Care my @ss.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/mitt-romney-glen-do...Meanwhile a Mitt quote."That's what Americans do, when there's a challenge, a threat, we go there."Except of course that Granddad didn't serve, Dad didn't serve, Mitt didn't serve, Mitt's 5 sons didn't serve and best I can tell Duma didn't serve.But "we go there", yeah right.B
Except of course that Granddad didn't serve, Dad didn't serve, Mitt didn't serve, Mitt's 5 sons didn't serve and best I can tell Duma didn't serve.You know nothing about my service.....nothing.But let's apply your metric to all players:Obama?????.....No Service!Biden?????.....No Service!You are so desperate to change the subject from Obama's complete failure in Benghazi.......you can run but you can't hide.
You know nothing about my service.....nothing.Finally you post something that is the truth.Your action's, like Mitt's however, show that whether you served or not you care little if you cause the families additional grief by attempting to politicize their loss.Mitt for example continued to do so a full 2 weeks after the family complained. As a side note you may want to look at her thoughts on "a bump in the road."http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061...As I stated earlier, it is contemptible behavior and you are engaged in it.Not surprising really,but still contemptible.B
As I stated earlier, it is contemptible behavior and you are engaged in it.As I have stated, you have politicized it.......not me.If you cared about your country first, you would be demanding answers whether it were Obama or Bush.Why have you not retracted all your "baseless" assertions now that you see in and hear it for yourself??????Your silence demonstrates you are complicit in this Obama scheming.That my dear B.....is contemptible!
Why have you not retracted all your "baseless" assertions now that you see in and hear it for yourself??????I didn’t, because the last bunch of brown that you cherry picked to further your attempt to politicize the story did not address what I listed.Still no empty guns, there were 5 guards not 3, nothing claiming private security played a role and no assertion that precautions weren’t taken.Did the precautions prove sufficient? No, but that is a different story.B
Still no empty guns, there were 5 guards not 3, nothing claiming private security played a role and no assertion that precautions weren’t taken.You don't seem to be able to read very well.There was private security......at Benghazi of all places. There were requests for precautions that were denied by Obama's administration.These were all corroborated in testimony today B.Your blatant disregard for these people's testimony speaks volumes for who is politicizing this tragedy.
No, Duma, waiting for a thorough investigation before accusing anyone of malfeasance, *that* would have been not politicizing. You are the one who introduced the topic and it was anti-Obama from the beginning, so it is mere pretense that you are taking a high road. Anyone responding to you is doing just that, responding to your nonsense and excess.
Wasn't there a remark in today's testimony that a force of 60 would have been insufficient?
Wasn't there a remark in today's testimony that a force of 60 would have been insufficient?You would have us believe that it was crucial to have our ambassador in Benghazi on 9/11, with security deteriorating, repeated attacks on western assets, insufficient security, etc..........that "no means of defense would have been possible"???How about for starters the least expensive.......don't put your ambassador there on 9/11 for pete sake.You are complicit in this charade by Obama to hide the truth about the Muslim states..........Obama's placating strategy has been an abject failure..........you cannot defend this charade and his outright lies immediately after when everyone knew it was terrorism.You choose party over country......not me.
Of course, you are disregarding part of it as well ... you harp on the parts you like and ignore the rest. Given that Issa is running it, one hardly expects a fair hearing anyway.
What BS! Without credible intelligence we should pull every ambassador out of every Muslim country every 9/11? Now, that would really advance our image as a courageous country!
You don't seem to be able to read very well.There was private security......at Benghazi of all places. I never claimed there was no private security, only that there is no evidence that it's use somehow compromised security or contributed to what happened...big difference.As to reading comprehension you seem to have overlooked this.Nordstrom's prepared testimony struck a different tone, however. He told the panel that the "ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service. Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault."He also testified that he was "impressed with the plans that would send our team into Libya-a massive show of well-organized resources. I felt that resource requests would be considered seriously and fastidiously by [Diplomatic Security] and the [State] Department. I believe that the vast majority of my requests were considered in that manner."You also are overlooking that the two seals who's selfless acts weren't part of the security arrangements which makes it kind of hard to place the blame for their deaths on Obama. Or that the safe room held, but obviously could't/didn't prevent the remaining two victims from dying from smoke inhalation.So what we are left with? If we have a country that is extremely unstable, flooded with weaponry and where the host "government" can't ensure security and we aren't willing to send in sufficient forces to protect against a major attack ourselves then we shouldn't have a diplomatic presence at all. Unless that is we are willing to take that risk.What we should do in a situation like this is a valid question to ask, but it didn't require this incident for the question to be obvious and should have been asked prior to the incident by Republican & Democrats alike. Of course I didn't hear a peep about sending in troops being a good idea, nor did I hear a word about not wanting a diplomatic presence which leads me to where we are today where we have a bunch of armchair quarterbacks pretending that they are patriots.You know, like you.B
Do you think, B, that quoting the same piece to him twice will make it finally penetrate? I'm not optimistic.I do think you are very on point here that there is an inherent risk in small missions in unstable countries. The choice is having a presence or not having one. Not having one has its own risks for the country. Having one means some risk to those present. Providing a security force adequate to deal with Benghazi type events would be very expensive and, of course, would only get used, very rarely. And, even then, it would sometimes be insufficient even then and would be massive excess most of the time, even when used.
Providing a security force adequate to deal with Benghazi type events would be very expensive and, of course, would only get used, very rarely. And, even then, it would sometimes be insufficient even then and would be massive excess most of the time, even when used. B:I don't think your comrade is helping your case.He is essentially saying that its open season on ambassadors in unstable countries!"Very expensive" to protect our American lives......not worth it right???The US has never pulled staff from an embassy right????This is only gonna get worse.......you can run but you cannot hide......despite repeating the same old tired misinformation.Benghazi could have been prevented.......that is a fact.Obama chose not to defend it.There is evidence that Obama had warnings and chose to ignore them.There is evidence that Obama deliberately misled us on what transpired afterwards.Colin Powell once said to Bush......."if you break it, you own it".Obama specifically and directly overthrew Khadafi. Look at the situation in Libya for pete sake! He broke it and now he owns it.
Err, we are not colleagues...Err, it was the Republicans which voted down funds for more forces to be available.Your "facts" are almost transparently in error.There is no evidence at this point that Obama himself was in any way personally involved in a decision about the staffing level. Frankly, it would be surprising if he were.We have had testimony that 60 would not have been enough. Do you advocate 10-20 fold increase in security forces at any embassy which might be at risk? Quite aside from the Republican-denied cost, what would be the message we sent to other countries is the security staff was 10-20X the diplomatic staff?
There is no evidence at this point that Obama himself was in any way personally involved in a decision about the staffing level. Frankly, it would be surprising if he were.Obama broke Libya....he owns it.His administration is him.........that is just the way it is.As to evidence that more security wouldn't have mattered......utter cowardice nonsense!See the WSJ article.....testimony stated otherwise.It is not a Republican issue and has nothing to do with budget votes. Obama decided what security would be parsed to what location.We have been lied to by Obama himself even as our fallen Americans were received back into our country.Libya is a mess and we broke it........can't believe the utter hypocricy of this meddling has escaped those so critical of Bush and Iraq.The irony and hypocricy of Obama and your other colleagues is flabbergasting! What kind of policy was this???
Benghazi type events would be very expensive and, of course, would only get used, very rarely.And of course, present an even bigger and more tempting target.See Marine barracks in Lebanon as a prime example, although to hear Republican versions of history you would think the event never took place because it interferes with their Saint Ronnie fantasies.B
Obama specifically and directly overthrew Khadafi. LOL, what happened to "you can't lead from behind".Even if everything you say was true, it isn't, that would leave the price of overthrowing Khadafi currently at 4. Do you want me to go dig up the numbers for the price of overthrowing Saddam?Talk about owning something, and Mitt thinks we should still be there?Then again, I guess that is Obama's fault as well, because the only reason Mitt thinks we should still be there is that Obama got us out. So it stands to reason that if Obama would have kept troops in, then Mitt would be arguing to get the troops out.With you guys, it's heads it's Obama's fault and tails it's Obama's fault.B
We have had testimony that 60 would not have been enough.Tamhas,I may be wrong but I believe you are following duma down his rabbit hole where he just makes things up to support his position.I don't recall seeing any claim that 60 would not have been enough and suspect you are confusing a number used to describe the Libyan force that responded after the compound was breached.Comparing a Libyan rebel's(former)capabilities to respond after the compound was breached, to a well equipped American squad is likely to leave you missing the point by a factor of 10 to 1. (maybe more)Colleague or not, I wouldn't want you to be known as employing duma tactics. :<)security forces at any embassyIt was a consulate, which whether anyone wants to acknowledge or not, is a relevant distinction as well. B
Make that..to a well equipped American squad defending a secured compound...
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar