obama and his incompetent regime

[infman4x]

this incompetent outfit is working on everything except what they should be working on. rand paul said it best in the benghazi hearings: he told hillary clinton that if he were president, he would of fired her. she should have been fired for her neglect of office. no troops supported those folks that were killed and there should have been, shameful and she wants to run for president?

feinstien got upset for rand paul telling what should have happened, too bad. now she is going after guns instead a real solution to the problem. hey feinstein leave our constitution and freedom alone. you and your liberal friends turn in your guns along with resignations so we can save america and our freedom.

you liberals keep your crooked hands off our guns and the second amendment. have your hollywood buddies turn in theirs. i think hollywood moved to washington, all the acting and nothings getting done. the liberals want to raise revenue, raise the debt ceiling, whats this tell you? more debt no resolve, just blame the republicans! because we do not get our way. gee all the republicans want is fiscal responsibility. you cannot write a twenty dollar check if you only have ten dollars in the bank, unless you are in obamas world.

stand up america! arent you tired of all the cover up, lies, do as i say not as i do garbage. hey! washington get your priorities straight, quit trying to control the people. the terrorist are on the run! my ass, they are popping up all over. oh it is telling the public what they want to hear mode, they will believe it! they elected obama the second time.

we the people need to stand up for what is right! there are more of us than there are of them, let your voices be heard. thank you!

 

[Seawytch]

e.e. cummings on crack

 

[francoHFW]

OP-You lose. Deal with it. No one's taking your guns, moron.

 

[Charles_Main]

OP-You lose. Deal with it. No one's taking your guns, moron.

You are so blind, The left will never stop until they take them all.

 

[Dragonlady]

It is illegal for the US to deploy troops to protect their embassies. That would be considered an act of war.

Where were you when 7 embassies were attacked and hundreds of people were killed during the Bush administration? Where were your demands that the SoS be fired? Where were you when the Republicans were cutting the budget for embassy security?

Benghazi is a pointless exercise by conservatives howling at the moon. Rand Paul could not have fired HRC because he couldn't even get out of the primaries, much less get elected.

 

[Charles_Main]

It is illegal for the US to deploy troops to protect their embassies. That would be considered an act of war.

That is completely untrue bud. Learn International law Regarding Embassies. You are dead wrong.

 

[Mr. H.]

in a corporate setting, you know, the real world- Obama and flunkies would have been given the boot long ago.

This administration is one big Dilbert cartoon.

 

[Dragonlady]

It is illegal for the US to deploy troops to protect their embassies. That would be considered an act of war.

That is completely untrue bud. Learn International law Regarding Embassies. You are dead wrong.

This was not an embassy, it was a diplomatic outpost. You cannot deploy troops either to an embassy or a diplomatic outpost - that is illegal. They can have Marines within the compound protecting the grounds, but you cannot deploy additional troops to protect your embassies.

I am not wrong in this regard. Deploying troops to embassies or diplomatic outposts, violates international law. It is the obligation of the host country to defend the embassy outside of the grounds.

 

[auditor0007]

OP-You lose. Deal with it. No one's taking your guns, moron.

You are so blind, The left will never stop until they take them all.

You're wrong and the reason is simple. Very few on the left want to take all of your guns away, because many on the left have guns of their own.

 

[Claudette]

It is illegal for the US to deploy troops to protect their embassies. That would be considered an act of war.

That is completely untrue bud. Learn International law Regarding Embassies. You are dead wrong.

This was not an embassy, it was a diplomatic outpost. You cannot deploy troops either to an embassy or a diplomatic outpost - that is illegal. They can have Marines within the compound protecting the grounds, but you cannot deploy additional troops to protect your embassies.

I am not wrong in this regard. Deploying troops to embassies or diplomatic outposts, violates international law. It is the obligation of the host country to defend the embassy outside of the grounds.

If they had increased security at Benghazi those four men would probably still be alive.

Kinda funny you say the Reps cut spending. I seem to remember a spokesperson coming out and saying that funding wasn't an issue. There was plenty of money to increase security. It was the State Department who decided no to increase said security. I guess they didn't want to "offend" the Libyans.

Oh and BTW. If they were expecting Libyans to defend the consulate they were SOL.

They stood around with fingers up ass while four good men died and no help came.

And Yes. If it were up to me I would have sent them help regardless of International Law. I'd take my chances and try to save my folks.

 

[jillian]

OP-You lose. Deal with it. No one's taking your guns, moron.

You are so blind, The left will never stop until they take them all.

pulzeeze...

 

[jillian]

OP-You lose. Deal with it. No one's taking your guns, moron.

You are so blind, The left will never stop until they take them all.

You're wrong and the reason is simple. Very few on the left want to take all of your guns away, because many on the left have guns of their own.

*ding* *ding* *ding*

we have a winner!!

 

[jillian]

That is completely untrue bud. Learn International law Regarding Embassies. You are dead wrong.

This was not an embassy, it was a diplomatic outpost. You cannot deploy troops either to an embassy or a diplomatic outpost - that is illegal. They can have Marines within the compound protecting the grounds, but you cannot deploy additional troops to protect your embassies.

I am not wrong in this regard. Deploying troops to embassies or diplomatic outposts, violates international law. It is the obligation of the host country to defend the embassy outside of the grounds.

If they had increased security at Benghazi those four men would probably still be alive.

Kinda funny you say the Reps cut spending. I seem to remember a spokesperson coming out and saying that funding wasn't an issue. There was plenty of money to increase security. It was the State Department who decided no to increase said security. I guess they didn't want to "offend" the Libyans.

Oh and BTW. If they were expecting Libyans to defend the consulate they were SOL.

They stood around with fingers up ass while four good men died and no help came.

And Yes. If it were up to me I would have sent them help regardless of International Law. I'd take my chances and try to save my folks.

of all the embassy attacks and attacks on our foreign service personnel that there have been.... how amusing that the faux-raging rightwingnuts are only concerned about this one.

shocking...

p.s. where are all the hearings about baby bush ignoring PDB's and allowing planes to attack nyc?

i don't recall you getting hysterical about the fact that that incompetent boob allowed thousands of new yorkers to die.

 

[Caroljo]

This was not an embassy, it was a diplomatic outpost. You cannot deploy troops either to an embassy or a diplomatic outpost - that is illegal. They can have Marines within the compound protecting the grounds, but you cannot deploy additional troops to protect your embassies.

I am not wrong in this regard. Deploying troops to embassies or diplomatic outposts, violates international law. It is the obligation of the host country to defend the embassy outside of the grounds.

If they had increased security at Benghazi those four men would probably still be alive.

Kinda funny you say the Reps cut spending. I seem to remember a spokesperson coming out and saying that funding wasn't an issue. There was plenty of money to increase security. It was the State Department who decided no to increase said security. I guess they didn't want to "offend" the Libyans.

Oh and BTW. If they were expecting Libyans to defend the consulate they were SOL.

They stood around with fingers up ass while four good men died and no help came.

And Yes. If it were up to me I would have sent them help regardless of International Law. I'd take my chances and try to save my folks.

of all the embassy attacks and attacks on our foreign service personnel that there have been.... how amusing that the faux-raging rightwingnuts are only concerned about this one.

shocking...

p.s. where are all the hearings about baby bush ignoring PDB's and allowing planes to attack nyc?

i don't recall you getting hysterical about the fact that that incompetent boob allowed thousands of new yorkers to die.

The major reason we're concerned about this one is because they denied extra security when it was asked for, resulting in not enough security to help protect the people inside, which resulted in 4 American deaths. That's not the same scenario as what happened under Bush! I know, Embassy's get attacked often, but these deaths could have been prevented.

And maybe you will answer this, because TM never does.....
How could Bush have prevented 9/11 and the 3000 deaths? IF he and anyone else knew their "could" be an attack, if there had been warnings....did those warnings tell them where it would happen? Or how it would happen? Or when it would happen? How could Bush have stopped it?

 

[Claudette]

This was not an embassy, it was a diplomatic outpost. You cannot deploy troops either to an embassy or a diplomatic outpost - that is illegal. They can have Marines within the compound protecting the grounds, but you cannot deploy additional troops to protect your embassies.

I am not wrong in this regard. Deploying troops to embassies or diplomatic outposts, violates international law. It is the obligation of the host country to defend the embassy outside of the grounds.

If they had increased security at Benghazi those four men would probably still be alive.

Kinda funny you say the Reps cut spending. I seem to remember a spokesperson coming out and saying that funding wasn't an issue. There was plenty of money to increase security. It was the State Department who decided no to increase said security. I guess they didn't want to "offend" the Libyans.

Oh and BTW. If they were expecting Libyans to defend the consulate they were SOL.

They stood around with fingers up ass while four good men died and no help came.

And Yes. If it were up to me I would have sent them help regardless of International Law. I'd take my chances and try to save my folks.

of all the embassy attacks and attacks on our foreign service personnel that there have been.... how amusing that the faux-raging rightwingnuts are only concerned about this one.

shocking...

p.s. where are all the hearings about baby bush ignoring PDB's and allowing planes to attack nyc?

i don't recall you getting hysterical about the fact that that incompetent boob allowed thousands of new yorkers to die.

Were there warning at those other embassies? Were there repeated requests for extra security which were ignored? Did anyone have any idea that those embassies were going to be hit??

This attack was preventable. The State Department decided not to up the security. Four good men died. Of course I know that means nothing to you but it does to others.

If Bush or any other Rep were POTUS during Benghazi you would be screaming like a stuck pig about it. You would be demanding that Bush be held accountable. You would be screaming for answers. Kinda funny your not screaming for accountability from the Dems and the current fuck in the WH or his State Deparment.

As for 9-11? Clintons FBI had the info long before Bush came into office. I don't recall Clinton shutting the country down on those vague warnings. John O'Neil, an FBI agent under Clinton, figured out something was up. He was pushed out because no one in Clintons FBI wanted to believe anything. He left in 2001 and became head of security for the Twin Towers. He died on 9-11. Guess you could say Clintons team dropped the ball big time.

In fact he's thanking God on his knees every day that AQ waited those eight months after he left office to strike.

If you want to hang Bush for 9-11 then you can hang Clinton right alongside him. Hell. He even had several opportunities to take out UBL and didn't. Perhaps we should hang him a little higher than Bush.

Oh and BTW I never get hysterical. You apparantly do.

 

[RoadVirus]

Where were you when the Republicans were cutting the budget for embassy security?

Apparently the State Department wasn't too bad off in regards to money, since it found $100K for Chevy Volts for the Italian embassy.

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

--SNIP--

Before the terrorist attack that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, there were more than 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012.

Of those attacks, 48 took place in Benghazi, two at the U.S. diplomatic compound and scene of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks.

KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts - Washington Times

 

[Dragonlady]

During the Bush administration there were 11 attacks on US embassies which resulted in the deaths of 55 people. I don't recall the GOP getting this riled up about ANY of those attacks or deaths.

The 9/11 attacks are the second incident of US diplomatic facilities being attacked since Obama took office. Compare this to 6 attacks on US diplomatic facilities during W's first term.

Where was all this righteous indignation on the part of the GOP about embassy security, preventing deaths, etc.? What about Senate Hearings raking Colin Powell's ass over the coals?

A lot more people died under the Republicans watch than under Obama's yet here the GOP are playing politics over the Benghazi deaths. Disgusting.

 

[Claudette]

During the Bush administration there were 11 attacks on US embassies which resulted in the deaths of 55 people. I don't recall the GOP getting this riled up about ANY of those attacks or deaths.

The 9/11 attacks are the second incident of US diplomatic facilities being attacked since Obama took office. Compare this to 6 attacks on US diplomatic facilities during W's first term.

Where was all this righteous indignation on the part of the GOP about embassy security, preventing deaths, etc.? What about Senate Hearings raking Colin Powell's ass over the coals?

A lot more people died under the Republicans watch than under Obama's yet here the GOP are playing politics over the Benghazi deaths. Disgusting.

Were there request for additional security at any of those embassies?? Were those requests denied?? Was there any indication that an attack may be on the way at those Embassies?

Benghazi asked for more security. The Ambassador sent e-mails about thoughts of an impending attack. The State Department denied to beef up security. If they had those four men would probably still be alive.

Talk about playing politics. Your doing a pretty good job of it. Deflecting to the Bush years instead of addressing the abject failure of Barry's State Department. the abject failure despite repeated requests for additional security and the belief that something was going to happen. You sure don't seem to want to address the lies about a fucking video that they pushed for two weeks despite the fact that the CIA had AQ as the culpret from the get go. You also don't see to have a problem with the fact that the WH fuck had no problem jetting off to his fundraiser while the embassy was under attack.

BTW I doubt Bush would have sat around or let his State Department sit around with fingers up ass when an Embassy requested more security.

 

[Dragonlady]

Benghazi asked for more security. The Ambassador sent e-mails about thoughts of an impending attack. The State Department denied to beef up security. If they had those four men would probably still be alive.

Boy your crystal ball is a lot better than mine because I can see more people getting killed as another possibility.

Talk about playing politics. Your doing a pretty good job of it. Deflecting to the Bush years instead of addressing the abject failure of Barry's State Department. the abject failure despite repeated requests for additional security and the belief that something was going to happen. You sure don't seem to want to address the lies about a fucking video that they pushed for two weeks despite the fact that the CIA had AQ as the culpret from the get go. You also don't see to have a problem with the fact that the WH fuck had no problem jetting off to his fundraiser while the embassy was under attack.

BTW I doubt Bush would have sat around or let his State Department sit around with fingers up ass when an Embassy requested more security.

The lies about the fucking video??? Oh you mean not letting the terrorists know they were monitoring their communications. Obama called it a terrorist attack the day it happened and said it wouldn't stand. The CIA didn't want him to do that so the administration changed the tactic. The led to Republicans outing our spies in Bengazhi and putting their lives at risk. You mean those "lies"?

Bush sat around reading to kindergarten kids while the World Trade Centre was being attacked. Guess he should have stayed home too.