Perhaps the most outrageous of all of Obama's endless lies

[Sallow]

So an unnecessary (and illegal) operation which caused the brutal death of 4 important Americans is the same thing to you as your nation being attacked on your own land and having to defend it? Really?

Furthermore, even in your absurd and nonsensical analogy, the reality still holds true. Unless you're a Dumbocrat with no concept of cost, responsibility, or basic economics. If you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it.

49 deaths during attacks on several US diplomatic missions from 2001-2008. How many requests for extra security did those missions make?

So once again, you are approving the action of "a great president" because is it no different than the actions of what you deem as the worst president.

So when someone says to you..."that's crappy looking motorcycle you have"...a valid response will be "Ibet it is faster than your bicycle"

Once again you are completely disregarding precedence.

Not like that matters to you folks.

History in this country began 2009 for conservatives.

 

[P@triot]

That idea would have worked well during the American Revolutionary war now wouldn't it??

So an unnecessary (and illegal) operation which caused the brutal death of 4 important Americans is the same thing to you as your nation being attacked on your own land and having to defend it? Really?

Furthermore, even in your absurd and nonsensical analogy, the reality still holds true. Unless you're a Dumbocrat with no concept of cost, responsibility, or basic economics. If you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it.

What unnecessary and illegal action?

Running arms to terrorist through your state department in an effort topple the Libyan regime.

 

[P@triot]

49 deaths during attacks on several US diplomatic missions from 2001-2008. How many requests for extra security did those missions make?

So once again, you are approving the action of "a great president" because is it no different than the actions of what you deem as the worst president.

So when someone says to you..."that's crappy looking motorcycle you have"...a valid response will be "Ibet it is faster than your bicycle"

Once again you are completely disregarding precedence.

Not like that matters to you folks.

History in this country began 2009 for conservatives.

Where is the logic in that Sallow? In the Middle East, there is "precedence" for raping women and then stoning them to death for being "promiscuous" even though they were raped!

Why is it the Dumbocrats best defense for their failure is "but we've seen this failure before"?

 

[P@triot]

Man in charge has nothing to do with money to protect it. Obama asked for more and republicans said no.

Think about it like this. Repubs dont object to a cake they object to the number of eggs Obama wants to use. Then when the cake (embassy) comes out bad they pretend the eggs dont matter. Obama should magically make the cake "work"

Are you referring to the man with a pen and a phone?

The man that can make an undocumented immigrant legal with a signature is unable to sign for more protection of an ambassador?

A man that can change a law over 30 times with 30 swipes of a pen is unable to sign for more protection of an ambassador?

So you want Obama to override Congress is your idea?

Well, he's violated the Constitution hundreds of times already (Obamacare being the biggest), he's bypassed Congress hundreds of times already (altering Obamacare being the most well known), and he's spent $7 trillion in deficit spending. What is a little more of all of those to ensure the security of your own people?

Oops.....

 

[P@triot]

Rott, without looking it up, what is the name of the diplomat who was killed during an attack on one of our missions while Bush was President, and what attack was it?

You have absolutely no idea, do you Rottweiler.

That is because you don't give a fuck. Not really. All you care about is scoring political points.

No one is fooled.

G - please look it up and provide us with the facts where more security was requested, it was denied under Bush, and people died.

I'm not aware of that ever happening. If it did, I would love to know it. But since you have no facts (and you never do), all you're doing is guessing out of pure desperation.

 

[g5000]

Benghazi-heads reveal their true motives by what they don't ask as much as by what they do ask.

They want a nice, narrow frame around Benghazi. They do not want, nor do they seek, information which would provide a well-rounded view of the situation in the Middle East. They do not want to know, nor have they ever asked, how common it was for diplomatic missions to seek extra security since 9/11/01, and how many have been turned down since 2001. They do not want to know, nor have they ever asked, anything about the other attacks on other diplomatic missions which have occured since 9/11/01. They do not want to know, nor have they ever asked, now many of the planners or perpetrators of all these attacks were ever caught. They do not know, nor have they ever asked, how many other people have been killed in these attacks, but boy oh boy they will harp and harp and harp and harp on the four dead in Benghazi!

Seeking the answers to these questions would put Benghazi in a much more truthful context, and they are not the slightest big interested in that. Which is why the hack partisan media outlets they parrot have never bothered to do so.

This is not a quest for truth. This is a lynching party.

You want to talk about LIES? "He watched while they died." "Stand down order". The hacks outdid themselves with lying. They are hypocrites of the first order.

 

[Sallow]

Ah, well that makes it ok then. Why didn't you just say so? I'm sure IT professional Sean Smith's wife and children are completely comfortable with his horrific murder because you deemed (ie randomly guessed for your own made up narrative) that "every" overseas facility requests more security.

It's ok family members of those brutally murdered and then lied to by Obama - G here says that other facilities needed more security as well. Nothing to see here. Go home now....

So you obviously can't answer my question, which reveals you really don't give a shit about the attacks on our diplomatic missions unless there is a Democrat in the White House.

What? You're the one who told the families of these people the deaths of their loved one's is irrelevant because you "think" (and I use that term loosely) that possibly other facilities (which did not suffer attacks or deaths) might have requested more security.

As always, you're incapable of discussing from a place of facts. I posted documented facts from the lead Security Contractor on site at Benghazi. All you have are guesses to defend your ideology. If you have some facts, please post them for us. Otherwise, you're just babbling....

Just curious how you felt about the families of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch when they were told real live WHOPPERS by the Bush administration.

 

[Jarhead]

what you all seem to have forgotten is that the controversy of "added requests for security" would have never been a controversy if, in fact, the admnisitration was honest about what happened in Benghazi.

I don't know how many requests for added security were made under Bush. Why? Because Bush never tried to cover the actions.

And if you think Pelosi and Reid would not have made a big deal over added requests for security ignored by Bush resulting in deaths of Americans....then you are just plain old lying to yourself.

 

[g5000]

"Obama watched while they died."

"A stand down order was given."

The rubes happily parroted these lies because they wanted to believe them. This is the dead giveaway they are not seeking the truth.

 

[P@triot]

Benghazi-heads reveal their true motives by what they don't ask as much as by what they do ask.

They want a nice, narrow frame around Benghazi. They do not want, nor do they seek, information which would provide a well-rounded view of the situation in the Middle East. They do not want to know, nor have they ever asked, how common it was for diplomatic missions to seek extra security since 9/11/01, and how many have been turned down since 2001. They do not want to know, nor have they ever asked, anything about the other attacks on other diplomatic missions which have occured since 9/11/01. They do not want to know, nor have they ever asked, now many of the planners or perpetrators of all these attacks were ever caught. They do not know, nor have they ever asked, how many other people have been killed in these attacks, but boy oh boy they will harp and harp and harp and harp on the four dead in Benghazi!

Seeking the answers to these questions would put Benghazi in a much more truthful context, and they are not the slightest big interested in that. Which is why the hack partisan media outlets they parrot have never bothered to do so.

This is not a quest for truth. This is a lynching party.

You want to talk about LIES? "He watched while they died." "Stand down order". The hacks outdid themselves with lying. They are hypocrites of the first order.

We know the truth, chief! Now we want Obama and Hillary properly held responsible (God forbid, right). We know it was a planned attack - not a YouTube video as Obama lied about. We know that more security was requested dozens and dozens and dozens of times by no less than 9 different RSO's and it was all ignored and/or denied. We know that Obama and Hillary watched it via drone feed and instructed additional security to stand down. We know all of this already. You may not (probably because you don't want to know). But we do.

I wonder how many times G5000 denied Clinton & Lewinsky before Clinton admitted it and then how many times afterwards he went off on some bizarre diatribe about "the quest for truth" while mentioning unrelated items like Nixon and Watergate???

 

[g5000]

There is Obama's side, there is the right wing hack partisans' side, there is the CIA's side, there are a hundred different sides, and somewhere in between is the truth.

 

[bedowin62]

there are so many; how do you know which obama whopper is the worst?

 

[Listening]

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money | Mother Jones

I see that Darrell Issa might have a wee problem on his hands when he holds his hearings today about inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate. 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.

That's the problem with budget cutting: it sounds great when you're thumping tubs on the campaign trail in front of adoring tea party crowds, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Same thing with ACA...Oppose it, say it doesnt work then fund campaigns to strip medicare

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/u...-focus-of-effort-to-foil-health-care-law.html

Ensuring Embassies and ACA wont work properly. Thats the problem with cutting budgets...it sounds good until something happens then everyone says "not it"

So this has happened on several occasions....right ?

Can you please share those with us.

 

[P@triot]

what you all seem to have forgotten is that the controversy of "added requests for security" would have never been a controversy if, in fact, the admnisitration was honest about what happened in Benghazi.

I don't know how many requests for added security were made under Bush. Why? Because Bush never tried to cover the actions.

And if you think Pelosi and Reid would not have made a big deal over added requests for security ignored by Bush resulting in deaths of Americans....then you are just plain old lying to yourself.

Don't worry - G5 doesn't know either. He just makes the shit up as he goes. Knowing the ass-kicking style of Bush, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there wasn't even a single request for additional security under the Bush Administration.

If there was - please post it. I would love to know it. I'm not a partisan hack like G and the rest of the Dumbocrats. I'm more than happy to learn the truth and criticize Bush if he failed to provide any additional security that was requested.

The difference between G5 and I is that I will only deal in facts while he likes to deal in "probably" if it helps to defend Obama.

 

[P@triot]

One more important point in response to G5's nonsensical bullshit - George W. Bush is not president any more and poses no threat to America with any incompetence. Barack Hussein Obama is still president and still poses a serious threat to America with his incompetence.

But by all means G - keep talking about "possible scenarios" under Bush while ignoring the failures of the current president.

 

[g5000]

One more important point in response to G5's nonsensical bullshit - George W. Bush is not president any more and poses no threat to America with any incompetence. Barack Hussein Obama is still president and still poses a serious threat to America with his incompetence.

But by all means G - keep talking about "possible scenarios" under Bush while ignoring the failures of the current president.

Your hypocrisy, and the hypocrisy of your puppet masters, is impossible to ignore.

 

[Sallow]

what you all seem to have forgotten is that the controversy of "added requests for security" would have never been a controversy if, in fact, the admnisitration was honest about what happened in Benghazi.

I don't know how many requests for added security were made under Bush. Why? Because Bush never tried to cover the actions.

And if you think Pelosi and Reid would not have made a big deal over added requests for security ignored by Bush resulting in deaths of Americans....then you are just plain old lying to yourself.

Wait, what?

You posted that with a straight face?

Bush never tried to cover the actions?

Really? Seriously?

 

[DriftingSand]

I bet most every overseas US diplomatic mission has made multiple requests for more security. Including the ten that were attacked on Bush's watch.

I seriously doubt a backwater consulate in Benghazi was the only one.

How many diplomats or Americans on diplomatic missions were murdered under Bush's watch again? I've forgotten. And if there were any at all was Bush given the opportunity rectify the problem before any murders were committed?

 

[francoHFW]

Op- there's no lie there, or even a statement lol...

Perhaps it was planned for months, but it's even more possible the trigger was the rush limbaugh of cairo and the me calling for protests against the video, which definitely were the cause of allthe other embassy attacks earlier that same day, or that security problems were caused by huge pub funding cuts duh....

Your ignorance comes from listening to propaganda, not real news, hater dupe.

 

[dr.d]

It's truly disingenuous to ignore the role of Congress in denying adequate funding for our embassies abroad while inanely repeating that prez Obama and Hillary r solely responsible for debacles like Bengazi...every middle school child is taught that Congress "holds the pursestrings" and insisting that adequate security can exists without adequate funding flies in the face of reality...AND capitalism.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com