• 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??

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.

So, why didn't the State Dept., under Secretary Clinton's "leadership," close the Embassy and bring our people home. Other countries did.
 
So, why didn't the State Dept., under Secretary Clinton's "leadership," close the Embassy and bring our people home. Other countries did.

Probably for the same reason Reagan didn't close our embassies in Moscow, Beijing, and several other despotic regimes around the world. State Department employees know full well that they might be in dangerous situations - that comes with the job.
 
Probably for the same reason Reagan didn't close our embassies in Moscow, Beijing, and several other despotic regimes around the world. State Department employees know full well that they might be in dangerous situations - that comes with the job.

I'm confused. All this time, I thought we were talking about the Embassy in Benghazi. Historical and moral relativism don't work here. Please stay on task.
 
So, why didn't the State Dept., under Secretary Clinton's "leadership," close the Embassy and bring our people home. Other countries did.

For the same reason the ambassador refused additional security on several occasions, it was a CIA operation in Benghazi and they did not want the extra attention of a larger security detail and they had an "interest" in the area. Just because there was no investigation of the CIA's involvement does not mean they were not the reason for our presence there. There was no reason to get the real story if it did not implicate Obama or Hillary. That is why we still don't know what really happened.
 
I'm confused. All this time, I thought we were talking about the Embassy in Benghazi. Historical and moral relativism don't work here. Please stay on task.

There never was a U.S. embassy in Benghazi only an "outpost" which was in reality a cover for the CIA.
 
There never was a U.S. embassy in Benghazi only an "outpost" which was in reality a cover for the CIA.

An embassy is a permanent diplomatic mission led by an ambassador. The Embassy at Benghazi, Libya met the criteria.
 
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?

What does Benghazi have to do with a military tradition? It was not a military operation and no one was left behind. All four of those killed were recovered and returned to the United States.
 
An embassy is a permanent diplomatic mission led by an ambassador. The Embassy at Benghazi, Libya met the criteria.

Sorry but no. There was nothing permanent about the "consulate" in Benghazi and it was NEVER an embassy. It was a part of the CIA's efforts there which is why they mounted the unsuccessful defense of it.

JERUSALEM – The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, actually served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials.

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The distinction may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a “consulate.” Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.

Since the mission was attacked last month, countless news media reports around the world have referred to the obscure post as a U.S. consulate. That theme continues to permeate the media, with articles daily referencing a “consulate” in Benghazi.

U.S. officials have been more careful in their rhetoric while not contradicting the media narrative that a consulate was attacked.

Read more at This is what Benghazi ‘consulate’ really was
 
Last edited:
I'm confused. All this time, I thought we were talking about the Embassy in Benghazi. Historical and moral relativism don't work here. Please stay on task.

Oh, I see. In your world, it's not proper to compare what happens in one embassy to what threats are faced by other embassies. In other words, you believe that I should not compare apples to apples, but just keep focused on that one apple...and not look at the other apples for reference.

Noted.
 
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.

And your speculation about President Obama is based on ...?

An embassy is a permanent diplomatic mission led by an ambassador. The Embassy at Benghazi, Libya met the criteria.

There was no embassy in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens was stationed in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

Try not to get basic facts wrong.
 
And your speculation about President Obama is based on ...?



There was no embassy in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens was stationed in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

Try not to get basic facts wrong.

based on his complete cowardice in the face of the enemy, and his ability to make excuses for all the evil they do. He cannot even say the word Islamic Terrorism, and additionally makes excuses for them, like saying the Crusades were much worse, and implying we brought all this upon ourselves because of what happened in the 1300's or so.

History will prove he has been a closet Muslim all the time. He proves it each and every day.

When Islamic terrorists kill people on American soil, he calls for disarming Americans each and every time.

Obama..." if someone is shooting at you, then you should surrender your guns".
 
based on his complete cowardice in the face of the enemy, and his ability to make excuses for all the evil they do. He cannot even say the word Islamic Terrorism, and additionally makes excuses for them, like saying the Crusades were much worse, and implying we brought all this upon ourselves because of what happened in the 1300's or so.

History will prove he has been a closet Muslim all the time. He proves it each and every day.

When Islamic terrorists kill people on American soil, he calls for disarming Americans each and every time.

Obama..." if someone is shooting at you, then you should surrender your guns".

What cowardice ? What the hell are you talking about ?

If i ask you for a specific example again, can you provide something other than demonization rhetoric ?
 
Benghazi is not the only attack that has ever happened on a US compound. If other presidents can present awards to soldiers why can't Obama?

He can. It's easy. He has no sense of shame.
 
Does not mean left behind alive, means we take the bodies with us, we got their bodies, no one could have reacted in time to save them and they should not have been there to begin with.

No one tried to save them after hours and hours and hours of being under attack.

Months and months of requests for additional security were denied.

But you're right about one thing, they should have not been there to begin with.

Thanks Secretary Clinton.
 
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.

So its the republican's fault?

Priceless...
 
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?

Q. How can Obama say that with a straight face?

A. Practice.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066113955 said:
So its the republican's fault?

Priceless...

The GOP wouldn't give the State Department the funding they required to keep the embassies and their staffs safe...and the the GOP blows a gasket when an ambassador gets attacked and killed.

If you want someone to get a job done, you can't take the person's tools away and still tell the person, "make sure it's done right." It's like nearly everything else in life: "You get what you pay for." And if a department's not going to get the funding it needs for security, it's going to be more vulnerable to attack.

I'm not sure exactly how this is so difficult for y'all to understand. Oh, wait - yeah, I DO understand! It was Hillary, and so it didn't matter how crappy the funding was, it didn't matter how far away the military was...she is and must always be the villain, no matter what! And no matter how many times she's investigated and found innocent of ANY wrongdoing (like the seven or eight investigations on Benghazi, most of which were led by the GOP House), she MUST be guilty. No need for evidence or facts or common sense - if her name is in any way involved, she MUST be guilty!
 
The GOP wouldn't give the State Department the funding they required to keep the embassies and their staffs safe...and the the GOP blows a gasket when an ambassador gets attacked and killed.

If you want someone to get a job done, you can't take the person's tools away and still tell the person, "make sure it's done right." It's like nearly everything else in life: "You get what you pay for." And if a department's not going to get the funding it needs for security, it's going to be more vulnerable to attack.

I'm not sure exactly how this is so difficult for y'all to understand. Oh, wait - yeah, I DO understand! It was Hillary, and so it didn't matter how crappy the funding was, it didn't matter how far away the military was...she is and must always be the villain, no matter what! And no matter how many times she's investigated and found innocent of ANY wrongdoing (like the seven or eight investigations on Benghazi, most of which were led by the GOP House), she MUST be guilty. No need for evidence or facts or common sense - if her name is in any way involved, she MUST be guilty!

The decision on how to use whatever funding the State Department received was always Hillary's responsibility. If she chose to reduce security spending in favor of some other spending...and if that resulted in American deaths...that is her responsibility.

Hillary isn't always the villain...only when her screw-ups result in death or decreased security of our citizens.
 
"How could Obama say this with a straight face??"

Maggie, he is a politician. That is what politicians do. Truth is not the issue. What matters is the sincerity with which the lies are delivered.
 
Back
Top Bottom