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

[Lakhota]

 

[Listening]

Nevermind. What a shameful piece of shit you are.

A former Navy SEAL with specialist sniper and medical training has been named as one of the two U.S. security officials who died in a deadly attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya on Tuesday night.

Glen Doherty, from Winchester, Massachusetts, was killed while seeking cover from gunfire in Benghazi in an attack that claimed the lives of three other Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

Doherty, 42, who was active in a group that fights against religious proselytising in the U.S. army, was working for a private company providing security when he died, his sister, Kate Quigley, said.

'He was on security detail and he was protecting the ambassador and also helping the wounded' when he was killed, she told the Boston Globe.

Former Marine, 42, identified as one of two US security officials killed in attack on US embassy in Libya | Mail Online

What a piece of shit you are. I haven't refuted any facts that you listed idiot. How about you know my claims__ oh wait, you don't need to b/c you're hellbent on inciting anyhow. Idiot; at least learn how to mask your bull shit a little better or you'll be down on Del's trolling level

I don't get the confusion.

Obama is clearly at the front. His policies just got some people killed.

 

[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.

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

And Reagan's mistake is justification for Obama's? This is your excuse?

You simply can't accept the fact that Obama's foreign policy is a total disaster and its blowing up in his face.

 

[gallantwarrior]

This is a cluster.

Obama's tactical mistakes in the mideast set the stage for these killings.

Sorry folks...that's the way it is.

Now the left can go screw themselves.

Romney should ram this right up Joe Bidens ass.

Do you think there's space? I mean, doesn't Biden have his head pretty far up his ass already?

 

[Rozman]

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.

This is a disgrace....
And now after this happens he reinforces it with 50 marines....
And what rubber bullets....
Maybe Super Soakers?
Rubber bands and paper clips...?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

This is a disgrace....
And now after this happens he reinforces it with 50 marines....
And what rubber bullets....
Maybe Super Soakers?
Rubber bands and paper clips...?

Spit balls and soda straws?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: "The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs."

We're also finding out details that we knew about these attacks 48 hours in advance.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Like your NOT RACIST. LOL If being anti-racist is being blind to a high crime rate and having low standards for your community. Well, count me as a racist.

 

[Pasco08]

This thread is full of fail since when does the president assign security details? By that logic Bush is at fault for not having more security to stop 9/11 please give me a break.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This thread is full of fail since when does the president assign security details? By that logic Bush is at fault for not having more security to stop 9/11 please give me a break.

You're not the first twelve year old to spout fail and you probably won't be the last.

 

[Pasco08]

This thread is full of fail since when does the president assign security details? By that logic Bush is at fault for not having more security to stop 9/11 please give me a break.

You're not the first twelve year old to spout fail and you probably won't be the last.

Cute can't attack the post/Logic so you attack the poster you are trying to claim maturity but you are lacking it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This thread is full of fail since when does the president assign security details? By that logic Bush is at fault for not having more security to stop 9/11 please give me a break.

You're not the first twelve year old to spout fail and you probably won't be the last.

Cute can't attack the post/Logic so you attack the poster you are trying to claim maturity but you are lacking it.

Dude__ you refuse to stay on topic, you make everything about Bush 9/11 (in every thread like this) and you're the one that came spouting fail like a little kid. What am I missing here? That's a rhetorical question in case you're too stupid to realize it.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

You're not the first twelve year old to spout fail and you probably won't be the last.

Cute can't attack the post/Logic so you attack the poster you are trying to claim maturity but you are lacking it.

Dude__ you refuse to stay on topic, you make everything about Bush 9/11 (in every thread like this) and you're the one that came spouting fail like a little kid. What am I missing here? That's a rhetorical question in case you're too stupid to realize it.

Let me paint the picture for you, as I didn't see you respond to my first post in this thread.

-You attacked Obama because of the death(s) at the embassies. Your logic was that Obama is the president-and thus the buck stops with him. He's the head of the fed. government, therefore is responsible for it's agencies.

-When 9/11 is brought up, you refuse to acknowledge that by your logic Bush would be to blame.


-I'm not suggesting that Bush is to blame for 9/11, I absolutely don't think that he is. But my point is pointing out your bias. You can't hold one group to one set of standards, and not hold another group to those same standards. You wont be taken seriously-and that's not limited to politics, that transcends to all aspects of life. Consistency is key (ESPECIALLY in politics). If somebody ran based on the ideas you suggest in this thread, you would be labeled a "flip-flopper".

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Cute can't attack the post/Logic so you attack the poster you are trying to claim maturity but you are lacking it.

Dude__ you refuse to stay on topic, you make everything about Bush 9/11 (in every thread like this) and you're the one that came spouting fail like a little kid. What am I missing here? That's a rhetorical question in case you're too stupid to realize it.

Let me paint the picture for you, as I didn't see you respond to my first post in this thread.

-You attacked Obama because of the death(s) at the embassies. Your logic was that Obama is the president-and thus the buck stops with him. He's the head of the fed. government, therefore is responsible for it's agencies.

-When 9/11 is brought up, you refuse to acknowledge that by your logic Bush would be to blame.


-I'm not suggesting that Bush is to blame for 9/11, I absolutely don't think that he is. But my point is pointing out your bias. You can't hold one group to one set of standards, and not hold another group to those same standards. You wont be taken seriously-and that's not limited to politics, that transcends to all aspects of life. Consistency is key (ESPECIALLY in politics). If somebody ran based on the ideas you suggest in this thread, you would be labeled a "flip-flopper".

It's been hours and days since our last transaction and I can't comment on all of that (especially since it regards other convos)__ And btw, I haven't flipped on anything. I'm sure an idiot like you would label me a flip flopper though.

Here is the point__ Now first off; 9/11 is a very complex and debatable issue that you are trying to make uniformly synonymous to this issue and I find that just retarded. That's first off brah.

Second off__ This issue is very simple. Yes, Obama does have at the very least; over-arching responsibility for the safety of Americans around the world. We are learning of the various ways in which we knew that our interests around the world were in serious peril; and specifically, we now know that the State Department knew at least 48 hours in advance about the potential attack in Benghazi. Yet, we have learned of no extraordinary security measures being taken. And when the 3 AM phone call came, Obama slept. And before this information came out; the White House said there was no credible intelligence (a statement they can't walk back from w/o looking more foolish). That is not leadership; that is cover-up and only a partisan would claim otherwise.

 

[Katzndogz]

Four more died because obama is an idiot.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Dude__ you refuse to stay on topic, you make everything about Bush 9/11 (in every thread like this) and you're the one that came spouting fail like a little kid. What am I missing here? That's a rhetorical question in case you're too stupid to realize it.

Let me paint the picture for you, as I didn't see you respond to my first post in this thread.

-You attacked Obama because of the death(s) at the embassies. Your logic was that Obama is the president-and thus the buck stops with him. He's the head of the fed. government, therefore is responsible for it's agencies.

-When 9/11 is brought up, you refuse to acknowledge that by your logic Bush would be to blame.


-I'm not suggesting that Bush is to blame for 9/11, I absolutely don't think that he is. But my point is pointing out your bias. You can't hold one group to one set of standards, and not hold another group to those same standards. You wont be taken seriously-and that's not limited to politics, that transcends to all aspects of life. Consistency is key (ESPECIALLY in politics). If somebody ran based on the ideas you suggest in this thread, you would be labeled a "flip-flopper".

It's been hours and days since our last transaction and I can't comment on all of that (especially since it regards other convos)__ And btw, I haven't flipped on anything. I'm sure an idiot like you would label me a flip flopper though.

Here is the point__ Now first off; 9/11 is a very complex and debatable issue that you are trying to make uniformly synonymous to this issue and I find that just retarded. That's first off brah.

Second off__ This issue is very simple. Yes, Obama does have at the very least; over-arching responsibility for the safety of Americans around the world. We are learning of the various ways in which we knew that our interests around the world were in serious peril; and specifically, we now know that the State Department knew at least 48 hours in advance about the potential attack in Benghazi. Yet, we have learned of no extraordinary security measures being taken. And when the 3 AM phone call came, Obama slept. And before this information came out; the White House said there was no credible intelligence (a statement they can't walk back from w/o looking more foolish). That is not leadership; that is cover-up and only a partisan would claim otherwise.

-Of course 9/11 was a very complex issue. However, are you suggesting that the embassies attacks weren't?

-I didn't claim you were a flip-flopper, I suggest you go back and read any my post more carefully. I said if you were running for office you would be seen as such-because you ultimately are holding two different parties to two separate sets of standards. If "the buck stops here" with Obama-it stopped with Bush as well. Saying that 9/11 was "complex" is an attempt to cover up your basic argument against Obama (or a pathetic attempt of working out cognitive dissonance).

-If the FBI/CIA, etc. stops with Obama-as YOU stated, then it logically also stopped with Bush. That's my point. Nothing more, nothing less. No events like 9/11 or the embassy attacks are simple, or have an easy answer. Yet you quite easily and quickly point the finger at Obama, and not Bush. That's why you're not being taken seriously.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Let me paint the picture for you, as I didn't see you respond to my first post in this thread.

-You attacked Obama because of the death(s) at the embassies. Your logic was that Obama is the president-and thus the buck stops with him. He's the head of the fed. government, therefore is responsible for it's agencies.

-When 9/11 is brought up, you refuse to acknowledge that by your logic Bush would be to blame.


-I'm not suggesting that Bush is to blame for 9/11, I absolutely don't think that he is. But my point is pointing out your bias. You can't hold one group to one set of standards, and not hold another group to those same standards. You wont be taken seriously-and that's not limited to politics, that transcends to all aspects of life. Consistency is key (ESPECIALLY in politics). If somebody ran based on the ideas you suggest in this thread, you would be labeled a "flip-flopper".

It's been hours and days since our last transaction and I can't comment on all of that (especially since it regards other convos)__ And btw, I haven't flipped on anything. I'm sure an idiot like you would label me a flip flopper though.

Here is the point__ Now first off; 9/11 is a very complex and debatable issue that you are trying to make uniformly synonymous to this issue and I find that just retarded. That's first off brah.

Second off__ This issue is very simple. Yes, Obama does have at the very least; over-arching responsibility for the safety of Americans around the world. We are learning of the various ways in which we knew that our interests around the world were in serious peril; and specifically, we now know that the State Department knew at least 48 hours in advance about the potential attack in Benghazi. Yet, we have learned of no extraordinary security measures being taken. And when the 3 AM phone call came, Obama slept. And before this information came out; the White House said there was no credible intelligence (a statement they can't walk back from w/o looking more foolish). That is not leadership; that is cover-up and only a partisan would claim otherwise.

-Of course 9/11 was a very complex issue. However, are you suggesting that the embassies attacks weren't?

-I didn't claim you were a flip-flopper, I suggest you go back and read any my post more carefully. I said if you were running for office you would be seen as such-because you ultimately are holding two different parties to two separate sets of standards. If "the buck stops here" with Obama-it stopped with Bush as well. Saying that 9/11 was "complex" is an attempt to cover up your basic argument against Obama (or a pathetic attempt of working out cognitive dissonance).

-If the FBI/CIA, etc. stops with Obama-as YOU stated, then it logically also stopped with Bush. That's my point. Nothing more, nothing less. No events like 9/11 or the embassy attacks are simple, or have an easy answer. Yet you quite easily and quickly point the finger at Obama, and not Bush. That's why you're not being taken seriously.

You're worried about setting a trap rather than debating the issue at hand. That much is evident.

And I 'easily point the finger' at Obama b/c he richly deserves blame. It is clear that he practiced great negligence and then engaged in a cover-up. It is also clear that he passed the buck when he blamed this on a movie when he knew damn well that it was a premeditated attack. It really makes you wonder whose side he's really even on.

You can accept sub-par leadership and clearly you're desire to deflect is indicative of that reality. But I will not accept it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Dude__ you refuse to stay on topic, you make everything about Bush 9/11 (in every thread like this) and you're the one that came spouting fail like a little kid. What am I missing here? That's a rhetorical question in case you're too stupid to realize it.

Let me paint the picture for you, as I didn't see you respond to my first post in this thread.

-You attacked Obama because of the death(s) at the embassies. Your logic was that Obama is the president-and thus the buck stops with him. He's the head of the fed. government, therefore is responsible for it's agencies.

-When 9/11 is brought up, you refuse to acknowledge that by your logic Bush would be to blame.


-I'm not suggesting that Bush is to blame for 9/11, I absolutely don't think that he is. But my point is pointing out your bias. You can't hold one group to one set of standards, and not hold another group to those same standards. You wont be taken seriously-and that's not limited to politics, that transcends to all aspects of life. Consistency is key (ESPECIALLY in politics). If somebody ran based on the ideas you suggest in this thread, you would be labeled a "flip-flopper".

It's been hours and days since our last transaction and I can't comment on all of that (especially since it regards other convos)__ And btw, I haven't flipped on anything. I'm sure an idiot like you would label me a flip flopper though.

Here is the point__ Now first off; 9/11 is a very complex and debatable issue that you are trying to make uniformly synonymous to this issue and I find that just retarded. That's first off brah.

Second off__ This issue is very simple. Yes, Obama does have at the very least; over-arching responsibility for the safety of Americans around the world. We are learning of the various ways in which we knew that our interests around the world were in serious peril; and specifically, we now know that the State Department knew at least 48 hours in advance about the potential attack in Benghazi. Yet, we have learned of no extraordinary security measures being taken. And when the 3 AM phone call came, Obama slept. And before this information came out; the White House said there was no credible intelligence (a statement they can't walk back from w/o looking more foolish). That is not leadership; that is cover-up and only a partisan would claim otherwise.

Total bullshit.

Representative Mike Rogers , a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House intelligence committee, told CNN there was no sign of intelligence “chatter” leading up to the Benghazi consulate attack that would have warned U.S. officials to take extra precautions. Photographer: Rich Clement/Bloomberg

Within hours of learning about the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, President Barack Obama ordered tighter security at diplomatic posts around the world.

While 50 Marines were sent to Libya, even the increased military presence can’t guarantee security for U.S. personnel, according to veteran diplomats such as Richard Murphy, a former ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia.

“They’re not bodyguards,” Murphy said in an interview yesterday, referring to the Marines who stand guard at U.S. embassies. “Their mission is to safeguard the classified material.”

When it comes to providing security for U.S. embassies and consulates, the U.S. doesn’t have sole responsibility.

The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations established that the host country of an embassy or consulate “is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage.”

In the case of Libya’s government, Murphy said, “They were not up to the job.”

No ‘Chatter’

Security at the Libyan facilities was considered adequate, the official said.

Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House intelligence committee, told CNN there was no sign of intelligence “chatter” leading up to the Benghazi consulate attack that would have warned U.S. officials to take extra precautions.

more

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^
Is your recap of actions after the Lybia attack supposed to refute Obama's record before the attacK? IDIOT

 

[Full-Auto]

^^
Is your recap of actions after the Lybia attack supposed to refute Obama's record before the attacK? IDIOT

Well said............