terror" but for weeks his administration drove a storyline that it was a spontaneous event. They did not want to call it terrorism because it hurts their campaign claims of progress on the war on terror...

This story is one of confusion and conflicting versions, playing politics with it serves no one in the end. The old adage that "the truth is the first casualty of war" applies in this case. Caution, rather that rhetoric, would be prudent.


To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

United States intelligence agencies have reserved final judgment pending a full investigation, leaving open the possibility that anger at the video might have provided an opportunity for militants who already harbored anti-American feelings. But so far the intelligence assessments appear to square largely with local accounts. Whether the attackers are labeled “Al Qaeda cells” or “aligned with Al Qaeda,” as Republicans have suggested, depends on whether that label can be used as a generic term for a broad spectrum of Islamist militants, encompassing groups like Ansar al-Shariah whose goals were primarily local, as well as those who aspire to join a broader jihad against the West.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html

[Rohirrim]

This story is one of confusion and conflicting versions, playing politics with it serves no one in the end. The old adage that "the truth is the first casualty of war" applies in this case. Caution, rather that rhetoric, would be prudent.




http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html

In other words, it's a very complex issue and the Right wants to turn it into something black & white for its political smear benefit.

Romney is about as adept at foreign policy as Dubya was.

[Kaylore]

Slashing the budget for embassy security while pushing for hire pentagon spending?

I'm leaning Romney because i like the conservative economic policies... but this kind of stuff just makes me shake my head regardless of which side is doing it. Just obvious what's going on there...

It's poor management. They managed to increase the security of the embassy in Paris for 9/11 that week, but somehow didn't for Libya. That's idiotic. If it was really a resource issue, you can scale down in the friendly first world locations re-allocate. It wasn't. This is poor management. "The budget" is just what the administration is trying to hide behind.

[Irish Stout]

It's poor management. They managed to increase the security of the embassy in Paris for 9/11 that week, but somehow didn't for Libya. That's idiotic. If it was really a resource issue, you can scale down in the friendly first world locations re-allocate. It wasn't. This is poor management. "The budget" is just what the administration is trying to hide behind.

So should they have increased security at every middle east embassy/consulate? Was there enough money to do so with the reduced embassy security budget?

My feeling is that with what resources they had, they should have increased security at the embassies that intelligence indicated were going to be targeted. If they knew Libya was a target, then security should have been increased. Many here and elsewhere claim that the administration knew Libya was a target... this is where I think the facts are muddled. I've seen Clinton and Axlerod both say they didn't know security was requested in Libya, and Clinton has taken the blame for not increasing security there but increasing it where it was deemed appropriate.

What if intelligence told the Obama administration that on a ranking of embassies at risk on 9/11 Paris was number 1 and Libya was number 16, but they could only give sufficient security to the top 15 risks, because thats what was allotted by congress, does that change the matter?

I think it does, to the extent of what actually happened. But, I agree this administration has been fumbling it when it comes to just straight shooting us on what it either knows or doesn't know on the situation. At least Obama promised to hunt down those responsible from day one, regardless of what caused the incident.

[Garcia Bronco]

We can talk about the he said/she said crapola, but when we get down to where the rubber meets the road the State Department failed to give proper due dilligence to the issue and people died because of it. That's never a good thing. This is not the first instance of this kind of thing in history.

[Kaylore]

So should they have increased security at every middle east embassy/consulate? Was there enough money to do so with the reduced embassy security budget?

My feeling is that with what resources they had, they should have increased security at the embassies that intelligence indicated were going to be targeted. If they knew Libya was a target, then security should have been increased. Many here and elsewhere claim that the administration knew Libya was a target... this is where I think the facts are muddled. I've seen Clinton and Axlerod both say they didn't know security was requested in Libya, and Clinton has taken the blame for not increasing security there but increasing it where it was deemed appropriate.

What if intelligence told the Obama administration that on a ranking of embassies at risk on 9/11 Paris was number 1 and Libya was number 16, but they could only give sufficient security to the top 15 risks, because thats what was allotted by congress, does that change the matter?

I think it does, to the extent of what actually happened. But, I agree this administration has been fumbling it when it comes to just straight shooting us on what it either knows or doesn't know on the situation. At least Obama promised to hunt down those responsible from day one, regardless of what caused the incident.

Yes you increase security. And if your intelligence tells you Paris is number 1 (they didn't) you can enlist the help of France. Getting Libya to go along is obviously less likely. With the Arab Spring and overall volatility of the entire region, and the fact the day is routinely used as an excuse to kill Americans, I don't see how this is anything other than a huge screw up that cost high ranking Americans their lives in the one area they should feel most safe.

Honestly all they had to do was admit it was a failure and start digging. Instead they lied or made crap up.

[Rohirrim]

How many attacks on American personnel had occurred in Libya prior to this embassy attack?

[Irish Stout]

Yes you increase security. And if your intelligence tells you Paris is number 1 (they didn't) you can enlist the help of France. Getting Libya to go along is obviously less likely. With the Arab Spring and overall volatility of the entire region, and the fact the day is routinely used as an excuse to kill Americans, I don't see how this is anything other than a huge screw up that cost high ranking Americans their lives in the one area they should feel most safe.

Honestly all they had to do was admit it was a failure and start digging. Instead they lied or made crap up.

Look, I agree that somewhere along the way some f'ed up. The fact that we haven't gotten straight answers is proof of that. But, how do you know that Paris wasn't a threat? And can anyone provide a link showing proof that Libya asked for more security?

[TonyR]

Republicans seems to think that this is some kind of huge gotcha moment that will show Obama as a weak and flailing leader on the world stage. But I suspect they're caught up in their own echo chamber, the same one that insists Obama wants to take your guns away and has spent the past four years apologizing for America. But the more they dive into the conspiratorial weeds on this, the worse they look to ordinary Americans who don't really mind that President Obama waited a few days to sift through the evidence instead of going off half cocked within a few hours.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/its-time-romney-give-benghazi-rest

[ZONA]

If there wasn't an embassy there it wouldn't have gotten attacked. We need to let the people in the middle east figure their own problems out. What goes on in these embassies anyway? What is the point of them being there? Do we have other countries embassies here in the US??

It wasn't an embassy that got attacked, it was a much smaller consulate. The request for more security came from the embassy in Tripoli, not the consulate in Benghazi. I hear what you are saying though. I don't think we could leave those areas alone because I do think we need a presence there but I think for sure we have way too many places where we have too much presence.

[Willynowei]

Yeah, because they were such good policies that Bush wiped out a huge surplus and left a nice chunk of debt. The policies were so good that Romney and folks didn't even want Bush and Chaney (among others) to even attend the RNC this year. There may be some differences between the Bush and Romney but they're virtually the same when it comes to economics. Tax cuts for the rich, promise to cut taxes for middle class (which we all know is a lie). Instead of closing corporate loop holes to force corporations to pay their fair share, instead, the choose to cut programs and deductions which heavily favor the middle class and not the rich. But, at least Bush didn't try to turn Medicare into a voucher program and seals it's fate by 2016. Also wants to increase military spending by 2 billion, so now instead of the US paying military almost 7 times the amount of the next 10 largest countries (as that's not ridiculous enough) it will go to something like 8 times the amount. That kind of spending is not needed, they are only doing it so those large military contractors get jobs. So say you like Romney for anything else but don't think his economic plan spells relief. Guaranteed the debt will not go down with him as president. Within hist first few years I promise he will go to war with Iran while China pays for it. He will continue to outsource jobs in China. He tries to say if you have a fund, some of it's investments could come from China. Yeah, fine, that's a fund dude. It's not being the president of the USA and moving jobs to China and putting American workers out on their butts, which he has already proven he is doing, even right now, he's got a company he's literally moving to China, now.


Fundamentally then, we believe in different things. I prefer tax cuts for the oh so evil "rich" over pork filled government spending. I don't like how the TARP or 2009 bills were handled, I'm sure Obama had to make compromises but it just increases my distaste for government spending. The bush tax cuts were not permanent, and were individual cuts, not corporate rate cuts. I also like the move by the Romney team on making corporate taxes territorial, because the 10 trillion overseas is not going to be captured through taxation, if you release it, it can be taxed in the form of capital gains or personal income tax.


The Romney team's proposal of additional military spending (not 2 billion, but 200 billion per year) is a concern of mine and a negative against the right side, no question, its why I'm only leaning towards him, and may change my mind.

What scares me more as of now though, is Obama's decision to raise the long term Capital gains rate to 23%.

It speaks volumes that almost all of Wall Street was on Obama's side 4 years ago, and now support Romney, especially considering Romney was an underdog.

Obama is not nearly as down the middle as i thought when i voted for him. His insistence on a foreign corporate tax pre-repatriation is for a lack of a better word, scary.

[peacepipe]

Slashing the budget for embassy security while pushing for hire pentagon spending?

I'm leaning Romney because i like the conservative economic policies... but this kind of stuff just makes me shake my head regardless of which side is doing it. Just obvious what's going on there...

As for white house reaction, or more specifically what the president should or shouldn't have said - i couldn't care less. it's not a spending issue, and its a joke trying to grill the man who caught Bin Laden on these type of things. He's got that area won until he make some serious mistakes.I hear p4ople say that,and I wonder if they have any real examples of conservative policies that actually work.

[Bronco Yoda]

Romney's tact on this issue baffles me.

Why did he choose to flat out lie on the issue when it's totally unnecessary. He should have anticipated the budget excuse as well.

He could have simply said something to the fact that although budgets are tighter than ever in these hard days, It was a very bad judgment call to allow for them to be exposed as such in this region. A mistake that i wouldn't have done.

game, set, match.

But no, he once again can't help himself from lying and thus snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

What gives here?

[ant1999e]

How many attacks on American personnel had occurred in Libya prior to this embassy attack?

-13 separate attacks on or near the compound between April and September
-The U.S. mission in Libya recorded 230 "security incidents" over a one-year period between 2011 and 2012

[Willynowei]

I hear p4ople say that,and I wonder if they have any real examples of conservative policies that actually work.

Is that bait to argue over the effectiveness of tax cuts over the last 100 years? The Regan and Kennedy cuts are largely viewed as great successes regardless of which president they came from...

[peacepipe]

Is that bait to argue over the effectiveness of tax cuts over the last 100 years? The Regan and Kennedy cuts are largely viewed as great successes regardless of which president they came from...how successful were the GWB tax cuts? I didn't bring up tax cuts,you did.

[Willynowei]

how successful were the GWB tax cuts? I didn't bring up tax cuts,you did.

You asked for successful economic policies, i gave you two. You bring up one that you consider unsuccessful. This does not discredit my answer, sorry.

[peacepipe]

You asked for successful economic policies, i gave you two. You bring up one that you consider unsuccessful. This does not discredit my answer, sorry.

I asked for conservative policies,apparently tax cuts is the only conservative policies out there. BTW tell how successful reagon was on the deficit.nevermind,as Dick cheney has stated deficits don't matter.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

-13 separate attacks on or near the compound between April and September
-The U.S. mission in Libya recorded 230 "security incidents" over a one-year period between 2011 and 2012

That would be the same period during which, against objections by the Secretary of State, the repig congress slashed funding for embassy security.

Once again, your pretense to some sort of "righteous indignation" is a major fail.

[Willynowei]

I asked for conservative policies,apparently tax cuts is the only conservative policies out there. BTW tell how successful reagon was on the deficit.nevermind,as Dick cheney has stated deficits don't matter.

Lets revisit your comment

I hear p4ople say that,and I wonder if they have any real examples of conservative policies that actually work.

I provided an adequate answer, and now you are using my provision of 1 type of example as proof that it is the "only" example available.

We can have your debate if you'd like, but first apologize for this mis-step and admit that my answer was adequate, and your comment quoted at the top as flatly wrong. We can take it from there ;-)

[DenverBrit]

The latest.

Libya: Islamist group leader was commander in Benghazi attack
Witnesses say head of Ansar al-Shariah brigade lead the assault

CAIRO — Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Shariah, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, last month, Libyans involved in the investigation said Wednesday.

Witnesses at the scene of the attack on the American Mission in Benghazi have said they saw Mr. Abu Khattala leading the assault, and his personal involvement is the latest link between the attack and his brigade, Ansar al-Shariah, a puritanical militant group that wants to advance Islamic law in Libya.

The identity and motivation of the assailants have become an intense point of contention in the American presidential campaign. Republicans have sought to tie the attack to Al Qaeda to counter President Obama’s assertion that by killing Osama bin Laden and other leaders his administration had crippled the group; Mr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Shariah share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49457503/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/?ocid=msnhp

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1099_545709122121270_114679922_n.jpg

[cutthemdown]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1099_545709122121270_114679922_n.jpg

LOL coming from the man who released who was on his kill list, how the Bin Laden raid was carried out, thumping his chest all over. Even Diane Fienstien said its obvious there is a leak in the white house. Obama has no credibility. Never had a real job, has no idea how to make money in the real world and is by far the worst President ever.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL coming from the man who released who was on his kill list, how the Bin Laden raid was carried out, thumping his chest all over. Even Diane Fienstien said its obvious there is a leak in the white house. Obama has no credibility. Never had a real job, has no idea how to make money in the real world and is by far the worst President ever.

^

Only a moron could believe this is actually a rebuttal of what the president said.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/550594_429557117103373_1959702750_n.jpg

[cutthemdown]

There is no connection between less money and what happened. Show me where the request was denied because of money. It was denied by rice and Clinton, on direction from the admin to move away from Americans providing security. Why? because they thought having that happen would make it look like those countries were more stable. They didn't want American to know Libya a mess, Egypt a mess, Syria starting a huge war, Taliban and Al Queda merely biding time, now surging in Afghan, Iraq starting to become a foothold for Al Queda again after Biden failed to secure a jiont services treaty.

Just failure after failure and now Americans starting to see it. If press reported failry they could end this in one week of good coverage and reporting on it.

Not too mention his plan to make gas prices as high as possible. That worked also.

[cutthemdown]

why do liberals like LABF always think its about spending more money to fix things. Education sucks because of crappy teachers unions that dont promote based on performance. But liberals say spend more money, hire more avg teachers to fix it. Now its not the fact our administraion in DC said no Marines make due with locals that caused this murder of our ambassador. Its the repubs fault for trying to spend less money of security over all. Forget the fact we have Marines already being paid that could have been send there, that wanted to stay.

What a joke Hilliary Clinton should resign right now. Holder should resign right now. This admin is a joke and even liberals know it deep down.

[lonestar]

why do liberals like LABF always think its about spending more money to fix things. Education sucks because of crappy teachers unions that dont promote based on performance. But liberals say spend more money, hire more avg teachers to fix it. Now its not the fact our administraion in DC said no Marines make due with locals that caused this murder of our ambassador. Its the repubs fault for trying to spend less money of security over all. Forget the fact we have Marines already being paid that could have been send there, that wanted to stay.

What a joke Hilliary Clinton should resign right now. Holder should resign right now. This admin is a joke and even liberals know it deep down.

Unfortunately The liberals on this sight are incapable of understanding that.

[orinjkrush]

the finger pointing is emblematic of the current state of affairs: nobody is responsible for anything. the bottom line is: the SecSTATE is responsible first and foremost for the security of the embassies. period. no excuses. no explanations. Obama should NOT be concerned at that level of government operation. Money is not relevant. Marines are free (to State). This is LIBYA for Gods sake. This operation stinks to high heaven of an inside job: i.e. a "hired" security local who spilled the beans on everything, timing, safe houses, defensive plans.
if there is a prime cause, i would look at the policy of saving money by hiring locals to provide security services. but that is not an R or a D issue.

[TonyR]

why do liberals like LABF always think its about spending more money to fix things. Education sucks because of crappy teachers unions that dont promote based on performance. But liberals say spend more money, hire more avg teachers to fix it.

I don't see too many "liberals" saying "spend more" on education. I do, however, see sane people saying not to cut spending on education in order to afford tax cuts for the rich.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't see too many "liberals" saying "spend more" on education. I do, however, see sane people saying not to cut spending on education in order to afford tax cuts for the rich.

The real question here should be "why do right-wing pinheads like cutthemdown and lonestar think things like embassy security are free?"

[cutthemdown]

The real question here should be "why do right-wing pinheads like cutthemdown and lonestar think things like embassy security are free?"

Dont you understand we have Marines already being paid that can do it? What part of that don't you understand?

Clinton was appointed by Obama. If she is this big of a failure then maybe hes not good at this stuff.

Holder is a joke and Obama had to use executive privilegde to keep him from getting busted over fast and furious.

Obama has a bad track record of incompetent decision making.

[cutthemdown]

I don't see too many "liberals" saying "spend more" on education. I do, however, see sane people saying not to cut spending on education in order to afford tax cuts for the rich.

Your crazy everyone i know that is a democrat its all they talk about.

Govt spends more money = education gets better.

They don't understand the problem is lack of accountability with the teachers unions.

[cutthemdown]

I don't see too many "liberals" saying "spend more" on education. I do, however, see sane people saying not to cut spending on education in order to afford tax cuts for the rich.

Im not super against tax cuts for rich. But Obama has already done a lie on the healthcare tax etc etc. Then he claimed only millionaires would see taxes go up. The fine print however starts the increase at the 250 thousand per houshold mark, not 1 million like most dems seem to believe. Why should i trust him to not come for more during his last 4 yrs? he is a tax and spender, and he doesn't have enough money for his socialist dream of using the public sector hiring to restart the economy.

[TonyR]

Im not super against tax cuts for rich. But Obama has already done a lie on the healthcare tax etc etc. Then he claimed only millionaires would see taxes go up. The fine print however starts the increase at the 250 thousand per houshold mark, not 1 million like most dems seem to believe. Why should i trust him to not come for more during his last 4 yrs? he is a tax and spender, and he doesn't have enough money for his socialist dream of using the public sector hiring to restart the economy.

Since you'll never see close to $250 thousand I'm not sure why you're worried about it. What you should worry about is Romney taking away your deductions.

[barryr]

The reality is everyone's taxes will go up with Obama. First it was just if you make a million, but then down to 250,000 and even 200,000 was used as a number as well since even the amateurs in the Obama admin. can see that won't generate enough revenue to make a dent in the debt. The number would end up being like 50,000, but gas prices as well as food prices rising, as they already have done, affect everyone.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The reality is everyone's taxes will go up with Obama.

L0L @ you thinking you have any credibility on the subject when the right-wing echo chamber has done nothing but misrepresent Obama's actual record on taxes since day one. :laugh:

http://www.bartcop.com/romney-milk.jpg

[TonyR]

Funny how Obama's foreign policy is apparently so bad and such a disaster, and yet in this debate Mitt Romney basically embraced most of Obama's foreign policy so as not to look like the neocon warmonger he was in the primaries and has been up until the debates started.

[barryr]

Funny how Obama's foreign policy is apparently so bad and such a disaster, and yet in this debate Mitt Romney basically embraced most of Obama's foreign policy so as not to look like the neocon warmonger he was in the primaries and has been up until the debates started.

One can easily turn that around since liberals consider Romney an "amateur" with foreign policy, yet then he agrees with Obama? Yes, we know, all republicans are "warmongers" while the democrats that vote for those wars, which has been the majority, are for peace. This idiotic nonsense is why this country is in the shape it is.

[TonyR]

barryr, did you even watch the debate? Did you even understand the issues that were discussed? Are you aware of the respective positions the candidates have previously taken on these issues? It appears the answer to most of these questions is no. In which case I'm not sure what you're blathering on about, or why.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

One can easily turn that around since liberals consider Romney an "amateur" with foreign policy, yet then he agrees with Obama?

What a dumb argument. ::)

It's easy to see why you belong to the ~20% who think RobMe won the debate.

Ha!

[TonyR]

What a dumb argument.

Not one of his better ones. With the bar already set very low. We're supposed to support Romney because he parrots Obama's foreign policy positions out of one side of his mouth, and criticizes them through the other.