Valerie Jarret needed protection, Chris Stevens did not

[TheGreatGatsby]

Because callous summations is all most of you deserve...

95% of what motivates you is hate. In fact, on the off chance Obama does lose, there simply won't be anything to motivate you in life. Your hate is all you have.

You're describing yourself little man. And you have to describe yourself because you need to distract for your wanker and thief.

You are the one who goes on all day obsessing about where he was born and shit...

Seriously, when you started spouting your birfer crap, you outed yourself.

You label people in a shameless attempt to silence them and to prop up your wanker and thief.

 

[JoeB131]

You're describing yourself little man. And you have to describe yourself because you need to distract for your wanker and thief.

You are the one who goes on all day obsessing about where he was born and shit...

Seriously, when you started spouting your birfer crap, you outed yourself.

You label people in a shameless attempt to silence them and to prop up your wanker and thief.

Guy, only reason I support Obama is because the GOP nominated the Mormon.

Don't blame me because you fucked up.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You are the one who goes on all day obsessing about where he was born and shit...

Seriously, when you started spouting your birfer crap, you outed yourself.

You label people in a shameless attempt to silence them and to prop up your wanker and thief.

Guy, only reason I support Obama is because the GOP nominated the Mormon.

Don't blame me because you fucked up.

Congrats dickhead. You've derailed another convo with your predictable spew. Now, do you have a real reason for why Benghazi was denied security while a nobody was given a full security detail?

 

[JoeB131]

You label people in a shameless attempt to silence them and to prop up your wanker and thief.

Guy, only reason I support Obama is because the GOP nominated the Mormon.

Don't blame me because you fucked up.

Congrats dickhead. You've derailed another convo with your predictable spew. Now, do you have a real reason for why Benghazi was denied security while a nobody was given a full security detail?

Benghazi wasnt' "denied security". It had a security detail.

It had private contractors and local military protecting it.

Now, as to why there wasn't enough security, maybe you need to ask Paul Ryan why the Teabagger Congress slashed 300 million from security spending for the State Department.

But that's okay, I know you need to hate. Your hate defines you, gives you purpose.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Guy, only reason I support Obama is because the GOP nominated the Mormon.

Don't blame me because you fucked up.

Congrats dickhead. You've derailed another convo with your predictable spew. Now, do you have a real reason for why Benghazi was denied security while a nobody was given a full security detail?

Benghazi wasnt' "denied security". It had a security detail.

It had private contractors and local military protecting it.

Now, as to why there wasn't enough security, maybe you need to ask Paul Ryan why the Teabagger Congress slashed 300 million from security spending for the State Department.

But that's okay, I know you need to hate. Your hate defines you, gives you purpose.

1. CS requested that his existing security team be allowed to stay.

2. The existing team requested to stay.

3. The embassy had been attacked twice in the last six months; including a huge bomb blast creating a hole big enough for a truck to drive through.

4. The funding comes from the dept. of defense. Oh! You didn't think I'd be able to debunk that phony felonious talking point that you got from your nuthugging left wing media, did you?

5. You still haven't explained how the nobody, Valerie Jarret deserved more security than a freaking US ambassador in war torn region.

 

[RoadVirus]

But Ambassador Stevens had a security detail of both Americans and Libyans.

Apparently wasn't enough, hmm?

But you keep standing on his coffin and using it as a soap box.

Because his death could've been prevented! It seems like every day something new comes out telling us this administration fucked up big time.

Obama and his team need to answer for this!

 

[JoeB131]

1. CS requested that his existing security team be allowed to stay.

2. The existing team requested to stay.

3. The embassy had been attacked twice in the last six months; including a huge bomb blast creating a hole big enough for a truck to drive through.

4. The funding comes from the dept. of defense. Oh! You didn't think I'd be able to debunk that phony felonious talking point that you got from your nuthugging left wing media, did you?

5. You still haven't explained how the nobody, Valerie Jarret deserved more security than a freaking US ambassador in war torn region.

1 & 2 - Yes, he did. So what? How did that make any difference in the events that happened?

3. - This wasn't an attack on an Embassy, it was an attack on a consulate.

4. - Security for Consolates (not Embassies) are handled by private contractors and security firms and DO come out of the State Department budget.

5 - Please point out all the posts you made about Chris Stevens before he died. But I'll bet you made a lot of them concerning Valerie. And that's the point. Threat assessment is based on volume of chatter. The CIA admitted, they had very little chatter

 

[JoeB131]

Apparently wasn't enough, hmm?

But you keep standing on his coffin and using it as a soap box.

Because his death could've been prevented! It seems like every day something new comes out telling us this administration fucked up big time.

Obama and his team need to answer for this!

As far as I'm concerned, they have. And Amb. Stevens family and the families of the slain security workers have asked Romney to stop politicizing this.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

1. CS requested that his existing security team be allowed to stay.

2. The existing team requested to stay.

3. The embassy had been attacked twice in the last six months; including a huge bomb blast creating a hole big enough for a truck to drive through.

4. The funding comes from the dept. of defense. Oh! You didn't think I'd be able to debunk that phony felonious talking point that you got from your nuthugging left wing media, did you?

5. You still haven't explained how the nobody, Valerie Jarret deserved more security than a freaking US ambassador in war torn region.

1 & 2 - Yes, he did. So what? How did that make any difference in the events that happened?

3. - This wasn't an attack on an Embassy, it was an attack on a consulate.

4. - Security for Consolates (not Embassies) are handled by private contractors and security firms and DO come out of the State Department budget.

5 - Please point out all the posts you made about Chris Stevens before he died. But I'll bet you made a lot of them concerning Valerie. And that's the point. Threat assessment is based on volume of chatter. The CIA admitted, they had very little chatter

1 & 2 - We have not been given a compelling reason for the security denials from the State Dept or the regime. Let me walk that back. We haven't been given a reason.

3. There may be diplomatic differences between embassies and consulates; but not from a security standpoint. So let's not play semantics. And again then, we were attacked twice in the prior six months. And security was cut back? That makes no sense.

4. Perhaps, the govt would have had money for Benghazi security if they weren't busy overpaying Govt. Motors for Volts and Volt charging stations at embassies.

Obama State Department Cuts Security Budget for Libya…authorizes 100K+ for Volt charging station at Italian Embassy

Also, the State Department took away the ambassador's private plane despite the security concerns.

State Department turned down security request from embassy in Libya - Defense - GovExec.com

No_ no Chris. F your security. You're not important enough for a private plane. He was always gonna be collateral damage.

5. Why would I make posts about Chris Stevens before he died? How many posts have I made about any country ambassadors genius? Though, I might have, if the media was doing there job's and making attacks top stories like they should have.

And I made no posts about Valerie either, but it wouldn't matter if it was 100. It wouldn't change my analysis. This was one of your sorriest straw men.

Again, do you have a good reason why a worthless ass hat like Valerie Jarret has a full security detail while CS is getting denied in a war zone? I don't think you do.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, you're going on about the plane being pulled after commercial airline service had been restored?

Really?

that's kind of clawing and desperate.

Hey, and I heard they said something on Facebook. that's relevent, somehow...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Wow, you're going on about the plane being pulled after commercial airline service had been restored?

Really?

that's kind of clawing and desperate.

Hey, and I heard they said something on Facebook. that's relevent, somehow...

The plane was pretty much a smaller talking point; but leave it to you to focus on it; instead of giving me a reason why Jarret was getting more security preference than Stevens.

I guess you're 'kind of clawing and desperate' to avoid that.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, you're going on about the plane being pulled after commercial airline service had been restored?

Really?

that's kind of clawing and desperate.

Hey, and I heard they said something on Facebook. that's relevent, somehow...

The plane was pretty much a smaller talking point; but leave it to you to focus on it; instead of giving me a reason why Jarret was getting more security preference than Stevens.

I guess you're 'kind of clawing and desperate' to avoid that.

The thing is, all your points on this are "small talking points". You try to take a whole list of complaints and try to turn it into a larger conspiracy... like Stevens was banging Michelle on the side or something, and this was Barry's elaborate revenge scheme.

Anyone's job... anyones's... there are about 100 things they think could be better and they ask for them and usually get turned down. Private sector, public sector. Doesn't make a difference.

But you want to take planes and posts on Facebook and turn them into a conspiracy to prove, what, exactly?

Were you this concerned about the trivial "should haves, would haves, could haves" that lead to a large chunk of the 4500 American deaths in Iraq? Somehow, I doubt it. And neither was I. Stuff happens.

It would have been nice if Bush's lackeys hadn't disbanded the Iraqi army, or sent in Humvees with better armor, or whatever. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Wow, you're going on about the plane being pulled after commercial airline service had been restored?

Really?

that's kind of clawing and desperate.

Hey, and I heard they said something on Facebook. that's relevent, somehow...

The plane was pretty much a smaller talking point; but leave it to you to focus on it; instead of giving me a reason why Jarret was getting more security preference than Stevens.

I guess you're 'kind of clawing and desperate' to avoid that.

The thing is, all your points on this are "small talking points". You try to take a whole list of complaints and try to turn it into a larger conspiracy... like Stevens was banging Michelle on the side or something, and this was Barry's elaborate revenge scheme.

Anyone's job... anyones's... there are about 100 things they think could be better and they ask for them and usually get turned down. Private sector, public sector. Doesn't make a difference.

But you want to take planes and posts on Facebook and turn them into a conspiracy to prove, what, exactly?

Were you this concerned about the trivial "should haves, would haves, could haves" that lead to a large chunk of the 4500 American deaths in Iraq? Somehow, I doubt it. And neither was I. Stuff happens.

It would have been nice if Bush's lackeys hadn't disbanded the Iraqi army, or sent in Humvees with better armor, or whatever. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Hindsight is always 20/20. But I'm talking about foresight. Heck, I'll even talk about sight. The Obama admin clearly had their eye on other things than Steven's security through the entire process.

Now, I ask for about the sixth or seventh time; why was it so important that a nobody like Jarret had a full security detail, while Stevens was denied security in a war torn country? I'll stop asking if you don't want to answer it. I don't think you have an acceptable answer to that question.

 

[JoeB131]

Hindsight is always 20/20. But I'm talking about foresight. Heck, I'll even talk about sight. The Obama admin clearly had their eye on other things than Steven's security through the entire process.

Now, I ask for about the sixth or seventh time; why was it so important that a nobody like Jarret had a full security detail, while Stevens was denied security in a war torn country? I'll stop asking if you don't want to answer it. I don't think you have an acceptable answer to that question.

Because as long as we have crazy people spewing hate about the woman, and talking about "Second Amendment solutions" and carrying around signs like this...

it's pretty reasonable to protect officials of this administration.

And Stevens had a security detail. In fact, two of the guys killed with him were bodyguards. Oooops.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Hindsight is always 20/20. But I'm talking about foresight. Heck, I'll even talk about sight. The Obama admin clearly had their eye on other things than Steven's security through the entire process.

Now, I ask for about the sixth or seventh time; why was it so important that a nobody like Jarret had a full security detail, while Stevens was denied security in a war torn country? I'll stop asking if you don't want to answer it. I don't think you have an acceptable answer to that question.

Because as long as we have crazy people spewing hate about the woman, and talking about "Second Amendment solutions" and carrying around signs like this...

it's pretty reasonable to protect officials of this administration.

And Stevens had a security detail. In fact, two of the guys killed with him were bodyguards. Oooops.

I'm sorry__ Is it called the war on terrorism or the war on Constitutionalists? Remind me again.

Anyways, your answer shows that you have no valid excuse for Obama and that you truly are nothing more than a weasel.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sorry__ Is it called the war on terrorism or the war on Constitutionalists? Remind me again.

Anyways, your answer shows that you have no valid excuse for Obama and that you truly are nothing more than a weasel.

Are you saying one man's constitutionalist is another man's terrorist?

You're kind of proving my point, aren't you? If there's a point where you think it'd be acceptable to practice a "second amendment solution", then it's pretty reasonable to assume there are guys nuttier than you are out there.

Thus, why Valerie needed a security detail.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm sorry__ Is it called the war on terrorism or the war on Constitutionalists? Remind me again.

Anyways, your answer shows that you have no valid excuse for Obama and that you truly are nothing more than a weasel.

Are you saying one man's constitutionalist is another man's terrorist?

You're kind of proving my point, aren't you? If there's a point where you think it'd be acceptable to practice a "second amendment solution", then it's pretty reasonable to assume there are guys nuttier than you are out there.

Thus, why Valerie needed a security detail.

I'm saying that your comparing terrorists to second amendment advocates makes you the real nut. Not just comparing them either; pretending that they're the bigger threats.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sorry__ Is it called the war on terrorism or the war on Constitutionalists? Remind me again.

Anyways, your answer shows that you have no valid excuse for Obama and that you truly are nothing more than a weasel.

Are you saying one man's constitutionalist is another man's terrorist?

You're kind of proving my point, aren't you? If there's a point where you think it'd be acceptable to practice a "second amendment solution", then it's pretty reasonable to assume there are guys nuttier than you are out there.

Thus, why Valerie needed a security detail.

I'm saying that your comparing terrorists to second amendment advocates makes you the real nut. Not just comparing them either; pretending that they're the bigger threats.

Only reason why we have a problem with "Terrorists" is because we go to their side of the planet (where we don't belong) and get involved in their shit.

Getting rid of the home grown crazies with guns, who kill a lot more Americans every year than Terrorists do, is another issue.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Are you saying one man's constitutionalist is another man's terrorist?

You're kind of proving my point, aren't you? If there's a point where you think it'd be acceptable to practice a "second amendment solution", then it's pretty reasonable to assume there are guys nuttier than you are out there.

Thus, why Valerie needed a security detail.

I'm saying that your comparing terrorists to second amendment advocates makes you the real nut. Not just comparing them either; pretending that they're the bigger threats.

Only reason why we have a problem with "Terrorists" is because we go to their side of the planet (where we don't belong) and get involved in their shit.

Getting rid of the home grown crazies with guns, who kill a lot more Americans every year than Terrorists do, is another issue.

We've given them billions of dollars for their f'ing grease in the ground. That's more or less all we've done. We have had almost no presence there. And the way you talk is how they justify BS like 911. And, they kill us because they have a book that tellls them its okay to murder the infidels (and I'm not looking for BS spin about the Bible on that point; b/c I know it's not apples and oranges).

But let's not let your idiocy get us away from the point at hand. You are pretending that a nobody like Valerie Jarret should have enhanced security while our an ambassador in a war torn country should have his security taken away.

That's fine, you've proven your idiocy on many levels for the umpteenth time.

 

[JoeB131]

We've given them billions of dollars for their f'ing grease in the ground. That's more or less all we've done. We have had almost no presence there. And the way you talk is how they justify BS like 911. And, they kill us because they have a book that tellls them its okay to murder the infidels (and I'm not looking for BS spin about the Bible on that point; b/c I know it's not apples and oranges).

.

We've haven't just done that.

We've supported a Zionist entity setting up a Religous Apartheid state on their holiest ground.

We've supported some of the nastiest dictators over there for decades.

We've armed real assholes - bin Laden, Saddam - and then wonder why they turn on us.

Our Middle East policy has been sticking our dicks in a hornet's nest and wondering why we get stung. Not that a weasel like you would actually ever sign up to do any of the fighting. That's what we have poor people for.

And the Bible is just as evil, stupid and bloodthirsty as the Koran is. Maybe more so. So I can see why you don't want to have that discussion.

But let's not let your idiocy get us away from the point at hand. You are pretending that a nobody like Valerie Jarret should have enhanced security while our an ambassador in a war torn country should have his security taken away.

That's fine, you've proven your idiocy on many levels for the umpteenth time

Jarret had a few Secret Service Agents... Stevens had a small army of contractors and a real army of Libyans.

But that's okay, I know you guys need to use the man's coffin as a soapbox. Because it's all you have.