Anyone really give a fuck about Benghazi?

[Matt 26z]

Why are the Republicans running with this as a prime election issue?

Obama took a couple weeks to refer to it as a terrorist attack!!!! Oh the horror!!!!!

And can you imagine the shit storm had US soldiers been guarding the place during the attack? They would have been killed by the mob too.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Why are the Republicans running with this as a prime election issue?

Obama took a couple weeks to refer to it as a terrorist attack!!!! Oh the horror!!!!!

And can you imagine the shit storm had US soldiers been guarding the place during the attack? They would have been killed by the mob too.

Obama doesn't care so I don't care. It's all good!

[Helix]

There is no spoon.

[BIGTYMER]

What are they hiding?

Did the US provide the weapons?
Maybe Obama didn't want anything labeled a terrorist attack before the election?

Something stinks.

[directfiesta]

Because,, Americans care dearly for Afghans , for Iraqis then , OK for Tunisians maybe , damn, Egyptians I am sure ... , can I say Libyans ... .... OK, flavor of the day : syrians ....

So much caring .....

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Who cares?

Stop invading countries...THAT is terrorism

I agree with you.

Colonel Gaddafi had actually moved toward the U.S. and yet we went in there and used our air power to help him be overthrown and killed.

I still haven't figured that out yet.

Could you imagine if a group rose up against the U.S. govt.? The feds would send in the army and wipe them off the face of the Earth. Our govt. would consider that to be "terrorism" and treason and anything else they could think of.

But when it happened in Libya...we cut Gaddafi off at the knees with our military power. We actually (once again) overthrew another countries govt.!

Afghanistan, Iraq, & Libya have all had their govt.'s removed by violence with the help of our military.

I can't help but think that history will not look back on the United States very kindly in the future.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I agree with you.

Colonel Gaddafi had actually moved toward the U.S. and yet we went in there and used our air power to help him be overthrown and killed.

I still haven't figured that out yet.

Could you imagine if a group rose up against the U.S. govt.? The feds would send in the army and wipe them off the face of the Earth. Our govt. would consider that to be "terrorism" and treason and anything else they could think of.

But when it happened in Libya...we cut Gaddafi off at the knees with our military power. We actually (once again) overthrew another countries govt.!

Afghanistan, Iraq, & Libya have all had their govt.'s removed by violence with the help of our military.

I can't help but think that history will not look back on the United States very kindly in the future.

But this kind of thing was not supposed to happen under Obama.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Obama took a couple weeks to refer to it as a terrorist attack!!!! Oh the horror!!!!!

I thought they proved that was false. or effectively false - he called it terrorism the following day, in his big speech. but it took a while before the first storyline, of a spontaneous mob, was replaced with teh second storyline of a either planned or opportunistic attack.

I said it had a lot of the signs of a planned ambush when the first story, that teh ambassador was kiiled by a rocket attack on his car, dominated the news.

it turns out that story was all wrong - he was killed in the embassy itself after rushing there to see what was happening - and the dominant storyline is still "killed by smoke inhalation" while trapped in a safe room in the embassy, which had been set afire.

people care about benghazi because libyan oil is a crucial underpin to the brent oil price, and the price of brent influences to the point of controlling the price of all teh high grade liquid fuels worldwide.

republican rank-and-file care about it because they are really afraid of muslims, and republican leadership can use that fear to manipulate them emotionally.

see those camelfuckers are just waiting to take away our freedoms and replace the constitution with sharia law - and you know, what with camels and old russian rpgs, we would just be helpless to stop them.

nothing scares a republican like a camelfucker with an rpg in a country 8000 miles away.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Dvae

But this kind of thing was not supposed to happen under Obama.

That's been the problem I have had with Obama since day one.

I voted for him because the things he said in the last election made sense to me. He said we would change our foreign policy and stop trying to scare people with "terrorism" and start talking to other countries whom we have stopped talking to, etc.

He made a lot of sense to me.

But instead...he's just followed in Bush's militaristic opportunism ways around the world. We just keep on sticking our nose in other people's business and calling it "national defense".

Our fucking country hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812.
And we haven't had a military attack on us since Pearl Harbor 70 years ago.

That's another reason I'm voting Libertarian this year. Neither Obama nor Romney are going to stop the course we are on militarily, or on our own personal freedom and liberty and privacy.

Neither man is acceptable to me. I'm voting for the guy who wants to STOP interfering and invading other countries, STOP all obscenity laws that could affect our industry, and STOP the drug war in it's tracks.
Gary Johnson.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Bill8

I thought they proved that was false. or effectively false - he called it terrorism the following day, in his big speech. but it took a while before the first storyline, of a spontaneous mob, was replaced with teh second storyline of a either planned or opportunistic attack.

Problem is he went on David Letterman and The View and said flat out it was caused by a protest over that stupid video that's been out since July.

Meanwhile, everybody and their brother realized it happened on the anniversary of 9-11 and was a military style attack.

THEN he went to the U.N. and gave a freakin' speech claiming that it was the video that caused it.

He did say that "no act of terror" would go unpunished on the next day...right before he came here to Vegas a couple of hours later for a big campaign fund raiser.

He definitely was trying to make us all think it was that video. He kept saying it over and over in speeches. He also had his press guy and other officials all saying it too.

Not sure what the purpose of it was. Some say it was because he didn't want his policies in the Middle East to look weak in regards to how he handled Egypt and Iran and our dealings with other countries.

I guess sending drones to kill people isn't really a "policy". Just more of the Bush way of doing things.

[baddog]

Because it shows his lack of leadership ability on foreign matters as much as in domestic matters.

[Helix]

He's a terrible manager that needs to be fired.

[Redrob]

I hang it on the the Republicans.

Excerpt from a Dana Milbank editorial in the Washington Post, October 9th.

"For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department?s Worldwide Security Protection program ? well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration?s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration?s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans? proposed cuts to her department would be ?detrimental to America?s national security? ? a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan?s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security."

Link to Article.

[buzzard]

You should, if you know the CIA And Security forces we're both 'conveniently' absent when the attack occured.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Redrob

I hang it on the the Republicans.

How come it costs billions of dollars to put some security in 270 or so embassies?

It's supposed to be marines. They already are getting paid to be marines. The housing is already there. So what the fuck is the billions of dollars for? Food?

Our govt. is just a goddamn money spending monster. If something costs a nickel they'll find a way to spend a hundred dollars so somebody can pocket the money under the table.

[helterskelter808]

[BIGTYMER]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Sickening..

[papill0n]

yeah its almost like its not just one man making all the decisions

i think im onto something here people!

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by Bill8

he was killed in the embassy itself after rushing there to see what was happening

Makes one wonder why a white American rushed to the scene of a rowdy Arab crowd around his embassy. Was he trying to save sensitive (and controversial) documents inside?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Makes one wonder why a white American rushed to the scene of a rowdy Arab crowd around his embassy. Was he trying to save sensitive (and controversial) documents inside?

wow

[Redrob]

Just one note.

The compound attacked in Benghazi was not an embassy; and, not afforded embassy level protection and privileges.

The compound was a consulate, which is basically an outpost for business, visa applications, and collecting information to report up the chain.

So stop referring to the attack being on an embassy because you are wrong.

Maybe, if the Republican's hadn't been such tightwads with the funds, there would have been more for such outposts.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Maybe, if the Republican's hadn't been such tightwads with the funds, there would have been more for such outposts.

Shouldn't he have had his security detail with him though? And again....why do we need BILLIONS of dollars to protect our ambassadors?

Mitt Romney is "filthy" rich because he made $20 Million dollars last year? But the govt. needs to spend an ADDITIONAL couple of BILLION dollars for ambassadors security? Let's see...it would take Romney 50 years to make ONE billion dollars at his current rate.

If I were president I'd cut that shit to the bone. They already are supposed to have marines with them. We already pay for that with our ridiculously large military budget.

Libya is a hot spot. The ambassador was asking for more security. It isn't like we were going to go hire some off-duty cops. lol
No, we would have simply sent a few more marines...the ones we already pay. Why the fuck does it have to cost billions of dollars more?

The more that our govt. and it's spending (stealing) come to light, the more outraged and pissed off I'm getting about it.

[Slappin Fish]

When the Talibans were linked to the bombings of the USS Cole and the embassy in Kenya that killed 200 people it was ok for the Republicans to invite them over to the US and discuss pipelines... but they point fingers over what is only a choice of words??

[Slappin Fish]

Also comparing Libya with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan is retarded.

Libya was a British and French led war, all the US did was enforce a no fly zone, the same kind of zone that was enforced in Iraq in times of peace.

Republican are lashing on an incident because (whether you want dictators overthrown is another thing) the truth of the matter is Gaddafi was overthrown in record time, with minimal casualties and expense to the US.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

Gaddafi was overthrown in record time, with minimal casualties and expense to the US.

I'm saying...what are we doing overthrowing anybody???

Are we now the police of the whole world?

When I was growing up I was always taught we were the "good guys". And it kinda sounds like we are...but I'm thinking that we are not.

I remember growing up and being taught that we only entered WW2 because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.
And when I was a kid in the 1960's people were protesting AGAINST Pres. Johnson & later Nixon for the war in Vietnam because we had NO business there (another French colony).

And the media was solidly skeptical of everything the govt. did and gave wide coverage and support in their coverage to the anti-war/anti-govt. movement.

These days it seems to be the exact opposite. The media are "embedded" with the military. And everybody that gets killed is a "hero" who was "defending our freedoms". WTF?

And so-called "liberals" and the media are all kissing the ass of the govt.? People are actually asking the govt. to tax them more?

I feel like somebody knocked me out and I woke up in bizzaro world.

Overthrowing other govt's is un-American and completely against everything I ever thought our country was about.
Spending 10.6 BILLION dollars a day (4 billion of it borrowed) seems pretty much un-American too.

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm saying...what are we doing overthrowing anybody???

Oh I agree with you.

And so-called "liberals" and the media are all kissing the ass of the govt.? People are actually asking the govt. to tax them more?

If you want to vote Romney because you believe he will cut taxes and spending (which I don't think he will not in a significant way anyway) go ahead it's a valid reason.

What I am saying is that voting Romney for his foreign policy views isn't one. The Republican party has a disastrous foreign policy track record, and Romney's only foray abroad was to the very friendly UK were after only 3 days even the Murdoch owned press started calling him "Mitt the Twit". If he can't handle a 3 day field trip to the UK what makes you think he can handle the world stage.

[MovieMaster]

Simply put Obama's rhetoric of anti war anti this and that hell wheres cindy sheehan crying up a river? Wheres all the anti war protesters?

In the end history will simply say the nation grew tired of war, and didn't see an end with george bush so they elected what they thought was the furtherest thing from GW and that folks is what 2008 election came down too. The republicans looked to john mccain to take a dive as there was no chance in hell anything remotely smelling of republican winning office and well my opinion is they grabbed palin to mix it up alittle and throw a woman in there that could also take the fall.

In 4 years they would return and all would be fine... because obama would quell any protester bullshit and buy 4 more years of reorganizing the middle east much like they reorganized europe post wwII.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

If you want to vote Romney because you believe he will cut taxes and spending (which I don't think he will not in a significant way anyway) go ahead it's a valid reason.

I don't need to vote for Romney in order to get a candidate who will shrink govt.
I don't believe he will. I think he will increase the military and probably try to impose right wing religious horse shit on the country as much as he can.

Nope...I'm voting for the guy who WILL shrink govt., who will abolish anti-porn laws, abolish the "drug war" and bring our military back home. http://garyjohnson2012.com

I registered at the beginning of the month as a Libertarian. I know you might say I'm "wasting" my vote.

But I had to ask myself...wouldn't I be wasting it if I voted for either Romney or Obama since they don't represent the way I feel? They both represent their respective special interest groups just like every politician does.

Nope, I'm voting Libertarian up and down the ballot. I voted for Clinton in 92 and 96. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Obama in 2008.

This will be the first time I ever voted for freedom. And it may sound kinda corny...but I'm actually excited to vote.

[MovieMaster]

I am voting romney because he has been a leader throughout his career and shows more inclination to be a moderate and get some shit done with principal'd compromises.

Business leader - check
Gov of Mass - check
Turned around Olympics - Check

Now granted business experience isn't a pure qualification or turning around the olympics but it does show his character that he can lead and get shit done.

I prefer presidential candidates who have been Gov's of states to a senator, military general or congressman just for simple fact that they have had to balance budgets, fix issues that are bipartisan issues, as well as deal with unforeseen situations much like a president would.

But back to Romney I am voting for him because it will be a signal to the economy to get its ass in gear. If your worried about him censoring porn, please if bush didn't outlaw it or sensor it I wouldn't be worried and those who keep falling for the abortion debate get off it. It will never be overturned in the supreme court...

The economy is the only issue that matters right now as it effects everything.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by MovieMaster

I am voting romney.

Just keep in mind that just like Obama, he's anti-drugs, anti-porn, anti-freedom.

They will both keep the Patriot Act on you. The TSA is still searching us like criminals (looking for drugs more than "terrorists"). They both will continue sending our military around the world invading other countries.

Yes, Romney will do much better at bringing the economy back. But why compromise? Obama is a failure. Romney will take more of your freedom if given half a chance.

Take a look at some other candidates and check out their platforms. You might be surprised and find a candidate that really reflects what you believe in.

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I don't need to vote for Romney in order to get a candidate who will shrink govt.
I don't believe he will. I think he will increase the military and probably try to impose right wing religious horse shit on the country as much as he can.

I registered at the beginning of the month as a Libertarian. I know you might say I'm "wasting" my vote.

Good move. I don't think you are wasting your vote at all. what is unfortunate is despite all the rhetoric not you but many Libertarians are deep down more conservative than anything else, when it comes to the crunch they will still vote Romney. This will keep repeating itself election after election squeezing Libertarians and any other small party out.

[MovieMaster]

Sadly the way the govt works federal govt only gets bigger... The ideal president for these days is a reincarnation of Theodore Roosevelt.

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by MovieMaster

Business leader - check

LBOs at best starve a healthy company of funds it should be using for growth at worst kills it completely.

Don't confuse business leaders with profiteers.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

Good move. I don't think you are wasting your vote at all. what is unfortunate is despite all the rhetoric not you but many Libertarians are deep down more conservative than anything else, when it comes to the crunch they will still vote Romney. This will keep repeating itself election after election squeezing Libertarians and any other small party out.

Fiscally conservative yes.

But just like me...socially liberal.

And that describes my view. I'm a fiscal conservative all the way. And at the same time I don't think the govt. has any business telling me I can't grow a plant, or have sex with a prostitute, etc.

I actually think that the two party system could be on it's way out. Maybe not for a while...but it's a start.
The internet is opening up things for other parties now. We no longer have to just vote for the two guys we see on television. Hell, before the internet people didn't really even have a way to know about the existence of other parties.

I know I never would have known. But now that I can check them all out on the internet I have a choice. I'm thinking that as the internet keeps growing and television news becomes less and less relevant, other parties will finally have a chance to thrive.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Stop invading countries...THAT is terrorism

The USA is currently the largest terrorist organization in the world. But if you wrap it around "defending freedom" and propagandize the shit out of it every day on every media outlet, suddenly it is justified. Americans are just ignorant enough to fall for it, over, and over, and over again, all the while proudly sending their sons and daughters to a possible slaughter house, in the name of freedom of course.

[Kiopa_Matt]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Colonel Gaddafi had actually moved toward the U.S. and yet we went in there and used our air power to help him be overthrown and killed.

I still haven't figured that out yet.

Gaddafi was in the process of setting up a new currency called the African Dinar, which would have been backed by gold. Several African nations were signed on to it, plus several Middle Eastern nations were going to trade in oil with it.

The US couldn't have that, so Gaddafi was expired.

[DudeRick]

I'm not surprised at all that democrats aren't interested that Obama tried to cover up the fact that there was a terrorist attack on 9-11 that killed 4 Americans while he has adds running on TV with Morgan Freeman telling us that "Our enemies have been brought to justice".
I'm not surprised at all...

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by DudeRick

I'm not surprised at all that democrats aren't interested that Obama tried to cover up the fact that there was a terrorist attack on 9-11 that killed 4 Americans while he has adds running on TV with Morgan Freeman telling us that "Our enemies have been brought to justice".
I'm not surprised at all...

I'm not surprised at all that Republicans are arguing over the definition of attack vs terrorist attack when their own initiated wars killed thousands of Americans and cost hundreds of billions of dollars
I'm not surprised at all...

[bronco67]

If this Libya thing didn't happen, the Republicans would have nothing. This is why they're grasping onto this witch hunt like their life depended on it.

[theking]

Originally Posted by DWB

The USA is currently the largest terrorist organization in the world. But if you wrap it around "defending freedom" and propagandize the shit out of it every day on every media outlet, suddenly it is justified. Americans are just ignorant enough to fall for it, over, and over, and over again, all the while proudly sending their sons and daughters to a possible slaughter house, in the name of freedom of course.

Pigshit.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

When the Talibans were linked to the bombings of the USS Cole and the embassy in Kenya that killed 200 people it was ok for the Republicans to invite them over to the US and discuss pipelines... but they point fingers over what is only a choice of words??

The Taliban did not have anything to do with the USS Cole event and did not have anything to do with the Kenya Embassy event.

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by theking

The Taliban did not have anything to do with the USS Cole event and did not have anything to do with the Kenya Embassy event.

You mean apart from knowingly harboring and training all the Al Qaeda operatives at the Al Farouk training camp in Afghanistan?

go back to bed old men..

[baddog]

[theking]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

You mean apart from knowingly harboring and training all the Al Qaeda operatives at the Al Farouk training camp in Afghanistan?

go back to bed old men..

The Taliban did not train Al Qaeda operatives.

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by theking

The Taliban did not train Al Qaeda operatives.

I love these definite statements..

Absolute truth since you are the only one who ever served ::rolleyes:: and a few years in the Military makes you an expert on all things.

Who do you think provided the military training at the camps around Kandahar including the Al Farouk camp? Let me tell you it wasn't Osama himself.

Anyway, let's pretend for a moment the Talibans only harbored the Al Qaeda camps, you said : "The Taliban had nothing to do..." don't you think that is already having something to do or do you think inviting them to tour Texas was the right thing?




___________

[theking]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

I love these definite statements..

Absolute truth since you are the only one who ever served ::rolleyes:: and a few years in the Military makes you an expert on all things.

Who do you think provided the military training at the camps around Kandahar including the Al Farouk camp? Let me tell you it wasn't Osama himself.

Anyway, let's pretend for a moment the Talibans only harbored the Al Qaeda camps, you said : "The Taliban have nothing to do..." don't you think that is already having something to do or do you think inviting them to tour Texas was the right thing?




___________

Al Qaeda trainers did the training. At the time the Taliban was in Texas to potentially do business...they were not overtly hostile to the U.S.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Just keep in mind that just like Obama, he's anti-drugs, anti-porn, anti-freedom.

Obama's anti-porn?

That will come as a shock to a lot of people around here. I been reading these boards for several years and all I hear is Obama will not prosecute obscenity.

[Dvae]

This isn't what it looks like, he dropped his contact lens or something.

Originally Posted by baddog

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by theking

Al Qaeda trainers did the training. At the time the Taliban was in Texas to potentially do business...they were not overtly hostile to the U.S.

The same camps were used to train both Al Qaeda operatives, and Taliban fighters. one big happy family. Anyway, discussing business with the Taliban when we already knew of the existing of such camp in Taliban's Afghanistan is indefensible.

Thanks for your service my man but in this instance I think you are being very naive or partisan.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Obama's anti-porn?
.

What I mean is, he isn't pro-porn. It may not top his agenda, but he's doing nothing to put an end to "obscenity" laws which are censorship of what YOU as a "free" adult can create, write, film, see, etc.

The Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, wants to abolish those laws. That is being pro-porn (and pro freedom).

Obama doing nothing either way is pretty much just symptomatic of the problem with the Democrat party. Lots of talk about being socially liberal and allowing people personal freedoms, but not a whole lot of action.