U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[Carolina Hustler]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

 

[FlapJacks]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

I'll use that one next time a police officer wants to write me a ticket

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'll use that one next time a police officer wants to write me a ticket

lol

 

[pantherclub]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

 

[timschochet]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly. Conservatives could continue to push the issue that Obama's economic solutions are not working, that we need to slash corporate tax rates if we are ever going to invigorate the economy. But they focus on crap like this and the stuff you mentioned instead.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Yea, because I talk about those things all the time :strawman:

BTW, "crying wolf" refers to things that didn't actually happen.. fast/furious and Benghazi did happen..

 

[Runningman]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly. Conservatives could continue to push the issue that Obama's economic solutions are not working, that we need to slash corporate tax rates if we are ever going to invigorate the economy. But they focus on crap like this and the stuff you mentioned instead.

I think the electorate has proven they neither understand or care about the economy currently. From a purely strategic stand point the Republicans need something dramatic to break the Obama spell on the country. Romney pounded on the deficit and where did it get him? Despite the lack of leadership on the issue by the Democratic Senate or the President?

Good God we are getting leadership we deserve in this country.

 

[tommyboy]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Benghazi and fast and furious were both bad.

 

[pittstownkiller]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly. Conservatives could continue to push the issue that Obama's economic solutions are not working, that we need to slash corporate tax rates if we are ever going to invigorate the economy. But they focus on crap like this and the stuff you mentioned instead.

What are you talking about Tim? Unemployment is down to 7.4%, the stock market is over 15,000, and housing prices are rising; everything is perfect - the media says so.

 

[timschochet]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly. Conservatives could continue to push the issue that Obama's economic solutions are not working, that we need to slash corporate tax rates if we are ever going to invigorate the economy. But they focus on crap like this and the stuff you mentioned instead.

What are you talking about Tim? Unemployment is down to 7.4%, the stock market is over 15,000, and housing prices are rising; everything is perfect - the media says so.

I actually do think things are getting better, and I hope they continue. But long term we have got to cut corporate tax rates in order to make us competitive in the world market (cutting regulations would help as well) and Obama is moving us in the wrong direction.

 

[tommyGunZ]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly. Conservatives could continue to push the issue that Obama's economic solutions are not working, that we need to slash corporate tax rates if we are ever going to invigorate the economy. But they focus on crap like this and the stuff you mentioned instead.

If the alternative to this Benghazi nonsense is Republicans pushing horrible fiscal policy like the idea that slashing corporate tax rates will invigorate the economy, I think I prefer Republicans stick to Benghazi.

 

[tommyGunZ]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly. Conservatives could continue to push the issue that Obama's economic solutions are not working, that we need to slash corporate tax rates if we are ever going to invigorate the economy. But they focus on crap like this and the stuff you mentioned instead.

What are you talking about Tim? Unemployment is down to 7.4%, the stock market is over 15,000, and housing prices are rising; everything is perfect - the media says so.

Do you have a link from any mainstream media source suggesting that "everything is perfect"?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly. Conservatives could continue to push the issue that Obama's economic solutions are not working, that we need to slash corporate tax rates if we are ever going to invigorate the economy. But they focus on crap like this and the stuff you mentioned instead.

What are you talking about Tim? Unemployment is down to 7.4%, the stock market is over 15,000, and housing prices are rising; everything is perfect - the media says so.

I actually do think things are getting better, and I hope they continue. But long term we have got to cut corporate tax rates in order to make us competitive in the world market (cutting regulations would help as well) and Obama is moving us in the wrong direction.

Our corporations PAY around the lowest amount of any modernized country. They get taxed at equal/higher paper levels, but they actually pay 1/2 of what is typically paid.

I dont see how what you espouse as a talking point/strategy is a winning one.

'08 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/The-Numbers-Jan-2012-International_1.gif

'09 http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/final-chart.png

'10 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/us-lowest-taxes-most-industralized-countries_n_3039470.html

 

[Carolina Hustler]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly. Conservatives could continue to push the issue that Obama's economic solutions are not working, that we need to slash corporate tax rates if we are ever going to invigorate the economy. But they focus on crap like this and the stuff you mentioned instead.

If the alternative to this Benghazi nonsense is Republicans pushing horrible fiscal policy like the idea that slashing corporate tax rates will invigorate the economy, I think I prefer Republicans stick to Benghazi.

Good idea, lets keep making it more expensive for corporations to do buisness in the US so they can continue to take their buisness elsewhere.. No tariffs as they ship their products in either, that seems to help as well...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.nationaljournal.com//politics/benghazi-irs-create-perfect-storm-threatening-obama-s-credibility-20130513

Benghazi, IRS Create Perfect Storm Threatening Obama's Credibility What does it mean when a president's people can't get their stories straight?When two storms collide, the weather gets hairy. For President Obama, the IRS and Benghazi stories converged this weekend for a self-inflicted tempest that threatens his credibility.

His people can’t get their stories straight.

Internal Revenue Service officials denied for months the targeting of conservative political groups for reviews of their tax exempt status. With investigators poised to expose the chilling operation, a high-ranking IRS official acknowledged it late last week and apologized for it.

The agency blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware. That appears to be untrue. The Associated Press reported Saturday that senior IRS officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report.

Politicizing the IRS threatens the integrity of an agency entrusted with Americans' secrets and the taxes that fund government. It also fuels the paranoia of conspiracy theorists.

"This is outrageous," said Democratic consultant Chris Kofinis. "The administration and the president need to condem this and act immediately. This is not a right-left issue."

Several other Democratic allies of the White House expressed similiar sentiments while refusing to be named out of fear of retribution. Kofinis, who specializes in political communications, said the White House needs to explain itself. "Your first response can't be to say the IRS is an independent agency," a claim the White House has made, he said.

Later, at a White House news conference, Obama forcefully denounced the IRS actions as "outrageous" and said people will be held accountable.

On Benghazi, the president’s U.N. ambassador said five days after the Libya attack that the incident grew out of a street protest rather than a terrorist attack. Caught fudging the facts in the middle of a presidential campaign, a race in which Obama’s anti-terrorism record was a major selling point, the White House blamed Ambassador Susan Rice’s statement on “talking points” concocted by the CIA in virtual isolation.

Obama’s team stuck with that story until the truth was exposed amid a GOP congressional investigation. Emails leaked to news organizations last week show that both the White House and State Department were directly involved in scrubbing the CIA talking points of any mention of past threats and al-Qaida involvement. That is the exact opposite of what the Obama White House had claimed.

Inexplicably, White House spokesman Jay Carney refused late Friday to acknowledge the contradiction.

Even worse, Obama himself ignored his administration's obfuscations today, and instead called the debate over shifting explanations "a sideshow." At the news conference, he turned the tables on GOP critics and accused them of playing "political games."

Why does this matter? Because a president’s credibility matters. President Bush’s second term effectively ended when Americans grew tired of his administration’s spinning and dissembling over Iraq and Katrina. They stopped trusting him. They stopped listening to him. He no longer had the moral authority to lead.

It’s far too early in this perfect storm of controversy to condemn Obama to Bush’s fate, but he and his advisers face a credibility crisis. Obama missed a chance on Benghazi today to convince Americans that he is still worthy of their trust.

To do so, he may need to do more than to promise to bolster embassy security and to shut down the IRS targeting operation. He may need to forcefully condemn the half-truths and distortions disseminated under his name.

He may need to fire people who can’t get his story straight.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Our corporations PAY around the lowest amount of any modernized country. They get taxed at equal/higher paper levels, but they actually pay 1/2 of what is typically paid.

I dont see how what you espouse as a talking point/strategy is a winning one.

'08 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/The-Numbers-Jan-2012-International_1.gif

'09 http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/final-chart.png

'10 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/us-lowest-taxes-most-industralized-countries_n_3039470.html

The first and third links say literally nothing about corporate taxes.

 

[DocHolliday]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Yea, because I talk about those things all the time :strawman:

BTW, "crying wolf" refers to things that didn't actually happen.. fast/furious and Benghazi did happen..

Fast/Furious and Benghazi did not happen if you are a true believer.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Yea, because I talk about those things all the time :strawman:

BTW, "crying wolf" refers to things that didn't actually happen.. fast/furious and Benghazi did happen..

Fast/Furious and Benghazi did not happen if you are a true believer.

I'm sorry, I forgot who we were dealing with here.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Our corporations PAY around the lowest amount of any modernized country. They get taxed at equal/higher paper levels, but they actually pay 1/2 of what is typically paid.

I dont see how what you espouse as a talking point/strategy is a winning one.

'08 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/The-Numbers-Jan-2012-International_1.gif

'09 http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/final-chart.png

'10 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/us-lowest-taxes-most-industralized-countries_n_3039470.html

The first and third links say literally nothing about corporate taxes.

He doesn't read the links he posts, he reads no further than the title and tag line.. He did the same thing as he compared what happened in Benghazi to what happened in Cairo.. "same thing happened in Cairo".. "here are my links.. proof.."

 

[Slapdash]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly. Conservatives could continue to push the issue that Obama's economic solutions are not working, that we need to slash corporate tax rates if we are ever going to invigorate the economy. But they focus on crap like this and the stuff you mentioned instead.

If the alternative to this Benghazi nonsense is Republicans pushing horrible fiscal policy like the idea that slashing corporate tax rates will invigorate the economy, I think I prefer Republicans stick to Benghazi.

Yeah. That is a much bigger like of bull####. Benghazi is harmless, whether there is somthing to their complaints or not.

 

[Politician Spock]

All the problems in this country, and THIS is what some conservatives want to focus on. Just amazing.

Yea, because there can't be more than one thing... Only allowed to be aggravated with 1 thing at a time..

When you keep crying wolf on things, Benghazi, Birthers, fast and furious etc, people are not going to ever take you seriously.

Exactly.

HFS!

 

[TxBuckeye]

Holy crap. This site needs a "dog chaing it's tail" icon. How can people go on spouting the same thing over and over for 51 pages???

 

[Hang 10]

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

 

[ichris]

This probably isn't the worst thing that's happened under Obama.

 

[Todd Andrews]

This Republican is right on BehngKooKy!!1!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

 

[pantherclub]

Hustler is pure gold. Really no way around it.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

Secretary Gates thinks you have a cartoonish view of reality.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Hustler is pure gold. Really no way around it.

Do you even join a conversation or are you just here to troll... You've made no distinguishable argument of your own. Got anything to back up your opinion in this discussion aside from insulting and antagonizing anyone who doesn't agree with your view?

 

[mad sweeney]

Hustler is pure gold. Really no way around it.

Do you even join a conversation or are you just here to troll... You've made no distinguishable argument of your own. Got anything to back up your opinion in this discussion aside from insulting and antagonizing anyone who doesn't agree with your view?

Well, if anyone deserves to have statements backed up, it's you. Since you do it for things you claim are easy, then certainly you should expect others to as well.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

Secretary Gates made no comments on the guys who finally decided to disobey orders after losing crucial time waiting for the go ahead and repeatedly being told to stand down, The guys who left without permission and actually fought off attackers, rescued survivors, and brought them back to the annex..If those guys would have been allowed to go sooner they may have been able to bring more people back alive. If they hadn't of disobeyed an order to stand down, there would be more people dead...

Mr. Gates also doesn't address the warning of this impending attack that were ignored, and the requests for additional security which were also ignored/refused...

Secretary Gates also isn't addressing the point of the post you've quoted here, you attempt to make some point here but miss your mark drastically.. Why did the white house lie to the public? Why play a blame game after being caught in those lies? Why force a congressional hearing in order to get the honest/truthful detail of the events and lead up?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Hustler is pure gold. Really no way around it.

Do you even join a conversation or are you just here to troll... You've made no distinguishable argument of your own. Got anything to back up your opinion in this discussion aside from insulting and antagonizing anyone who doesn't agree with your view?

Well, if anyone deserves to have statements backed up, it's you. Since you do it for things you claim are easy, then certainly you should expect others to as well.

:trollparty:

 

[sporthenry]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

 

[sporthenry]

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Is this really where you want to make your last stand? We saw how Mitt calling Obama out on this worked last time? Now, you think people are going to care about the "ism," especially since you already made a big issue out of it and the people didn't seem to care. Feel free to carry on.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

3 guys disobeyed orders and got things done... THREE... And if they had left sooner, maybe all would have been brought back to the annex alive....

It doesn't take a general to understand that if 3 guys, who were told not to go, but went anyways, made it there and back, with survivors, that more could have been done.. They were delayed because they were told to stand down... No additional help was sent... The deaths may have been avoidable..

But, nope, we're going to lap up the politic driven, media directed, damage control like a cat on warm buttermilk...

 

[Todd Andrews]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

Holy cow! I fell asleep. Someone catch me up, stat!

 

[sporthenry]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

And if they had left sooner and died. Now what?

 

[mad sweeney]

Hustler is pure gold. Really no way around it.

Do you even join a conversation or are you just here to troll... You've made no distinguishable argument of your own. Got anything to back up your opinion in this discussion aside from insulting and antagonizing anyone who doesn't agree with your view?

Well, if anyone deserves to have statements backed up, it's you. Since you do it for things you claim are easy, then certainly you should expect others to as well.

:trollparty:

:spinelessblowhard:

 

[squistion]

Secretary Gates made no comments on the guys who finally decided to disobey orders after losing crucial time waiting for the go ahead and repeatedly being told to stand down, The guys who left without permission and actually fought off attackers, rescued survivors, and brought them back to the annex.. If those guys would have been allowed to go sooner they may have been able to bring more people back alive. If they hadn't of disobeyed an order to stand down, there would be more people dead...

Should we start calling you General or Secretary? You seem to be much smarter than the ones in charge. You missed your calling, you should have made a career out of the military. Yep, lets send our forces into who knows what and put their lives in more danger.

I think Rear Admiral would be the most appropriate.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

 

[timschochet]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Is this really where you want to make your last stand? We saw how Mitt calling Obama out on this worked last time? Now, you think people are going to care about the "ism," especially since you already made a big issue out of it and the people didn't seem to care. Feel free to carry on.

I don't care much about that part of the story, but if you read the transcript, he had moved on from Libya and was talking about the original 9-11 when he said, "These acts of terror..." I mean, if he was calling it a terrorist attack right then and there, then why did Susan Rice blame it on the video days later and why did Obama tell the parents of the deceased that the video was to blame?

 

[joffer]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

i think most of this is stupid, but i see a bit of a difference. when a president uses the word "terrorism" in today's vernacular, it's significant. most people hear that as an indication of an organized attack.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

terrorism and terror have 2 different definitions..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

And if they had left sooner and died. Now what?

If they had help, and left sooner and everyone lived, Ambassador rescued, no one died, then what?

The reality is, help was called for and refused. A few guys took it in there own hands, disobeyed orders, and were successful.. That has to make you question the directive from above...

The politicians are going to play damage control.. You have blinders on, you want to believe them because you're affiliated with them..

Can you admit that they might have screwed up here?

 

[sporthenry]

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Is this really where you want to make your last stand? We saw how Mitt calling Obama out on this worked last time? Now, you think people are going to care about the "ism," especially since you already made a big issue out of it and the people didn't seem to care. Feel free to carry on.

I don't care much about that part of the story, but if you read the transcript, he had moved on from Libya and was talking about the original 9-11 when he said, "These acts of terror..." I mean, if he was calling it a terrorist attack right then and there, then why did Susan Rice blame it on the video days later and why did Obama tell the parents of the deceased that the video was to blame?

That is fine and a fair argument. That one I can see where you are coming from. But to call him out for revisionist history for saying "terrorism" instead of "terror" is silly in my book and I imagine many others.

 

[badmojo1006]

**** Cheney: Obama Involved In Benghazi 'Cover-Up' HFS, and how many cover-ups were you involved in D*cck?

 

[timschochet]

I know people die and mistakes happen. I hate the loss of life and for it to have happened the that manner, in such a dreadful place. I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to die that way. I feel for the families of those who died. But people die every day. It's a truth of our existence.

I wouldn't have had as much of problem with the way this administration handled the aftermath if someone would have just come out and said what needed to be said here. Give us the truth up front, don't make us drag it out of you. "There were mistakes made, things could have been handled better" ... "The buck stops with me"

The initial response here was completely undignified, and was almost certainly handled the way it was for political reasons, with the election coming up. That fact makes this situation 10x worse.The actual physical response to the threat both before and during the attack may have also been politically motivated, maybe we'll never know. That's a dreadful thought but could likely be the case. I certainly hope the truth will be dragged out even if they have to drag them kicking and screaming.

When you're in charge, you don't blame the people you've placed under you, that share the burden of your responsibilities. It shouldn't take a congressional hearing to get the answers we deserve or the response we've deserved from the start. The response we should have gotten in the first place, which apparently is only a response used when it fits your political agenda Mr Obama, is

I know that you complain often that people that disagree with you here aren't willing to engage you respectfully in debate. I want to do that now, because having read this post, I believe that you are genuinely passionate and honest about your criticism here.

But that being said, I still don't understand you. Let's assume you are correct that (1) the administration got it wrong in the beginning when they attributed this act to the video (2) that rather than admit it, they've chosen to cover it up ever since, (3) that the whole thing was done for political purposes. So what? How is this different from dozens of such occurrences during every administration? Why is it so important to you that they admit their error?

If you could draw a direct line between a deliberate action or error and the deaths that occurred, I could be sympathetic to your POV. But since the only actions or errors that are under criticism occurred after the fact, when it came time to interpret it to the public, I just don't see that its such a big deal. Politicians interpret stuff for their own purposes all the time. Even if it can be proven that Obama deliberately lied, it's not like he lied about a campaign office break-in that he authorized (see Watergate.) He lied about something bad that happened that he didn't cause, for political reasons. Slap him on the wrist in the press and move on. Why is this important?

 

[timschochet]

Call me stupid (I'm sure some you do anyhow) but I don't understand the significance of the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". Can somebody explain this? I don't get it.

i think most of this is stupid, but i see a bit of a difference. when a president uses the word "terrorism" in today's vernacular, it's significant. most people hear that as an indication of an organized attack.

So an "act of terror" is NOT an organized attack? What would be an example of an "act of terror" that isn't organized?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Obamas claim he called Benghazi an act of terrorism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html



The Pinocchio Test



During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said act of terror, since he did use those words though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the presidents claim that he said act of terrorism is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administrations phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Is this really where you want to make your last stand? We saw how Mitt calling Obama out on this worked last time? Now, you think people are going to care about the "ism," especially since you already made a big issue out of it and the people didn't seem to care. Feel free to carry on.

I don't care much about that part of the story, but if you read the transcript, he had moved on from Libya and was talking about the original 9-11 when he said, "These acts of terror..." I mean, if he was calling it a terrorist attack right then and there, then why did Susan Rice blame it on the video days later and why did Obama tell the parents of the deceased that the video was to blame?

You know the answers to your questions GR, and so do the ones you are asking the questions to; they are being obtuse for reasons only they know.