Two marines had to die b/c Obama is an idiot

[TheGreatGatsby]

Shall we list all the embassy attacks that happened under Bush? There were about ten or so.

And after all of them, the conservatives who supposedly care so much were dead silent. And the liberals didn't explode in phony outrage for political gain. Once more, moral high ground goes to the liberals.

Leave it to libs to wrecklessly reframe the argument. The debate isn't about attacks occurring. Attacks are a sad inevitablity. The argument is about Obama/Clinton not adequately protecting American citizens.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Besides attacks on US tourists, US Embassies are the easiest and biggest target for terrorists....islamic terrorists. We're not talking the IRA, KKK, OWS...we're talking islamic terrorists.

So if you set up an Embassy in an islamic country then it better be prepared on any day to fight off a group that climbs the walls, especially on FREAKIN 9-11.

Liberals fucked up losing the US Embassy in Iran in the 1970s, so one would figure you dumbfucks learned a lesson by now.....nope. Fast forward to this week and another US Embassy is overrun by islamic terrorists, this time the entire staff killed not taken hostage.

The US Embassy is the holy place for liberals, the place they can "reach out" to the locals via peace programs and free goodies, so one would figure they might figure out guarding the place well is very important but oh no they don't.

It gets back to liberals being idiots. They ignore or don't see the threats of islamic terrorists that want to take over the planet. It is really the fault of the US military and CIA these people blow up a bus full of kids in Iraq....they just can't be evil people, nah.

When this happened the other day, I wasn't surprised. When liberals have the car keys, expect death and destruction around the world...

 

[theHawk]

This is what happens when we elect a shitbag spineless liberal as President.

Same shit happened in Saudi with the Khobar towers. The commander was demanding more security and wanted to put in big concrete barriers along the street, but the B.J. Clinton administration denied him over and over, citing that such large barries would alienate the locals. So then terrorists parked a tanker next to the chain link fense and blew it up. 19 airmen died, many more would had if the security forces didn't spot them and start evacuating.

There is no excuse for not having our embassies well protected on 9/11. Anyone with half a brain would know that the barbarian Muslims are going to protest and riot on that day.

 

[Synthaholic]

We have a consulate in Libya. It's among Islam extremists so by definition it is a dangerous place to be. And Obama had just two marines guarding the place? They were killed trying to defend the place Rambo style. Thanks for looking out for our brave men Odumba.

How Congress left our embassies exposed

One reason our embassies are unable to protect themselves? Congress has been slashing their funding for years



Among the worst trends in U.S. foreign-policy making in recent decades is the decline of the State Department and the corresponding rise of the Defense Department. State is responsible for American diplomacy — the hard work of negotiating and maintain relations with other countries; Defense (formerly the Department of War, a more honest designation) looks after war-making and protecting national security. Few things reflect America’s skewed foreign-policy priorities more than the funding discrepancies between the two departments. Consider the numbers:

• In 1950, State had 7,710 diplomats abroad. In 2001, it actually had fewer—just 7,158. During that time the U.S. population approximately doubled.
• As of 2010, the Pentagon admitted to having 190,000 troops and 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories.
• As of the fall in 2011, the U.S. had 1,300 civilian workers versus 100,000 military personnel in Afghanistan.
• The State Department’s funding request for 2013 was $51.6 billion, $300 million less than 2012, because, it said, “this is a time of fiscal retraint.”
• The Pentagon’s 2012 budget? $614 billion. Mitt Romney promises to increase defense spending dramatically.

*snip*

 

[theHawk]

By the way, how DARE this shitbag President of ours talk about the feelings of scumbag Muslims on 9/11.

 

[Truthmatters]

tax cuts have consequences

 

[BlindBoo]

TheGreatGatsby lays a Romney turd.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We have a consulate in Libya. It's among Islam extremists so by definition it is a dangerous place to be. And Obama had just two marines guarding the place? They were killed trying to defend the place Rambo style. Thanks for looking out for our brave men Odumba.

How Congress left our embassies exposed

One reason our embassies are unable to protect themselves? Congress has been slashing their funding for years



Among the worst trends in U.S. foreign-policy making in recent decades is the decline of the State Department and the corresponding rise of the Defense Department. State is responsible for American diplomacy — the hard work of negotiating and maintain relations with other countries; Defense (formerly the Department of War, a more honest designation) looks after war-making and protecting national security. Few things reflect America’s skewed foreign-policy priorities more than the funding discrepancies between the two departments. Consider the numbers:

• In 1950, State had 7,710 diplomats abroad. In 2001, it actually had fewer—just 7,158. During that time the U.S. population approximately doubled.
• As of 2010, the Pentagon admitted to having 190,000 troops and 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories.
• As of the fall in 2011, the U.S. had 1,300 civilian workers versus 100,000 military personnel in Afghanistan.
• The State Department’s funding request for 2013 was $51.6 billion, $300 million less than 2012, because, it said, “this is a time of fiscal retraint.”
• The Pentagon’s 2012 budget? $614 billion. Mitt Romney promises to increase defense spending dramatically.

*snip*

Strawman. An alleged .1 percent cut in defense (for embassies) is not the reason the reason that this happened. Geez!

 

[KissMy]

Yes, Gramps, they have....and so have a lot of others.

But, the Lybian government and the Egyptian governments are nothing but shells....thanks to Obama.....they should have known better.

And if you need a little more......SEPT 11.

The Egypt regiem change was planned by republicans & carried out according to that republican plan to have the fake "Muslim Brotherhood" (secular organization) take control.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The DoS is responsible for the US Embassy, not the DoD.

The DoD just provides Marines requested by the Embassy.

If someone didn't build secure walls, rooms, security video systems, etc and didn't properly staff the Embassy for an attack.....that blame is on the Ambassador, Hillary Clinton and Obamination not the Marines along for the ride on the compound.

In reality unless the Ambassador was arguing with Clinton and Obamination about having 2 locations in such a dangerous country and with bad security, then he is responsible for his own death and the staff with him. The Ambassador is the top American in charge of a country overseas, period. Maybe someone is quickly deleting emails from him at the DoS today.

Given he rose to power from the Peace Corps I wouldn't be surprised this Ambassador shares many of the dumb beliefs of liberals here that there really is no islamic terorist threat.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry bud but this is over the line. Presidents are not responsible for individual security details.

Thread is way out of line.....period.

It's systemic of his administration. And his policies promoted this kind of attack.

It is plenty reasonable to ascribe the blame to him.

What Obama policies promote this kind of attack?

 

[mamooth]

Leave it to libs to wrecklessly reframe the argument. The debate isn't about attacks occurring. Attacks are a sad inevitablity. The argument is about Obama/Clinton not adequately protecting American citizens.

No, the issue is to point out how you're dishonestly feigning outrage for partisan gain. I do that convincingly by pointing out how you gave Bush a free pass on it many times, but explode in outrage at Obama for exactly the same thing. Given the level of your hypocrisy here, why should anyone believe you?

Again, moral high ground to the liberals, who didn't try to turn embassy attacks under Bush into political issues.

 

[theHawk]

Sorry bud but this is over the line. Presidents are not responsible for individual security details.

Thread is way out of line.....period.

It's systemic of his administration. And his policies promoted this kind of attack.

It is plenty reasonable to ascribe the blame to him.

What Obama policies promote this kind of attack?

The fact that everyone knows he is a spineless liberal. They all know he is just like Carter.

 

[High_Gravity]

We have a consulate in Libya. It's among Islam extremists so by definition it is a dangerous place to be. And Obama had just two marines guarding the place? They were killed trying to defend the place Rambo style. Thanks for looking out for our brave men Odumba.

Are you fucking serious? please tell me you are joking.

 

[Full-Auto]

Leave it to libs to wrecklessly reframe the argument. The debate isn't about attacks occurring. Attacks are a sad inevitablity. The argument is about Obama/Clinton not adequately protecting American citizens.

No, the issue is to point out how you're dishonestly feigning outrage for partisan gain. I do that convincingly by pointing out how you gave Bush a free pass on it many times, but explode in outrage at Obama for exactly the same thing. Given the level of your hypocrisy here, why should anyone believe you?

Again, moral high ground to the liberals, who didn't try to turn embassy attacks under Bush into political issues.

So allowing the murder of US citizens is the moral high ground???

You guys must feel very righteous in Terry's death............

 

[uscitizen]

This is what happens when we elect a shitbag spineless liberal as President.

Same shit happened in Saudi with the Khobar towers. The commander was demanding more security and wanted to put in big concrete barriers along the street, but the B.J. Clinton administration denied him over and over, citing that such large barries would alienate the locals. So then terrorists parked a tanker next to the chain link fense and blew it up. 19 airmen died, many more would had if the security forces didn't spot them and start evacuating.

There is no excuse for not having our embassies well protected on 9/11. Anyone with half a brain would know that the barbarian Muslims are going to protest and riot on that day.

Reagan? And the barracks bombing in Lebanon for which Reagan took no action?

 

[Bfgrn]

It's systemic of his administration. And his policies promoted this kind of attack.

It is plenty reasonable to ascribe the blame to him.

What Obama policies promote this kind of attack?

The fact that everyone knows he is a spineless liberal. They all know he is just like Carter.

I guess Osama bin Laden never got that GOP talking points memo.

 

[Synthaholic]

We have a consulate in Libya. It's among Islam extremists so by definition it is a dangerous place to be. And Obama had just two marines guarding the place? They were killed trying to defend the place Rambo style. Thanks for looking out for our brave men Odumba.

How Congress left our embassies exposed

One reason our embassies are unable to protect themselves? Congress has been slashing their funding for years



Among the worst trends in U.S. foreign-policy making in recent decades is the decline of the State Department and the corresponding rise of the Defense Department. State is responsible for American diplomacy — the hard work of negotiating and maintain relations with other countries; Defense (formerly the Department of War, a more honest designation) looks after war-making and protecting national security. Few things reflect America’s skewed foreign-policy priorities more than the funding discrepancies between the two departments. Consider the numbers:

• In 1950, State had 7,710 diplomats abroad. In 2001, it actually had fewer—just 7,158. During that time the U.S. population approximately doubled.
• As of 2010, the Pentagon admitted to having 190,000 troops and 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories.
• As of the fall in 2011, the U.S. had 1,300 civilian workers versus 100,000 military personnel in Afghanistan.
• The State Department’s funding request for 2013 was $51.6 billion, $300 million less than 2012, because, it said, “this is a time of fiscal retraint.”
• The Pentagon’s 2012 budget? $614 billion. Mitt Romney promises to increase defense spending dramatically.

*snip*

Strawman. An alleged .1 percent cut in defense (for embassies) is not the reason the reason that this happened. Geez!

Where do you get .1%? Out of your ass?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Reagan fucked that up since he listened to people like Baker and others that are like the Paulbots we see today.

LH should have been wiped off the face of the Earth by the US military.

This is what happens when we elect a shitbag spineless liberal as President.

Same shit happened in Saudi with the Khobar towers. The commander was demanding more security and wanted to put in big concrete barriers along the street, but the B.J. Clinton administration denied him over and over, citing that such large barries would alienate the locals. So then terrorists parked a tanker next to the chain link fense and blew it up. 19 airmen died, many more would had if the security forces didn't spot them and start evacuating.

There is no excuse for not having our embassies well protected on 9/11. Anyone with half a brain would know that the barbarian Muslims are going to protest and riot on that day.

Reagan? And the barracks bombing in Lebanon for which Reagan took no action?

 

[Truthmatters]

They just done like facts