Originally Posted by AbnormalQ

You qualify your problem with this issue by the same rationale. Fuck Obama for lying to me.

Im not rationalizing the issue in that manner at all. I think it was fucking stupid this administration lied. No rationalization needed, thats the end of my view on the issue.

My view of how the right is using that lie is another story all together. Using your analogy; If Y has been jumping off bridges for years, then turns to A through F and says, "That crazy fucker X just jumped off a bridge." A through F need to understand Y is just as crazy of a fucker, and that they should not only not follow X, but they should also not follow Y.

 

Originally Posted by Realbigfish4

It all boils down to Willywoo and the like knowing ever piece of intelligence that's available. They seem to know more than President does, at least they talk as if they do.

The funny part about this post is that the media actually broke the facts that the government should have already had, or did have, but didn't tell us about. It has nothing to do with knowing every piece of intelligence or whatever. The facts and the timeline are now public knowledge. I do not claim any special knowledge or information. It is not necessary to know what is happening.

What is your explanation for the government not sealing off the premises and getting to the information left on the premises, ie; the ambassador's diary, before CNN picked through the rubble? Would we have ever known about the ambassador's request for additional security without that discovery? A real clusterfuck on their part. imo

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

The funny part about this post is that the media actually broke the facts that the government should have already had, or did have, but didn't tell us about. It has nothing to do with knowing every piece of intelligence or whatever. The facts and the timeline are now public knowledge. I do not claim any special knowledge or information. It is not necessary to know what is happening.

What is your explanation for the government not sealing off the premises and getting to the information left on the premises, ie; the ambassador's diary, before CNN picked through the rubble? Would we have ever known about the ambassador's request for additional security without that discovery? A real clusterfuck on their part. imo

I don't think any Obama defenders here have made any excuses or tried to explain why the gov't didn't seal off or even provide security if it had been feasible and the security risk known. Even more than that, the President didn't take the situation seriously enough, in addressing the issue and being forthright (yes, maybe even the opposite) about the attack. No one liked how it went down.

But you seem to have this idea that Obama thought that just by saying it wasn't a planned attack by Muslim militants, that the whole world would believe him. Like I said, I don't know why he played it the way he did, but to think he had some motive for the world to believe this and that he thought he could pull it off is ludicrous.

Further, it makes no sense for Obama or any "Muslim apologist" to try to shield Al Qaida while putting the blame on the Muslim masses. Following neo-con logic requires much patience and thought.

Not ascribing everything in this post to you, willy, just rambling

dude, everyone knows it's the most militant of them with whom BHO aligns

Big Bird was round one, binder round two, Bengazi round three.

 

Originally Posted by littleze

Big Bird was round one, binder round two, Bengazi round three.

I'll take over on how often Romney tries to attack the Benghazi blunder only b/c he is the probably the worst FP candidate this country has ever seen. What's Ryan always saying about not being able to run on your record?

There's only one spot, ONE, that Romney can attack Obama when it comes to FP. It's gonna be a LONG night for Mittens.

 

Originally Posted by kellykip

He's against it?

You know, that silly quote he's always using from Obama in 08'

yep, like keeping your campaign contributors happy lol

 

Originally Posted by userid363

yeah, well I'm sure some attenuated relationships there will be made. If there was any real quid pro quo that would suck but he should definitely be impeached. Hope not, obv

Not investing in or promoting green energy has been a gift to the carbon industry over the past 100 years. Obama's promotion of green energy has nothing on the previous administrations precedent of allowing oil industry to set the country's energy policy (and foreign policy). Obama's should have set up a formal closed-door energy task force with energy executives wherein they can discuss how we're going to deal with our inability to compete with Chinese solar production.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

yeah, well I'm sure some attenuated relationships there will be made. If there was any real quid pro quo that would suck but he should definitely be impeached. Hope not, obv

I wouldn't call it an impeachable offense. That's how a lot of ambassadors have been appointed over the years, not just Obama. I'd call for more transparency, but impeachment is a little strong. It's hard to believe most of us wouldn't take care of some friends who helped us get elected. Quid quo pro is sop.

you think Obama's coffee mug is empty by the end?

 

Originally Posted by Shaaarrrp

I think we should move on from discussing this Libya thing with just the reinforced understanding that people who plan to vote for Obama refuse to blame him for anything which could tip the scales enough to get Romney elected.

Obama supporters have no issue with how he handled Libya
Romney supporters and most independents do

Shocking!

And userid-I spent like 15 seconds doing the research to bring up a couple links about the FBI training manuals. I wasn't going to spend an hour posting a dozen links. I also think discussions like this are largely a waste of my time when I'm debating someone who is so dead set on being PC and unwilling to blame the guy he's voting for on anything.

I don't mind content stereotyping all Muslims as violent jihadists being removed but I definitely do not trust the Islamic organizations themselves to decide what goes in that manual (what I believe happened). Many of these people believe free speech should be a crime and that burning a koran should result in death. The White House could easily get me to believe that everything removed was for a good reason if they released the names to the House Armed Services Committee. The fact that they aren't tells me they are hiding something.

I hope that in mid-November, we will hear about how the FBI identified the attackers, they were captured, and they're facing justice. I hope that the department of homeland security and state department address shortcomings with intelligence handling and security as it relates to embassies and other domestic institutions in foreign countries. I am not in favor of handing the republicans a stick with which to beat up the president during the election. I do not believe that having Romney at the helm would have made a difference in this case. Given the republican family tree, I expect his cabinet to be made of the same jokers that have intervened to exacerbate hostility in these Islamic countries and spent 8 years dodging accountability for some of the most egregious failures and scandals in US history. Romney supporters have very little of substance to disagree with Obama because most of the things that they construe as negatives are common policies with the exception of exempting the wealthy from their tax obligations (which won't win an election).

I don't believe that the handling of the Libya thing was necessarily out of line with accepted security policies adopted and accepted at the time. I also don't believe that there was a campaign to purposely mislead the country afterwards. What I do believe is that by acknowledging that problems might exist with the policies that allowed it to happen and that a responsible root cause investigation to break down the failures and identify opportunities to improve security and intelligence is appropriate, but during the election they get distracted by the witch-hunt and everyone gets defensive/offensive and the investigation loses focus. The handling of it in the campaigns and press will taint the investigation like a celebrity trial.