2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

BS Sammy and shame on you for even going there!This is a man who you want as President yet he knew ...as you admit to nothing of the intel or any facts the President had yet he'll open his mouth and speak on a subject with out even knowing if the families of the victims have even been notified yet,BS!

I'll agree with you Romney spoke too soon and was trying to score political points. Sad part is now that we know the facts he was correct but that still does not make what he said at that time OK.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'll agree with you Romney spoke too soon and was trying to score political points. Sad part is now that we know the facts he was correct but that still does not make what he said at that time OK.

How was he correct? He wasn't. No one was. In fact, we're still receiving information from intelligence on the ground almost a month later.

Acts of terror..terrorists act? Are you people kidding? You think this is a winning message? You think there was some secret cover-up? Right. Just like Solyndra and Fast and Furious. Keep it up Republicans.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

How was he correct? He wasn't. No one was. In fact, we're still receiving information from intelligence on the ground almost a month later.

Acts of terror..terrorists act? Are you people kidding? You think this is a winning message? You think there was some secret cover-up? Right. Just like Solyndra and Fast and Furious. Keep it up Republicans.

Well its your man one day saying its a terrorist attack and then the following that up by saying it was an uncontrolled mob over a movie. Its also his administration who denied extra security. Plenty of evidences shows they knew it was a terrorist attack but for some reason (I'd say because they denied more security) they said it was a mob.

Funny you even bring up Fast and Furious. So why is the president not providing the documents requested by cobgress if he has nothing to coved up?

I don't recall people saying the president was covering up the Solyndra mess we just said that he loaned them money after his own staff warned him not to give them the money.

Strike 3 your out.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well its your man one day saying its a terrorist attack and then the following that up by saying it was an uncontrolled mob over a movie. Its also his administration who denied extra security. Plenty of evidences shows they knew it was a terrorist attack but for some reason (I'd say because they denied more security) they said it was a mob.

Funny you even bring up Fast and Furious. So why is the president not providing the documents requested by cobgress if he has nothing to coved up?

I don't recall people saying the president was covering up the Solyndra mess we just said that he loaned them money after his own staff warned him not to give them the money.

Strike 3 your out.

The security request was in Tripoli 400 miles away, not Benghazi where the attack took place. That's a fact. So you're wrong.

The Administration didn't deny security. Security requests are made to State Department. The president doesn't have purview over security at Embassy posts. It's also true that Congress cut funding for additional embassy security.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The security request was in Tripoli 400 miles away, not Benghazi where the attack took place. That's a fact. So you're wrong.

The Administration didn't deny security. Security requests are made to State Department. The president doesn't have purview over security at Embassy posts. It's also true that Congress cut funding for additional embassy security.

He didn't have problem sending security after it happened all arround the world as he stated in the debate.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

He didn't have problem sending security after it happened all arround the world as he stated in the debate.

I guess my point is, it's easy to critique what should have happened in the aftermath. How things could have been done better. The truth is getting a security detail for the Benghazi consulate was a very tricky and complicated matter that involved the Libyan government and ours. They are a country in transition after the fall of Ghadafy. You know, we don't go to these countries expecting rockets to be aimed at us. It's just part of who we are as a nation. Freedom is expressed both ways. We were their to help the democratic process move in the right direction. Barricading our officials behind barbed wire fences and full body armored Marines sends a mixed message about why we're there and whom we're helping.

Libya wasn't high on the list of potential terror threats. Someone made a judgement call. In hindsight, it was a bad call. Both the president and Secretary Clinton have said as much. So we could go back and forth and play the blame game, but that won't bring back Ambassador Stevens or the other Americans that were killed.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The security request was in Tripoli 400 miles away, not Benghazi where the attack took place. That's a fact. So you're wrong.

The Administration didn't deny security. Security requests are made to State Department. The president doesn't have purview over security at Embassy posts. It's also true that Congress cut funding for additional embassy security.

You better tell that to his state department.

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politi...ity/index.html

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You better tell that to his state department.

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

CNN Fact Check: What about the security in Benghazi? - CNN.com

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

[saden1]

LOL...I definitely don't have it.