boutons
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. darrins
Gecko and Fox Liars Network think they got nigg@ killa issue with Benghazi, since they can't get the 8% and the economy to stick, but they're wrong again. Benghazi ain't gonna buy the WH for Gecko.
Gecko today trashing Joe on "style" points since he knows Joe totally trashed Ryan on content, lies, hypocrisy, 47%.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-13-2012 at 07:07 AM.
,whereas you're the rock bottom, kneejerk red teamer.
congrats! you can't go any further down the ideological reflex scale. in that respect, you very much resemble what you claim to despise.
Bush and Obama should share a cell together. Biden can bunk with Cheney.
False equivalence
After Benghazi Attack, Private Security Hovers as an Issue
Lost amid the election-year wrangling over the militants' attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, is a complex back story involving growing regional resentment against heavily armed American private security contractors, increased demands on State Department resources and mounting frustration among diplomats over ever-tighter protections that they say make it more difficult to do their jobs.
The Benghazi attacks, in which the United States ambassador and three other Americans were killed, comes at the end of a 10-year period in which the State Department - sending its employees into a lengthening list of war zones and volatile regions - has regularly ratcheted up security for its diplomats. The aggressive measures used by private contractors eventually led to shootings in Afghanistan and Iraq that provoked protests, including an episode involving guards from an American security company, Blackwater, that left at least 17 Iraqis dead in Baghdad's Nisour Square.
The ghosts of that shooting clearly hung over Benghazi. Earlier this year, the new Libyan government had expressly barred Blackwater-style armed contractors from flooding into the country. "The Libyans were not keen to have boots on the ground," one senior State Department official said.
That forced the State Department to rely largely on its own diplomatic security arm, which officials have said lacks the resources to provide adequate protection in war zones.
On Capitol Hill this week, Democrats and Republicans sparred at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing over what happened in Benghazi, whether security at the mission was adequate, and what - if anything - could have been done to prevent the tragedy.
But amid calls for more protection for diplomats overseas, some current and former State Department officials cautioned about the risks of going too far. "The answer cannot be to operate from a bunker," Eric A. Nordstrom, who until earlier this year served as the chief security officer at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, told the committee.
Barbara K. Bodine, who served as ambassador to Yemen when the destroyer Cole was bombed in 2000, said: "What we need is a policy of risk management, but what we have now is a policy of risk avoidance. Nobody wants to take responsibility in case something happens, so nobody is willing to have a debate over what is reasonable security and what is excessive."
For the State Department, the security situation in Libya came down in part to the question of whether it was a war zone or just another African outpost.
Even though the country was still volatile in the wake of the bloody rebellion that ousted Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the State Department did not include Libya on a list of dangerous postings that are high priority for extra security resources.
Only the American Embassies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are exempted from awarding security contracts to the lowest bidder. Dangerous posts are allowed to consider "best value" contracting instead, according to a State Department inspector general's report in February.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/13...libya.xml?f=19
Gecko/Ryan/Fox exploiting this tragedy for their own electioneering is much worse than the "crime" they're trying to stick on Barry.
The Democratic party needs to learn from how the Republicans are politicizing the Libya attack. I know after an event like 9/11 that focusing on figuring out who's responsible and holding them accountable might be the American thing to do and it would be irresponsible to point fingers, but this is why they get shoved around by the Republicans so much. They shoulda been politicizing the out of 9/11 the way Republicans like the OP are politicizing the Libya attacks.
The Republicans have even figured out a way to politicize unemployment rates and spin unemployment rates going down as a bad thing
One almost needs an appendix of buzz words to even read the slime you post. Do you talk like this IRL? You're definitely a party , tailgater for the game.
IRL? and you trash me for buzzwords and acronyms? GFY
I didn't mention acronyms. It's your incessant use of derogatory terms like repugs and Barry and Gecko and like that. There's not even a hint of objectivity in your rants (that's all they are) ergo no one takes you seriously. However, it's obvious how you change my words to find something you can argue against (inserting the word "acronyms" when I never mentioned it). Everyone here knows what IRL means and most here can discuss politics without giving the impression that someone in the Republican party raided their camps and raped their wives.
It seems anytime there's a question of being undermanned and outgunned, a Dem is in office.
Were we undermanned or outgunned on 9/11?
I appreciate your appreciation, thank you. When the s bag, extremist 1%-protecting REPUGS do ANYTHING for the 99%, I might give them a second look, but they won't. There's NOTHING in Gecko/Ryan platform nor Ryan's twice-passed budget for the 99%.
Neither. That's why there wasn't a question of either.
I think politicizing 911 would have backfired on the democrats, although, it would have been nice if Congress or the Senate actually held someone in the Bush administration accountable....where were Ryan and Biden? Ryan was busy voting for 2 unfunded wars, the largest expansion in Medicare ever, and tax cuts for the rich which never materialized very many private sector jobs...I know after an event like 9/11 that focusing on figuring out who's responsible and holding them accountable might be the American thing to do and it would be irresponsible to point fingers, but this is why they get shoved around by the Republicans so much. They shoulda been politicizing the out of 9/11 the way Republicans like the OP are politicizing the Libya attacks.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...pound-in-libyaWhile details of the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya last month may never be fully known, there is ample evidence neither the Obama administration’s initial accounts nor Republican portrayals of the incident are accurate.
It appears that this incident was 'planned' however it seems to be over the course of a few hours as opposed to a long term operation. Too many stories coming out from too many sources in the immediate aftermath has caused this situation to get out of hand. Besides the Congressional investigation (that I think needs to happen) should take many months to get to understand the incident... but
The GOP desperately want this to be solved in a matter of 4 1/2 weeks.... 'Cover up!', 'They Lied!'....
some local homicide cases take longer than 4.5 weeks to solve.....
WH spun it furiously, as if there were certainty about what happened, so it comes off no better in my eyes than the Republicans. Everyone had an axe to grind.
The Administration is it's own worst enemey in this case..
yep
What is the REPUG politicized investigation supposed to accomplish? They want heads to roll? "prove" that Barry is "weak" in NatSec.
Julie Annie is whining "provocative weakness"
How many brigades of Marines and how much equipment do the Repugs think should have been protecting the Ambassador? No specifics? of course not.
I notice that Fox Repug Propaganda network is pimping Benghazi furiously.
Why would Libyans want to kill the US Ambassador? "Why Do They Hate Us?"
yep.What is the REPUG politicized investigation supposed to accomplish? They want heads to roll? "prove" that Barry is "weak" in NatSec.
Sec'y Clinton just fell on her sword, wouldn't have guessed that a month ago.
No kidding. Politically it's not a bad move. Shows she has more balls than Obama. Everybody knows it was a up. Might as well fess up and take responsibility.
she does bear more direct responsibility, so there is that. loyalty to an embattled chieftain might also play into it.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...the-buck-stops
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took "responsibility" for the lack of security at U.S. consulate in Benghazi in an interview with CNN Monday night. In remarks from Peru, Clinton said that the "President and Vice President certainly wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals."
Clinton's belated move to own the tragedy in Libya marked a departure from her 2008 sparring with candidate Obama over just such issues of responsibility. That year, then-Senator Clinton criticized then Senator Obama during the Democratic primary, seizing on comments Obama had made about being a President who would inspire and provide a vision for the country and not make sure "everything's running on time."
"Being President means being both CEO and COO of one of the largest and most complex organizations in the world," Clinton said.
"I know that we can get on top of this, but it's going to require strong presidential leadership — it's going to require a President who knows from day one you have to run a government and manage the economy," Hillary Clinton added, using the flailing economy to hit Obama. "The buck stops in the Oval Office."
Then Senator Obama's team hit back at Clinton's criticism comments made her sound like she was running for chief manager — not commander in chief.
"The truth is that we're not running for chief of staff. We're running for President of the United States," David Axelrod said, adding the President's role was to "provide direction and leadership."
"I think sometimes there's a relentless pursuit of the little picture over there at the Clinton campaign," Axelrod continued. "There are bigger issues at stake here."
Hillary Clinton also said at rally in Missouri in January, "I believe we need a president who believed what Harry Truman believed. That buck stopped in the Oval Office."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote