• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Biden Claims He Voted Against Afghanistan, Iraq Wars

Dion said:
He references two of the biggest scams in congress ... He states " I was there I voted against them".
Click to expand...
Specifically, what bills/resolutions do you think he refers to here, and why?
 
H. Lee White said:
On the contrary - getting rid of weak, ineffectual leaders who care less about security issues than they do election results only strenghtens the couintry and hinders our enemies.
Click to expand...

Can you provide some links to Romney's policy statements on the security of diplomatic stations ... dating back farther than five weeks ago? Or, if that's asking too much, how about ANY statement by Romney about the staffing of diplomatic stations in his whole life ... from before five weeks ago.
 
AdamT said:
Can you provide some links to Romney's policy statements on the security of diplomatic stations ... dating back farther than five weeks ago?
Click to expand...
Why should I need to provide a quote prior to a situation that did not exist regarding that situation that did not yet exist?
Romney didn't screw this up - The Obama's administration did. Where does the buck stop?
 
H. Lee White said:
Why should I need to provide a quote prior to a situation that did not exist regarding that situation that did not yet exist?
Romney didn't screw this up - The Obama's administration did. Where does the buck stop?
Click to expand...

Well, you seem to think that Romney would have done a better job on this, so presumably you have some reason for thinking so. Surely he must have addressed the issue? Because if he didn't, he's just reacting to something just like Obama is.

The point is that the criticism is bull****. These decisions are made well below cabinet level. It wouldn't have mattered who was president. The woman who made the call was hired under Reagan and steadily promoted through the administrations of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.
 
H. Lee White said:
Why should I need to provide a quote prior to a situation that did not exist regarding that situation that did not yet exist?
Romney didn't screw this up - The Obama's administration did. Where does the buck stop?
Click to expand...

the buck dont stop with Obama... it stops with who he throws under the bus.. Obama is a loser..
 
AdamT said:
Well, you seem to think that Romney would have done a better job on this, so presumably you have some reason for thinking so. Surely he must have addressed the issue? Because if he didn't, he's just reacting to something just like Obama is.
Click to expand...
This is just stupid. There's no way for Romney to assess or address the failure to secure the relevant embasies before the failure to secure them was made public.
The ciricism is spot-on - you simply do not like it because there's no way to defend your boy from it.
Where does the buck stop?
 
H. Lee White said:
This is just stupid. There's no way for Romney to assess or address the failure to secure the relevant embasies before the failure to secure them was made public.
The ciricism is spot-on - you simply do not like it because there's no way to defend your boy from it.
Where does the buck stop?
Click to expand...

The criticism is just stupid. The results would have been no different if Romney or anyone else was president. The president's job is to put qualified people in place and let them do their job. If they don't, then the president is responsible for dealing with the situation. In this case DAS Lamb was highly qualified for her post, so Obama did his job in that respect. It appears that she may have screwed up, so it's now incumbent on the president to deal with the screwup, and he is doing that was we speak.
 
AdamT said:
The criticism is just stupid. The results would have been no different if Romney or anyone else was president. The president's job is to put qualified people in place and let them do their job. If they don't, then the president is responsible for dealing with the situation. In this case DAS Lamb was highly qualified for her post, so Obama did his job in that respect. It appears that she may have screwed up, so it's now incumbent on the president to deal with the screwup, and he is doing that was we speak.
Click to expand...

Right. Dealing with the screwup by blaming it on something that didn't happen for at least a week after he knew it didn't happen. State knew there was no "video" riot before he made his initial statement the next morning.
 
No, it's still a stupid -- and callous -- criticism. Stop trying to turn the deaths of patriots into a campaign commercial. It's grotesque.

The father of Christopher Stephens, the United States ambassador who was killed in the attack in Libya last month, said Saturday that it would be "abhorrent" for his son's death to be politicized in the presidential campaign.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Jan Stevens said the attack on Benghazi and the ensuing investigation has no place in the upcoming election.

"The security matters are being adequately investigated," Stevens, who is getting briefings from the State Department on the investigation, said. "We don’t pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That’s where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena."
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
No, it's still a stupid -- and callous -- criticism. Stop trying to turn the deaths of patriots into a campaign commercial. It's grotesque.
Click to expand...

It absolutely goes to the core of the Administration -- preparedness, policy, and especially how it's handled, which for at least a week was by propagating a complete lie, and a lie which placed a good measure of the blame on what Americans did here at home, when it had nothing to do with it whatsoever, not even tangentially. It's neither stupid nor callous, and labeling it so is the realm of the pure hack.

And here I thought "lies" were the reasons one shouldn't vote Romney/Ryan. Indeed, ROMNEY'S reaction to it was news fodder for two solid weeks.
 
Harshaw said:
It absolutely goes to the core of the Administration -- preparedness, policy, and especially how it's handled, which for at least a week was by propagating a complete lie, and a lie which placed a good measure of the blame on what Americans did here at home, when it had nothing to do with it whatsoever, not even tangentially. It's neither stupid nor callous, and labeling it so is the realm of the pure hack.

And here I thought "lies" were the reasons one shouldn't vote Romney/Ryan. Indeed, ROMNEY'S reaction to it was news fodder for two solid weeks.
Click to expand...

It is a pathetic, grotesque attempt to play on people's emotions, when families involved have explicitly stated that they don't want their loved ones' murders exploited for political purposes.

The administration issued ambiguous and sometimes conflicting explanations for about a week. OMG.

omg-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-1478.jpg
 
AdamT said:
The criticism is just stupid. The results would have been no different if Romney or anyone else was president.
Click to expand...
You have no idea if this is true or not, and even if so, it doesnt change the fact that the buck stops with Obama.
 
AdamT said:
Winning the CBS poll of uncommitted voters by 20 points suggests that it didn't just appeal to the left.
Click to expand...

A CBS poll? Yeah, that's precisely what it means. Worst and some of the most partisan polling anywhere.
 
H. Lee White said:
This is just stupid. There's no way for Romney to assess or address the failure to secure the relevant embasies before the failure to secure them was made public.
The ciricism is spot-on - you simply do not like it because there's no way to defend your boy from it.
Where does the buck stop?
Click to expand...

right on.. good luck with the guy you are debating..
 
clownboy said:
A CBS poll? Yeah, that's precisely what it means. Worst and some of the most partisan polling anywhere.
Click to expand...

let these fools think they are winning.. they are coming unhinged.. soon they will tell us -2% growth is awesome and Obama can get us there ...
 
H. Lee White said:
You have no idea if this is true or not, and even if so, it doesnt change the fact that the buck stops with Obama.
Click to expand...

Youre right.. he has no idea.. but the buck stops with whoever Obama throws under the bus..LOL
 
Travis007 said:
Youre right.. he has no idea.. but the buck stops with whoever Obama throws under the bus..LOL
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the case.
Of course, these are the very same people that wanted GWB sent up before the ICC for war crimes because of Abu Ghraib.
 
H. Lee White said:
That's pretty much the case.
Of course, these are the very same people that wanted GWB sent up before the ICC for war crimes because of Abu Ghraib.
Click to expand...

I know.. pretty sickening.. my tolerance of lib stupity is at all time low..I can no longer handle lib stupidity.. ( see my sig line)...
 
H. Lee White said:
That's pretty much the case.
Of course, these are the very same people that wanted GWB sent up before the ICC for war crimes because of Abu Ghraib.
Click to expand...

It's been quite a while since we've had a president with a "buck stops here" attitude, hasn't it?
 
AdamT said:
The administration issued ambiguous and sometimes conflicting explanations for about a week. OMG.
Click to expand...

No, it issued explanations which it knew were not true. It just plain LIED to everyone for more than a week. To characterize it this way, especially in light of the ample information now out there, is indeed plain, straight-up political hackery.

There's no "ambiguity." They said for about 7-10 days the attack happened as a response to a video, when they knew the very next morning that there was no riot, no "video" protest, only an attack.

This is obviously OK with you; "Democrats: **** YEAH!" motivates just about everything you do around here. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't deeply concern the American people.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it issued explanations which it knew were not true. It just plain LIED to everyone for more than a week. To characterize it this way, especially in light of the ample information now out there, is indeed plain, straight-up political hackery.

There's no "ambiguity." They said for about 7-10 days the attack happened as a response to a video, when they knew the very next morning that there was no riot, no "video" protest, only an attack.

This is obviously OK with you; "Democrats: **** YEAH!" motivates just about everything you do around here. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't deeply concern the American people.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that Team Obama hopes this does not come up toight.
Pretty sure that Team Romney will make sure it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom