Obama: "We Leave Nobody Behind"

[oladub]

Someone else thinks that Obama lied.

Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi [[link)

Obama's quote: "the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. ... I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe."

[Mikeg]

.....he fucked up, he didn't mean to, move on and think about something important, cuz this ain't it.

"Move on", beat it, nothing to see here, yadda-yadda-yadda.

Do you really believe that if elected/appointed officials make a series of mistakes that result in the deaths of four of their employees we ought to just look the other way and not ask any questions?

If people die because someone "fucked up", shouldn't there be an investigation so it doesn't happen again and if there is proof of negligence, shouldn't they be held accountable?

[credit: Steve Kelley]

[gnome]

MikeG, if you don't know, I'm a republican. Have been for a long time, at least since stuffing mailboxes for Goldwater, so I am not concerned about being mistaken for a water boy for mr. Obama.

but you need to relax on this issue. It is a loser of an issue. Am I upset an Ambassador and several other Americans were killed by a few terrorists, yes. I would be shocked if not very American would be upset by such an event.

however, being upset about the killing and drawing some plan by Obama to devise a conspiracy to murder the Ambassador, then cover up the crime with a terrorist attack, then try to double-cover the scheme by denying it was a terrorist attack and blaming it on a porno staring The Prophet. Is in a word:

nuts.

to put it two words: fucking nuts.

i particularly do not care to be associated with nuts. Ok, do republicans a favor, and drop the looney shit. Think stuff through and stop yourself from doing anymore cut'n pastes. Such things should be reserved for liberals and democrats, because they need the help in thinking. Ok. We ok? Thx

[gnome]

The reason why the very involved conspiracy is not worth considering: Mr. Obama, tailgunner Joe and Mrs. Clinton can't organize a two-car funeral how in the heck are these folks going to pull this off?

Certainly not with help from the Secret Service, they are all off screwing Columbian hookers out of their fees. The CIA? Sheesh. No.

the CIA's existence is based on the State Department's Ambassador Corps.

[ejames01]

Besides getting paid, do these weirdos really care about any of this stuff?

[Zacha341]

Hah! That's the problem with 'friend-enemy's. They keep coming forward and act unpredictably!!

[credit: Steve Kelley]

[Zacha341]

Say it ain't so... is Jay a right-winger toooo? ------

Jay Leno says: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell Is Back - It's Obama's New Policy For Questions About Libya'

[rb336]

I don't think so. He makes similar comments about Romney. He supports green tech, too. Of all the late night gang, he might be the hardest to read politically. The Jimmies have both made statements in support of Obama. Dave has used Mitt as a punching bag all year. The HBO guys are fairly obviously voting Obama. Craig Ferguson might match Jay in being hard to read

[Zacha341]

I know.... that's what makes it interesting. Leno not of the 'dismissible' garden variety right-winger camp, yet saying some of the stuff he says. I find it refreshing that he's not feeling the obligation to 'egg shell' walk when it comes to politicians [[right and the left). That's the 'read' I get from him. Some of the presidents gaffs, policies and responses are too obvious to not speak on even if your a dem and strong supporter!!

Leno can and is allowed to roast president Obama and his policies a bit ------! in as much as his audience responses are rarely boos, but then they are his captive audience... so nothing remarkable there I suppose!

As I've said before should Obama go back into office, questions and concern regarding his policies and positions will remain top of mind, now from the dems, and for certain the indies. The deep-dish right wing factor will not be the lead of these questions as much. And like any president [[read politician) he has to be held accountable.

I don't think so. He makes similar comments about Romney. He supports green tech, too. Of all the late night gang, he might be the hardest to read politically. The Jimmies have both made statements in support of Obama. Dave has used Mitt as a punching bag all year. The HBO guys are fairly obviously voting Obama. Craig Ferguson might match Jay in being hard to read

[firstandten]

As I've said before should Obama go back into office, questions and concern regarding his policies and positions will remain top of mind, now from the dems, and for certain the indies. The deep-dish right wing factor will not be the lead of these questions as much. And like any president [[read politician) he has to be held accountable.

I believe what you will see happen if President Obama is re-elected is two things

1) Repubs especially House Repubs will be more willing to work with him
2) President Obama will be more willing to work around Repubs to see his domestic agenda thru.

If Romney gets in I see him having the same issues as Pres Obama .. coordinated obstructionsim from the Dems. The Dems will maintain control of the Senate.

[Papasito]

I'd rather have a Republican President who is obstructed than a Democrat President who tries to work around Congress via Executive Order and spends trillions in deficits the country can not afford.

Democrats would be much better if they lived within the Government's means. It is nice to have feelgood policies and programs but spiraling the country to collapse in order to do them makes no sense.

Gridlock is the best thing for Americans - it means the Government isn't spending money they don't have. It means the Government isn't passing more un-needed laws to restrict and obstruct your freedom. It means the Government isn't rubber stamping thousand page bills that have one good thing on one page accompanied by 999 pages of rewards to their buddies with pork projects.

[rb336]

I'd rather have a Republican President who is obstructed than a Democrat President who tries to work around Congress via Executive Order and spends trillions in deficits the country can not afford.

factually incorrect. Obama's budget is LOWER this year than last, and if you cut the budget items related to Dubya's unfunded/off-budget wars, it has been lower every single year of his administration

Democrats would be much better if they lived within the Government's means. It is nice to have feelgood policies and programs but spiraling the country to collapse in order to do them makes no sense.

FACT - Government debt has risen more under the last 5 Republican administrations than ANY Democratic administration since WWII. Please get your facts straight

Gridlock is the best thing for Americans - it means the Government isn't spending money they don't have. It means the Government isn't passing more un-needed laws to restrict and obstruct your freedom. It means the Government isn't rubber stamping thousand page bills that have one good thing on one page accompanied by 999 pages of rewards to their buddies with pork projects.

Guess what caused the lowering of the government's debt rating, thus ballooning the the amount we pay on our debt? GRIDLOCK. Please take the time to actually think things through instead of spouting tea-bagger bullshit.

[Papasito]

factually incorrect. Obama's budget is LOWER this year than last, and if you cut the budget items related to Dubya's unfunded/off-budget wars, it has been lower every single year of his administration

‹ 2011 · · 2013 ›
Submitted	February 14, 2011
Submitted by	Barack Obama
Submitted to	112th Congress
Passed	November 18, 2011 [[Pub.L. 112-55) December 23, 2011 [[Pub.L. 112-74 and Pub.L. 112-77)
Total revenue	$2.627 trillion [[requested) $2.469 trillion [[enacted)
Total expenditures	$3.729 trillion [[requested) $3.796 trillion [[enacted)
Deficit	$1.101 trillion [[requested) $1.327 trillion [[enacted)
Website	US Government Printing Office

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Un...federal_budget

"if you cut the budget items related to Dubya's unfunded/off-budget wars"
Really?
The wars Obama said he would end if he got elected? He could have ended immediately after he was elected. Why is he still funding them? That's on Obama. Blame him. He'e the one still in it.

"Obama's budget is LOWER this year than last"
Because he didn't pass a new Stimulus each year. Believe me, he'd love to have. He tried with his "Jobs Bill" and other cash cows disguised to funnel money to more "Green Job" failures.

FACT - Government debt has risen more under the last 5 Republican administrations than ANY Democratic administration since WWII. Please get your facts straight

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

Facts are your guy did more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8. That doesn't make what Bush did OK. But your argument that because Bush had debt Obama could have debt holds no water... when your candidate ran on the promise he would CUT IT IN HALF. He's just another politician with another set of lies. And guess what? You bought the lies and are now making excuses for him. Joke's on you.

Guess what caused the lowering of the government's debt rating, thus ballooning the the amount we pay on our debt? GRIDLOCK. Please take the time to actually think things through instead of spouting tea-bagger bullshit.

Kiss your mother with that mouth?
I see you're taking the moral high ground again.
It's too bad there wasn't gridlock to block the Stimulus package. Maybe each kid wouldn't be $50k + in debt due to a monstrosity of a spending bill that put oil wells in Brazil, factories in Europe and did little to nothing to put Americans back to work. It's taken Obama 4 years to get unemployment below 8%. Is that supposed to be seen as an accomplishment?
And still, many of the factoring causes for the recession have not been repaired under his administration.

Oh yeah.. you mentioned and Obama "budget"
He actually has yet to pass an official one.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Miss., introduced a budget amendment trepresenting the president’s budget request; the Sessions amendment was voted down 99-0. [[You can read it HERE.)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ts-or-do-they/

You guys should have elected Hillary 4 years ago. Oops.

[rb336]

this is what it really looks like, not the simple-minded crap Faux news and its allies spoon feed you

[oladub]

Rb, What's your point? Obama ran the Country into more dollars of debt than any other president period. As papasito pointed out, Obama tacked on more to the national debt in less than four years than Bush did in eight. I don't remember anytime, as a Senator, that Obama refused to continue funding the wars Bush started. Obama promised to leave Iraq immediately four years ago. It instead took him three years to honor the Iraq/Bush agreement and he tried to negotiate an extension of our troops' presence in Iraq. Obama didn't say anything while campaigning about doubling our troop strength in Afghanistan, expanding drone attacks in Pakistan, bombing Yemen, helping overthrow Khaddafi, sending a hundred troops into the Central Africa Republic, supplying Al Queda units in Syria, or encouraging the Islamist Spring across North Africa. The Bush wars became the Bush/Obama wars. More US troops have been killed in Afghanistan under Obama as under Bush. I don't see the red line on the graph getting thinner under Obama.

[rb336]

Ola, there is far more to it than I expect you or papa to understand. Cut out factors that could not be controlled - Dubya's off-budget wars and tax cuts for the rich - and Obama's spending and contribution to the deficit actually went DOWN. What is so hard for you to understand about that? the only big hike in Obama's administration came from actually putting the cost of the wars on budget. The single biggest cause of the deficit increase is Dubya's tax cuts.

one more for you

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/oba...nferno-or-not/

Make it two more, this one from the right-wing WSJ's Market Watch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...2?pagenumber=1

[oladub]

Originally Posted by rb336
Ola, there is far more to it than I expect you or papa to understand. Cut out factors that could not be controlled - Dubya's off-budget wars and tax cuts for the rich - and Obama's spending and contribution to the deficit actually went DOWN. What is so hard for you to understand about that? the only big hike in Obama's administration came from actually putting the cost of the wars on budget. The single biggest cause of the deficit increase is Dubya's tax cuts.

one more for you

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/oba...nferno-or-not/

Make it two more, this one from the right-wing WSJ's Market Watch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...2?pagenumber=1

I suppose I don't understand how running the Country between $4-6T into debt in just four years does not constitute being the largest increase in debt increase of any president which was your original premise. "FACT - Government debt has risen more under the last 5 Republican administrations than ANY Democratic administration since WWII. [[rb post37)." The marketwatch article refers to percentage rates of growth. You referred to actual government debt. You were wrong. The marketwatch article does not back up your statement as you worded it.

Also in post 37, you wrote, "if you cut the budget items related to Dubya's unfunded/off-budget wars, it has been lower every single year of his administration."Then you showed graphs proving Obama didn't reduce spending on wars. They did include the cost of the wars during the Bush years. Now you are adding the Bush tax cuts for the rich which Obama twice extended as new reasons. So Obama keeps the same wars going and extends the tax breaks for the rich and that somehow means he didn't add $4-6T to the debt in just four years? You forgot to mention that as Senator, Obama lobbied the Congressional black lobby to support Bush's Wall Street bailout.

I never even brought up the question the factcheck article responds to. I addressed Obama's colossal federal debts in dollars rather than rates of increase in federal spending. You are confusing apples and oranges or at least debt with spending.

Regarding not including the cost of Iraq, I found this response to your liberal talking point.

1. It is true, wartime spending was separated from standard budget requests. It was separated in that the Bush White House would make one budget request for the whole of government in February of each year, but war spending would be requested separately some months later. Although this meant that Congress had to consider war spending separately from spending for the rest of government, it really didn't have a huge effect on anything. Deficit and debt numbers still included all wartime spending, contrary to some people's beliefs. Obama changed this by including all government and war spending in a single request each February. 2. There is no impact on debt or deficits if the money for the war is on- or off-budget. 3. Since the money wasn't actually being hidden in any substantive use of that word, there is no legal issue.

[Papasito]

Our homes are worth less, energy is scarce and expensive due to bad Government policies, and now the gas lines are back.

You'd think it was the 1970's again!




Welcome Back, Carter
People who are dependent on Government and think that it's going to run to the rescue are getting a reality check.

Obama: "We Leave Nobody Behind"

How's that promise working out for you, New Jersey?

[noise]

Our homes are worth less, energy is scarce and expensive due to bad Government policies, and now the gas lines are back.

You'd think it was the 1970's again!




Welcome Back, Carter
People who are dependent on Government and think that it's going to run to the rescue are getting a reality check.

How's that promise working out for you, New Jersey?

Did this wingnut just blame a hurricane on Obama?

[firstandten]

So papasito enlighten us as to how government policy accounts for your home being worth less, or long gas lines ? How has government policy made energy scarce and expensive. c'mon convince us with some facts instead of just throwing some talking points out there.

[noise]

Speaking of gas, Canada has more than enough oil to supply their own demand. They still pay the same amount we do.

Drill, baby, drill...and watch our prices continue to increase!

[Papasito]

I'd rather see Canadians rich off their own gas, while putting Canadians to work, then to see them use oil from the Middle East and make countries rich that hate them.

[noise]

When one argument doesn't hold water, move on to the next. Good strategy.

[Papasito]

Did this wingnut just blame a hurricane on Obama?

The Obama Government didn't come in and take care of the people swiftly, giving out gas and food in an astonishing rate in a way George Bush never could have rivaled during Katrina?

New Jersey and the effected areas are a mess, and the Obama supporters are getting a reality check that the Government is slow and inefficient, and not the answer to all of their problems.

And yes, I know comparing the hurricane gas lines to Jimmy Carter's gas lines is not a fair comparison. It's political satire.. a stretch. If it bothered you for me to do it, then I succeeded in annoying you.

[noise]

The Obama Government didn't come in and take care of the people swiftly, giving out gas and food in an astonishing rate in a way George Bush never could have rivaled during Katrina?

New Jersey and the effected areas are a mess, and the Obama supporters are getting a reality check that the Government is slow and inefficient, and not the answer to all of their problems.

And yes, I know comparing the hurricane gas lines to Jimmy Carter's gas lines is not a fair comparison. It's political satire.. a stretch. If it bothered you for me to do it, then I succeeded in annoying you.

Whatever lies you tell yourself to get through the day...

It's strange that you're trying to annoy people online. Sad, don't you think? I don't mean to ruin your day, but you're far too entertaining to be annoying. Unintentionally, of course.