Obama's unilateral disarmament
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Adif understanding

United States

#21 Feb 1, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You are absoulutely right. What difference does the motivation for the attack make? From what I saw, the major outrage from congress is over whether the White House/CIA was wrong about the motivation of the attackers. Maybe that is because congress refused to authorize funds for updated security at those outposts and outrage about that would get congress in the soup too.
The difference it makes is whether or not the officials were competent in their administrating and handling of government business. If it was a religious riot because someone defamed the illiterate pedophile prophet of Islam, then it is largely unforeseen and difficult to predict. If it was an attack by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9/11 in a war torn area known to have active Al Qaeda cells operating, well then it is a failure of government and someone needs to be replaced at their job.

As for congress not authorizing monies, congress doesn't deal with that level of detail in the budget. While it can grant money for specific purposes, the lack of doing so didn't stop the state department from providing security nor did it stop the DOD from assisting the state department. That failure to act, that failure to provide what many people think would have been simply an obvious necessity that other years had without question, the failure to provide security on one day that has a specific meaning outside of any crap movie trailer, rests completely on the administration and the departments under it.
Adif understanding

United States

#22 Feb 1, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Demonstrations in Egypt were already going on. Recall that Romney made reference to them immediately following the Benghazi killings--making the accusation that alleged apologies to the protesters in Egypt were responsible for the Benghazi killings.
yep. I mistook something else on it. the protest were happening at the same times.

And yep, Romney did jump at the chance to blast the administration for apologizing for American Freedom of speech and freedom of religion..
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#23 Feb 1, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>The difference it makes is whether or not the officials were competent in their administrating and handling of government business. If it was a religious riot because someone defamed the illiterate pedophile prophet of Islam, then it is largely unforeseen and difficult to predict. If it was an attack by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9/11 in a war torn area known to have active Al Qaeda cells operating, well then it is a failure of government and someone needs to be replaced at their job.
As for congress not authorizing monies, congress doesn't deal with that level of detail in the budget. While it can grant money for specific purposes, the lack of doing so didn't stop the state department from providing security nor did it stop the DOD from assisting the state department. That failure to act, that failure to provide what many people think would have been simply an obvious necessity that other years had without question, the failure to provide security on one day that has a specific meaning outside of any crap movie trailer, rests completely on the administration and the departments under it.
If that was really the motivation, to identify a failure in the system, then what people speculated that the motive was a day or two or ten immediately after the attack is irrelevant. Was is important is our knowledge of the motivation today. But all the Right wants to do is focus on whether the initial reports were accurate so that they can play their little game.

I don't think you understand the funding issue. My understanding is that the State Department needed congressional approval to use certain allocated funds for a different use, increased security, and that approval was withheld. One party, the Democrats are trying to honestly assess what happened, see where mistakes were made and improve the situation to hopefully save people who are still alive and can be saved. The other party us trying to capitalize on the deaths of four Americans for their own personal political gain.
Adif understanding

United States

#24 Feb 1, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was really the motivation, to identify a failure in the system, then what people speculated that the motive was a day or two or ten immediately after the attack is irrelevant. Was is important is our knowledge of the motivation today. But all the Right wants to do is focus on whether the initial reports were accurate so that they can play their little game.
I don't think you understand the funding issue. My understanding is that the State Department needed congressional approval to use certain allocated funds for a different use, increased security, and that approval was withheld. One party, the Democrats are trying to honestly assess what happened, see where mistakes were made and improve the situation to hopefully save people who are still alive and can be saved. The other party us trying to capitalize on the deaths of four Americans for their own personal political gain.
First, the investigation is trying to determine if this is an act of an incompetent head of a department or an oversight by an administration looking for an October surprise to solidify his re-election. Now, it could be the later with absolutely no knowledge on the administration's behalf. Either way, incompetence, malice, or whatever, what happened needs to be discovered in order to ensure it doesn't happen again.

As for the funding, the administration in it's 2012 budget asked for 2.641 billion in funding that would be applied to embassy security. Congress, both the house and senate, with democrats as well as republicans, passed a budget that was more then previous years but about 10% less then what the president asked for (270 million less). Once the funding is made, the administration and the departments under it can use the funding however they see fit unless a specific law denies that. The state department did not need congressional oversight in it's spending. Someone lied to you.

As for republicans and democrats on the issue, I think you have come to that conclusion based on severely defective information.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#25 Feb 1, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>First, the investigation is trying to determine if this is an act of an incompetent head of a department or an oversight by an administration looking for an October surprise to solidify his re-election. Now, it could be the later with absolutely no knowledge on the administration's behalf. Either way, incompetence, malice, or whatever, what happened needs to be discovered in order to ensure it doesn't happen again.
As for the funding, the administration in it's 2012 budget asked for 2.641 billion in funding that would be applied to embassy security. Congress, both the house and senate, with democrats as well as republicans, passed a budget that was more then previous years but about 10% less then what the president asked for (270 million less). Once the funding is made, the administration and the departments under it can use the funding however they see fit unless a specific law denies that. The state department did not need congressional oversight in it's spending. Someone lied to you.
As for republicans and democrats on the issue, I think you have come to that conclusion based on severely defective information.
How does the initial characterization of the motivation of the attack help determine who, if anyone, in the government bears responsibility for the attack?
Adif understanding

United States

#26 Feb 1, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
How does the initial characterization of the motivation of the attack help determine who, if anyone, in the government bears responsibility for the attack?
The initial characterization can pinpoint errors within the investigation. If this was a tail that wags the dog in order for an October surprise, then the evidence will line up with it and we will know where the failure to protect out people came from. If it is incompetence, then the evidence will line up too.

The problem is, without the facts, we will never know and even if the facts are eventually turned over, it will not be trusted as completely as it should by as many of the people as it should.

Take Obama's birth certificate for instance. Democrats supporting Hillary in the 2008 primary initially challenged Obama's natural citizenship and eligibility to be president. That challenge was not satisfied because the court case got thrown out. Now Obama could have pulled a McCain stunt and said in your faces biatches as he showed his birth certificate but instead of being like McCain, he chose to hide it so in order to retain a political advantage with his base. Well, over the years he fought tooth and nail from ever validating his eligibility to be president and now that he has, a good portion of people do not believe him and think it's all a conspiracy (which evidently will cause the civil war when what they see as an illegitimate president takes their guns away). Another situation like this is Hillary's dealings with the Rose law firm in which she was participating in land dealings that bankrupted a local bank and started part of the savings and loan crisis that Carter and Reagan had to deal with. This came to front center when Bill Clinton was elected president and most all of the informed people surrounding the case that weren't Clinton supporters still suspect her of participating in illegal activities. But Billing records that were sought after since the beginning of Clinton's presidency that no one could find until one day when she moves a newspaper on a night stand in her study in the white house and poof they appeared and it proved she did nothing wrong. That, BTW, was the basis of this vast right wing conspiracy that was responsible for her not being able to keep her man in her bedroom.

But let me ask you something. Nixon denied knowing anything about the Watergate break-in and 3 of the 4 agents who did the break in claim it was about finding a prostitution racket ran by members of the DNC to gain political leverage over politicians in office while one of them who got the lightest sentence and ended up being a mouth piece for the DNC claimed it was about election secretes. Nixon's association with this was never proven and he resigned under the threat of impeachment over a 18 and 1/2 minute gap in recordings he normally kept that congress wanted. So why was it important for congress to get to the bottom of that if it is not important for congress to get to the bottom of this?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Comey Interview 12 min d pants 187
Comrade Donald Trump 39 min Escondito 92
Syracuse University Whitey Racists Gone Wild 44 min Escondito 15
Trump Doctor Drunk 1 hr Escondito 5
Hi im Holly Hylton Your Local Racist Starbucks ... 1 hr Escondito 103
Police officers shot in Dallas while responding... 5 hr Leftist handjob 4
Racist white van mows pedestrians down in Toronto 6 hr Leftist handjob 5
Sean Hannity 7 hr Leftist handjob 164

Columbus Jobs

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages