• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How could Obama say this with a straight face??

MaggieD said:
Of COURSE it had nothing to do with Mr. kettles. You sure missed the point, didn't you?
It's never going to die, even in the history books.
Click to expand...
Glen Contrarian said:
Oh, it won't die in the history books...but it won't reflect well on the GOP in those books, either.
Click to expand...
coldjoint said:
Unfortunately it depends on who writes that history. Now factual history is a distant second to agenda. It wasn't always like that.
Click to expand...

On this one it doesn't even matter who writes the history books, they'll all report the same facts. There was a multi-year witch hunt costing the tax payers millions and millions of dollars, and multiple independent investigations all came to the exact same conclusion: it had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and there was nothing she could've to stop the attack. If the incessant whining of the GOP is even mentioned at all it'll be under the context of a complete and total failure to prove anything whatsoever.

I don't like Hillary either, but more than due diligence has been done to investigate Benghazi and if there were anything to nail Clinton on it would've already been brought up in one of the many investigations. To then use that as an insult against Obama while he honors a hero is childish and desperate.
 
Obama can say anything at all, tell any lie possible, with a straight face. He accepted the Nobel Peace Prize with a straight face, and went on to 8 more years of illegitimate military aggression.

He can get up and with a straight face say all the nonsense about avoiding violence in Dallas, and then approve the deaths of 20 more Pakistanis by drone for the next week's missions. He got up with a straight face and lied about so many things, including killing OBL. With a straight face he lies about Manning, Snowden and Assange.

He gets paid to lie with a straight face, as do most members of his administration.
 
Moot said:
Can you say false comparison? I'm sure Mr. Kettle appreciates you using his moment of glory for your political agenda on the Benghazi victims.
Click to expand...

Mr. kettle doesn't even know I'm alive. And since he is a brave soldier who risked life and limb again and again and again. I think he'd completely understand.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Obama should have personally parachuted into Benghazi to save all of our brave men and women who risked their lives there. Instead he sat in the white house the entire time and now he has the balls to honor a soldier? The outrage!
Click to expand...

It's probably a good thing Obama never served. He would have put his whole company at risk with his mindless immaturity and reckless decisions. His basic training company would also have likely had a 'blanket party' for him like what we saw in the movie "Full Metal Jacket".
 
MaggieD said:
So, Obama was live presenting the Medal of Honor To ret. Lt. Col. Kettles a few minutes ago. As he described his heroic service in Vietnam Nam rescuing downed pilots, he talked about the military tradition of leaving no one behind. And how this remarkably brave man epitomized that tradition.

No one left behind. Can you say Benghazi?
Click to expand...
Can you say Bush and Iraq 4000 soldiers dead no weapon's of mass destruction give me a break!!! 4000 - 4 = 3996 ohhhh I forgot 911 2000 + dead .... since we are talking about who is responsible on the presidential watch
 
plutonium said:
Can you say Bush and Iraq 4000 soldiers dead no weapon's of mass destruction give me a break!!! 4000 - 4 = 3996 ohhhh I forgot 911 2000 + dead .... since we are talking about who is responsible on the presidential watch
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with my OP?
 
Logicman said:
It's probably a good thing Obama never served. He would have put his whole company at risk with his mindless immaturity and reckless decisions. His basic training company would also have likely had a 'blanket party' for him like what we saw in the movie "Full Metal Jacket".
Click to expand...

Do you enjoy making up these little scenarios about the president so you can fantasize about beating him?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
*sigh*

Eight freaking investigations (held over a longer period than the 9/11 commission), most of which were chaired by the "we-gotta-indict-Hillary" Republican House, ALL found zero wrongdoing by Hillary (NO, she didn't give a "stand down order"), and there was NEVER any question of wrongdoing by Obama...and the GOP House Benghazi Committee's head military lawyer even quit the investigation because he saw it was nothing more than a political witch hunt...

...but NOOOOOOOOO! It doesn't matter that there was absolutely nothing that either Hillary or Obama could have done to rescue the Ambassador or the others, the conspiracy theory simply will. not. die.

But then, I have to remember that even now, up to a third of Republicans STILL think that Obama wasn't born in America....
Click to expand...

Most democrats drank the Kool Aid from their beloved Obama and Clinton ............................................that there was no available help in the timeline from the first assault to the time our boys died.

Total Lie............but it never mattered to the butt nuggets on the left

Meanwhile those guys prevented how many CIA agents from being massacred................. knowing that they were probably going to die while protecting them?
 
RetiredUSN said:
Most democrats drank the Kool Aid from their beloved Obama and Clinton ............................................that there was no available help in the timeline from the first assault to the time our boys died.

Total Lie............but it never mattered to the butt nuggets on the left

Meanwhile those guys prevented how many CIA agents from being massacred................. knowing that they were probably going to die while protecting them?
Click to expand...

Okay...wanna play? Sure. Then please describe to me what help was available...and how that "help" would have been able to address the following factors:

- Did they know what the threat was?

- How were they able to determine who were and who were not threats in a part of the city where all order had broken down?

- Were the military units able to easily determine not only what building contained the ambassador? Remember, it was a safe house...and safe houses are by definition nondescript and are not labeled. Getting such information from the State Department to military units is not as simple as it seems.

- What military help was available, and how far away were they? Gotta describe how the logistics of the whole operation would've been overcome in the time frame from when the ambassador first informed the State Department to when he was killed.

Perhaps the above challenges were why the GOP chairman of the Benghazi committee - Trey Gowdy - said that nothing “could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi.” And according to the Republican Chief Counsel (a former DOD Chief of Staff), "I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5:15 in the morning on the 12th of September if Benghazi, Libya. So let me start with that positing or that stipulation ... I don’t see any way to influence what occurred there. But what I am worried about is we’re caught by surprise On 9/11, we’ve got nothing postured to respond in a timely manner — and you can debate what’s timely, what’s untimely, but nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi."

Source: Snopes. I wonder - did Fox News ever tell y'all any of that? I'm guessing not.

That isn't Clinton/Obama "Kool-Aid" - it's the words of the guys in charge of the investigation on YOUR side. It is YOUR guys - and not Hillary or Obama - that you're calling liars.

But I get it - y'all gotta find stuff to blame Hillary for...'cause Hillary's the antiChrist and Hitler and Stalin all rolled into one, and every accusation against her must be true...even when there's no evidence at all.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Okay...wanna play? Sure. Then please describe to me what help was available...and how that "help" would have been able to address the following factors:

- Did they know what the threat was?

- How were they able to determine who were and who were not threats in a part of the city where all order had broken down?

- Were the military units able to easily determine not only what building contained the ambassador? Remember, it was a safe house...and safe houses are by definition nondescript and are not labeled. Getting such information from the State Department to military units is not as simple as it seems.

- What military help was available, and how far away were they? Gotta describe how the logistics of the whole operation would've been overcome in the time frame from when the ambassador first informed the State Department to when he was killed.

Perhaps the above challenges were why the GOP chairman of the Benghazi committee - Trey Gowdy - said that nothing “could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi.” And according to the Republican Chief Counsel (a former DOD Chief of Staff), "I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5:15 in the morning on the 12th of September if Benghazi, Libya. So let me start with that positing or that stipulation ... I don’t see any way to influence what occurred there. But what I am worried about is we’re caught by surprise On 9/11, we’ve got nothing postured to respond in a timely manner — and you can debate what’s timely, what’s untimely, but nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi."

Source: Snopes. I wonder - did Fox News ever tell y'all any of that? I'm guessing not.

That isn't Clinton/Obama "Kool-Aid" - it's the words of the guys in charge of the investigation on YOUR side.

But I get it - y'all gotta find stuff to blame Hillary for...'cause Hillary's the antiChrist and Hitler and Stalin all rolled into one, and every accusation against her must be true...even when there's no evidence at all.
Click to expand...

Real simple Glen. How many hours between the initial attack and the first man being killed.................how many? Obama didn't just sign off 4 men's lives, he was willing to let the the rest of them perish along with the civilians as well.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Real simple Glen. How many hours between the initial attack and the first man being killed.................how many? Obama didn't just sign off 4 men's lives, he was willing to let the the rest of them perish along with the civilians as well.
Click to expand...

So Trey Gowdy and the former DOD Chief of Staff were lying when they both said in so many words that there was nothing the military could have done?
 
cpwill said:
To be fair, it's a military tradition, not a political one. Military dudes were ready to go in.
Click to expand...

Yes, but The Butcher of Benghazi stopped them.
 
Moot said:
Can you say false comparison? I'm sure Mr. Kettle appreciates you using his moment of glory for your political agenda on the Benghazi victims.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Mr. Kettle's moment of glory...but you woudn't understand.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So Trey Gowdy and the former DOD Chief of Staff were lying when they both said in so many words that there was nothing the military could have done?
Click to expand...

The State Dept. received over 600 requests from the embassy prior to actual attack. Hillary Clinton is a murderer.
 
MaggieD said:
So, Obama was live presenting the Medal of Honor To ret. Lt. Col. Kettles a few minutes ago. As he described his heroic service in Vietnam Nam rescuing downed pilots, he talked about the military tradition of leaving no one behind. And how this remarkably brave man epitomized that tradition.

No one left behind. Can you say Benghazi?
Click to expand...

In Obama's view 'what difference does it make?' ??

But yeah, pretty class-less. Completely tone deaf.
 
Quazimodo said:
It wasn't Mr. Kettle's moment of glory...but you woudn't understand.
Click to expand...

Wrongo.

From the OP...

So, Obama was live presenting the Medal of Honor To ret. Lt. Col. Kettles a few minutes ago. As he described his heroic service in Vietnam Nam rescuing downed pilots, he talked about the military tradition of leaving no one behind. And how this remarkably brave man epitomized that tradition....
Click to expand...

It's not that difficult to understand....if you read the OP...before she politicized it by comparing it to Benghazi.
 
Quazimodo said:
The State Dept. received over 600 requests from the embassy prior to actual attack. Hillary Clinton is a murderer.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what the word "murder" means.
 
MaggieD said:
So, Obama was live presenting the Medal of Honor To ret. Lt. Col. Kettles a few minutes ago. As he described his heroic service in Vietnam Nam rescuing downed pilots, he talked about the military tradition of leaving no one behind. And how this remarkably brave man epitomized that tradition.

No one left behind. Can you say Benghazi?
Click to expand...

Nobody was left behind in Benghazi.

Thirty nine attacks occurred against US diplomats during President Bush 2's tenure. Sixty people were killed in those attacks. Lucky for republicans, the democrats didn't parade those deaths around for political gain.

Pity that republicans didn't have the decency to reciprocate.
 
Absentglare said:
Nobody was left behind in Benghazi.

Thirty nine attacks occurred against US diplomats during President Bush 2's tenure. Sixty people were killed in those attacks. Lucky for republicans, the democrats didn't parade those deaths around for political gain.

Pity that republicans didn't have the decency to reciprocate.
Click to expand...

And did anyone in the Bush Admin try to blame them on a YouTube video?
 
MaggieD said:
And did anyone in the Bush Admin try to blame them on a YouTube video?
Click to expand...

Were repeated requests for additional security ignored and / or denied?
Was the threat of attack as well known as it was in Benghazi?
 
MaggieD said:
And did anyone in the Bush Admin try to blame them on a YouTube video?
Click to expand...

Uhh... They blamed the dozens of protests about the video on the video.

Eyewitness accounts in Libya claimed that the attackers credited the video for the attack, as reported by the associated press in Libya.

The person responsible for the attack was captured and credited the video for the attack.

To accuse them of malfeasance is just partisan rhetoric.
 
eohrnberger said:
Were repeated requests for additional security ignored and / or denied?
Was the threat of attack as well known as it was in Benghazi?
Click to expand...

Yes, US diplomats are often engaged in war torn countries where they are in considerable danger, and requests for additional security are often denied.

Did you not know that ? Why can't people approach this objectively instead of blindly buying the rhetoric they're sold ?

Oh and Ambassador Stevens chose to go to Benghazi that day, he was based in Tripoli. But that doesn't back your dishonest narrative that they believed it was in such clear and present danger.
 
Maggie,
He was only talking about other military people leaving no one behind.

He, on the other hand, would put footprints up your back to unass the area....then wave as the helo pulls away.
 
Quazimodo said:
The State Dept. received over 600 requests from the embassy prior to actual attack. Hillary Clinton is a murderer.
Click to expand...

And when Obama requested more funding for the State Department for embassy security from the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, what did they do? From CNN:

According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).
A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.
However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.
Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.

But it was STILL $270M less than what the administration had requested. When there's not enough funding to provide security at all embassies, the State Department is FORCED to not have enough security. "We're not going to give you enough money to provide more security, but if anything happens, it's still your fault!"

In other words, the GOP didn't want to sufficiently fund the security of the embassies, but sure as hell wanted to point the finger when it turned out that the security was insufficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom