"If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal."

[JayHawk]

To be fair, please note that the President mentioned “optimal” first. Maybe Mr. Stewart was using the same fairly common technique.

Fair enough and it is equally fair to understand that in the context of that interview Obama did not refer to the deaths of Americans as not Optimal he referred to a process in his Administration and his State department that resulted in the death of four Americans. Any semi intelligent human being can discern the difference, hence the problem republicans have as they are typically deficit in one or more of those qualities.

News flash for you. Bush isn't president. I know the present is an uncomfortable place for Obama supporters to be in right now, but it's reality. He's lied repeatedly about spontaneous protests and anger over a film. The State Department spent $70,000 of our tax dollars on a commercial condemning a film that had nothing to do with the attack. The film maker has since been jailed, a coincidence I'm sure. No one has offered a shred of support for these lies, just support for the liar.

The American public is forgiving of people who make mistakes. Not people who willfully mislead. If Obama were to simply admit we were wrong, there were no spontaneous protests, the movie played no role. We were attacked by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. People would have respect. The lie is always worse than the crime. Politicians never learn because their hubris won't allow it.

{Text removed by moderator} You're like a broken record which is why you cannot illustrate a valid policy position that would be different because Romney hasn't told you what to think yet. In addition you cannot justify Issa's release of sensitive documents without a security screening because you inwardly HOPE more Libyans die and more turmoil occurs because that is the only way your argument has weight. That is particular damning considering your stance with your party on Assange.

This isn't obfuscation either. These are charges you lay about the current President that are demonstratively not in line with your stated value system. But I understand if you cannot articulate an issue, you haven't been given directions on how to speak yet. But don't worry tonight your boy has to lay out a new plan for foreign affairs... what do you wanna bet you STILL wont have anything different to say.

Four thousand dead and it is ok to base it on lies but OMG four dead........ it is like a school girl conversation on whose clique is best.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^

To put some things in perspective JH. Bush went to Congress and got approval for military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both sides of the isle voted to approve the actions -- even Biden voted yes ... the guy who lied during his debate and said he did not.

Even his highness Obama called Afghanistan ... "the good war."

Obama acted on his own in Libya -- Congress was not consulted or even notified when we started bombing Libya. Congress heard about it on the news -- just like you and me.

The Obama Administration has been outed in that it knew about the problems in Libya and still cut back on security for our people there. After the four Americans were murdered, Obama and his crew kept up the story about the video when they knew it was false. He and Clinton even went as far to lie about the reason for the murders in front of the families of the dead using the dead corpses in the background for his lie.

As someone who has served in the military I would think you'd be more cautious in supporting a man who blatantly lied to the American people. A military man has to have a certain amount of trust in his President. Where does your trust for Obama come from?

I'd suggest a little more respect for moderators of this board and any other chat board who serve in a non-pay situation where they work very hard.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^

It's increasingly hard to believe that you ever read the news.

Ambassador Stevens continually begged for more security -- he even did so the morning that he was killed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...leaded-extra-security-Libya-hours-killed.html

Here's a video from CBS News who ignored the incident from the beginning and is not reporting on it. This is not going away.

 

[jackoroe]

{Text removed by moderator} You're like a broken record which is why you cannot illustrate a valid policy position that would be different because Romney hasn't told you what to think yet. In addition you cannot justify Issa's release of sensitive documents without a security screening because you inwardly HOPE more Libyans die and more turmoil occurs because that is the only way your argument has weight. That is particular damning considering your stance with your party on Assange.

This isn't obfuscation either. These are charges you lay about the current President that are demonstratively not in line with your stated value system. But I understand if you cannot articulate an issue, you haven't been given directions on how to speak yet. But don't worry tonight your boy has to lay out a new plan for foreign affairs... what do you wanna bet you STILL wont have anything different to say.

Four thousand dead and it is ok to base it on lies but OMG four dead........ it is like a school girl conversation on whose clique is best.

I certainly have no need to personally attack another member to make my point. Obama is the president, at least for the moment. He has a responsibility to the American people to explain why we have four dead Americans in Libya on his watch. That isn't anybody's responsibility but his. I don't care what Romney, or you or anybody else would do differently. It's irrelevant.

I'm interested in knowing why, after a hole was blown in the wall of the embassy in June, we still had Libyan rent a guards instead of Marines protecting the place. I'd like to know who saw Ambassador Stevens pleas for help and why they went unanswered. I'd like to know what the justification for Obama's lie that there was a spontaneous uprising was, particularly in light of the fact that there were people who saw the attack in real time and said there were no protests whatsoever.

But mostly I'd like Pat Smith, Sean Smith's mother, to get the answer about why and how her son died. She met The Dear Leader and some of the other liars from his administration and she was promised answers. Over a month later, they haven't had the decency to give a grieving mother any answers. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/tragic_ma_optimal_my_ass_wYmDf3u12EExRAoeCAsyZI

If you'd like to question anybody's integrity, start with Obama and company for lying to Mrs. Smith.

 

[BostonPirate]

I certainly have no need to personally attack another member to make my point. Obama is the president, at least for the moment. He has a responsibility to the American people to explain why we have four dead Americans in Libya on his watch. That isn't anybody's responsibility but his. I don't care what Romney, or you or anybody else would do differently. It's irrelevant.

I'm interested in knowing why, after a hole was blown in the wall of the embassy in June, we still had Libyan rent a guards instead of Marines protecting the place. I'd like to know who saw Ambassador Stevens pleas for help and why they went unanswered. I'd like to know what the justification for Obama's lie that there was a spontaneous uprising was, particularly in light of the fact that there were people who saw the attack in real time and said there were no protests whatsoever.

But mostly I'd like Pat Smith, Sean Smith's mother, to get the answer about why and how her son died. She met The Dear Leader and some of the other liars from his administration and she was promised answers. Over a month later, they haven't had the decency to give a grieving mother any answers. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/tragic_ma_optimal_my_ass_wYmDf3u12EExRAoeCAsyZI

If you'd like to question anybody's integrity, start with Obama and company for lying to Mrs. Smith.

Perhaps you chose to ignore the fact that Obama asked for more money for embassy security and the house of reps refused. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Jack Springer]

i've read the news plenty and I can say that you do not have a case. Security requests were made for Tripoli, not Benghazi. There weren't any security requests made for Benghazi.

It's time that people stop trying to gain political points. Playing politics with the lives of four dead Americans as Republicans want to do is despicable.



A far more reputable source.

Interesting ... we now have the Obama Administration, the Biden Administration, the H. Clinton Administration, the Lamb Administration, the Rhodes Administration, etc.

We can't take 4 more years of this childish behavior.

 

[Jack Springer]

Perhaps you chose to ignore the fact that Obama asked for more money for embassy security and the house of reps refused. Physician, heal thyself.

We've been over this before. The funding was for next year. More dem's voted to reduce the spending than repub's.

Obama did authorize an expensive Volt charging station in Switzerland rather than increase security. That's hard to take.

Oops! I'm sorry was it the Obama Admin, the Biden Admin, or the H. Clinton Admin. that authorized that funding?

 

[jackoroe]

Perhaps you chose to ignore the fact that Obama asked for more money for embassy security and the house of reps refused. Physician, heal thyself.

Perhaps Obama should have spent some of the $2,200,000,000 already budgeted on security they were sitting on.

http://www.politico.com//blogs/poli...itting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html

 

[BostonPirate]

Perhaps Obama should have spent some of the $2,200,000,000 already budgeted on security they were sitting on.

http://www.politico.com//blogs/poli...itting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html

Of course... absolve the ones you personally agree with, yet blame Obama. It's the Mantra that has annhialated the GOP in the public's mind. It's pretend.

Who us? we were never there. Those filibusters and extreme austerity measures had nothing to do with the GOP, right?

Look, this nation is never going to heal until people stop blaming first. We need to fix this shit, and really? There is more than enough blame for all sides.

Taking the presidents words out of context ... AGAIN... is not solving anything. It's not going to win any elections either.

 

[BostonPirate]

We've been over this before. The funding was for next year. More dem's voted to reduce the spending than repub's.

Obama did authorize an expensive Volt charging station in Switzerland rather than increase security. That's hard to take.

Oops! I'm sorry was it the Obama Admin, the Biden Admin, or the H. Clinton Admin. that authorized that funding?

Can we skip the talking points and have a real discussion? You game for getting real?

Tell me one thing that you think the GOP did wrong in the last four years that could have averted this situation without mentioning the president.

One thing.

Obama has said that the buck stops at his desk and he personally owns it. THAT means that the substance of what you are arguing is pointless. You just need one more thing to beat Obama over the head with, and no matter what it wont make Mitt look more presidential.

 

[jackoroe]

Of course... absolve the ones you personally agree with, yet blame Obama. It's the Mantra that has annhialated the GOP in the public's mind. It's pretend.

Yes, ignore the facts that the cuts you bemoan haven't actually occurred and that there's been a huge pile of money available to Obama to increase security that he failed to utilize. It's obviously somebody else's fault. Got it! Four Americans are dead and that isn't terribly optimal.

 

[BostonPirate]

Yes, ignore the facts that the cuts you bemoan haven't actually occurred and that there's been a huge pile of money available to Obama to increase security that he failed to utilize. It's obviously somebody else's fault. Got it! Four Americans are dead and that isn't terribly optimal.

Here are the facts that YOU are ignoring...

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/breaking-protecting-our-embassies-costs-money

Dana Milbank reports:

House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

You are living in a make believe land where only the words of your leaders matter... the truth, the facts... these things are optional so long as you make a political score.

Don't lecture me on this nonsense.

This is what your party did. Defend it, support it, or decry it, but to deny it is just not cutting it for you, Mitt, or the GOP congress, the most hated in american history.

You are simply factually incorrect, and you can put your fingers in your ears and go lalalala all you want, but even Sec Clinton stated that the cuts were too deep.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

The president has said he accepts responsibility, while the GOP passes the buck on its OWN behavior.

GOP failed leadership at its finest.

 

[BostonPirate]

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...-endanger-national-security-Clinton-says.aspx

"The State Department and USAID are on the front lines of just about every national security challenge we face. And we are promoting American jobs and advancing economic opportunity for Americans as well," she said, Agence France-Presse reports. "To be successful at these vital tasks, we need the resources to do the job, otherwise we will pay a higher price later in crises that are allowed to simmer and boil over into conflicts," she added. According to Clinton, the cuts could force the State Department to "scale back significantly" in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. "We would also be required to roll back critical health, food security, climate change, border security and trade promotion efforts aboard as well," she said. To move forward, Clinton said she proposed Republicans and Democrats identify a "reasonable bipartisan consensus."

"The State Department meanwhile released a copy of a letter Clinton sent to Harold Rodgers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee," the news service reports. "She said the committee's proposed 2011 spending levels for the State Department and [USAID] will result in a 16 percent reduction from 2010 funding."

is any of this getting through? braking down the walls of the propaganda yet?

How about another one, a public document fromt eh department of state, dated with the concerns listed. It is public domain, here are Sec Clintons words directly....

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156572.htm

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 14, 2011

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing regarding the House Appropriations Committee’s proposed spending levels for State and foreign operations in fiscal year 2011. Our estimate of the Committee’s allocation for the State Department and USAID amounts to a 16 percent reduction from our actual FY 2010 funding, and a 19 percent cut to our 2011 request. The bill further proposes to cut out humanitarian assistance accounts by 41 percent from 2010 levels.

Cuts of this magnitude will be devastating to our national security, will render us unable to respond to unanticipated disasters, and will damage our leadership around the world. In Iraq, the Committees’ proposed cuts occur at exactly the most sensitive juncture as we transition from military-lead to civilian-run programs and operations. In Afghanistan, our diplomats and development experts are working in lock-step with our service-members, and are essential to our overall success. Across the Middle East, the Committee’s proposed cuts would force us to scale back our efforts at this particularly crucial time. Moreover, the sweeping cuts proposed by the Committee would significantly impair our border security programs; our food, global health, and climate change initiatives; and our economic development and trade promotion activities which help expand markets and create jobs here in the United States.

I would appreciate the chance to work with you and other members of the Committee to ensure State and USAID are funded adequately to protect and advance U.S. interests around the world. The Administration is committed to working with Congress to reduce the deficit in a balanced manner that does not impede our economic growth or risk our national security. However, the cuts you have proposed are far too deep to meet our critical national security requirements.

I appreciate your consideration of this information, and I look forward to our work together.

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

What is the date of that letter?

Now once again for me the most pathetic part in all of this is using the deaths of the fallen heroes for falsifying facts for personal political gain. It's pathetic, and the nation deserves better than that from the GOP.

When you don't pay for shit you get what you buy. This is something I've been saying like a broken record for two years now.

Your hens came home to roost and your guys cant accept their part of the problem. It cant get fixed until the problem is owned.

 

[rareboy]

You do realize that the rabid Obama haters and FOX are never ever going to be swayed.

And Jack and CO.

You do realize that having had the fundamental premise of this thread blown to pieces by poster after poster that it doesn't matter which diversionary path you want it to go down now...it is stuck in the false original premise.

So.....is everyone sure that they don't want this thread to die the death it deserves and that a new, fresh 'Why we should Hate Obama' thread should take its place?

I've no doubt that tonight's debate will give the bobbleheads over at FAUX some new out of context phrase that they can pounce on to demonstrate why this man shouldn't be in the ovular office.

Frankly I can hardly wait because the constant grinding of this thread is making my teeth hurt.

 

[BostonPirate]

why are there 4 dead Americans- because there are bat shit crazy people in Libyia....why are there 4 dead Americans at a Wisconsin Mall....because there are bat shit crazy people EVERYWHERE!

The GOPpers only agree to that when it's children getting shot in malls.

I agree, but the GOP has to latch onto this to milk every death for every political point it can.

 

[jackoroe]

Here are the facts that YOU are ignoring...

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/breaking-protecting-our-embassies-costs-money

Dana Milbank reports:



You are living in a make believe land where only the words of your leaders matter... the truth, the facts... these things are optional so long as you make a political score.

Don't lecture me on this nonsense.

This is what your party did. Defend it, support it, or decry it, but to deny it is just not cutting it for you, Mitt, or the GOP congress, the most hated in american history.

You are simply factually incorrect, and you can put your fingers in your ears and go lalalala all you want, but even Sec Clinton stated that the cuts were too deep.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html



The president has said he accepts responsibility, while the GOP passes the buck on its OWN behavior.

GOP failed leadership at its finest.

You've danced around the fact that there is $2.2 billion available to be used for security for our embassies regardless of whatever cuts have or have not been made. If you've got a reliable cite proving that not to be the case, please provide it for discussion. Absent the caterwauling by the administration that this isn't the case or a reliable source proving otherwise, we'll accept this as fact.

Then what are you left to argue? Cuts to a budget still apparently awash in cash? Good luck!

 

[BostonPirate]

no

Prove your OWN point.

I proved mine. Do your own work. Prove to me that Issa, the compulsive liar, can be trusted. It would be helpful if you stopped deflecting the posts others make proving your points wrong and have a real discussion.

 

[BostonPirate]

That's what I thought.

You can't provide proof that the perennial liar Issa is telling the truth. I just combed through eight google pages, and the only peeple reporting this are conservative sites that report Issa's statement as fact, without documentation.

 

[jackoroe]

no

Prove your OWN point.

I proved mine. Do your own work. Prove to me that Issa, the compulsive liar, can be trusted. It would be helpful if you stopped deflecting the posts others make proving your points wrong and have a real discussion.

Congress is where budgets originate, remember? As a member of Congress, and more importantly as Chairman of the Oversight Committee, Issa is eminently qualified to speak on what money Congress has appropriated and what it can be used for.

I don't have a need to prove anything. The fact has been asserted by an expert and refuted by no one. There is over $2 billion available for security at our embassies.

 

[BostonPirate]

Congress is where budgets originate, remember? As a member of Congress, and more importantly as Chairman of the Oversight Committee, Issa is eminently qualified to speak on what money Congress has appropriated and what it can be used for.

I don't have a need to prove anything. The fact has been asserted by an expert and refuted by no one. There is over $2 billion available for security at our embassies.

no it hasn't. If you could have proven it, you would have. Unless you think you are above the standards of the forum, of course. Either provide citation for your claim other than one man saying so that is now a known liar,namely Rep Issa, or admit that your assertion is unprovable.

You don't get to say.... "cuz I said so". That is not the standard YOU are supposed to uphold, both as a member and as a moderator.