(11-12-2012 10:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:I don't see how anyone can logically believe that a decision like this was made by Romney. This is the type of thing handled by mid/high level staffers in a campaign. Do you really think someone came to Romney and said, "Mitt, when do you want to shut these credit cards off?"

I realize you all detest the man and all, but it's lunacy to think this type of decision reached his level. I mean come on

Exact same line of thinking can be applied to Benghazi.

Are you fing kidding me...

You're comparing a campaign turning off osme credit cards to an elected head of the us military not going to briefings and being unaware of what was going to go down in Bengazi..



Did you give bush a pass on Abu Ghraib

When you read the emails I posted earlier. One that came through half ways saying they were in the "safe" house. I.E. they are safe. I'm sure Obama was notified of this and expected for it to be taken care of. When has this guy shown any restraint in allowing the military to do it's job? Mistakes definitely happened but your overall hatred of all things Obama clouds your judgement. So you insulate yourself with group think. Only watch news sources that parrot your line of thinking. Now you think the Petreus resignation is connected to Benghazi. There is no end to the partinsanship with the extreme right.

Obama Derangement Syndrome.........

Bull and Niner................

Do you honestly think Obama made "THE CALL" to abandon people.? Honestly

You mean after Hurricane Sandy?

Let's just say if W were president, there'd be no end to the finger-pointing and recriminations.

(11-12-2012 10:35 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  When you read the emails I posted earlier. One that came through half ways saying they were in the "safe" house. I.E. they are safe. I'm sure Obama was notified of this and expected for it to be taken care of.

More leading from behind. No "safe house" is secure when its populated by three unarmed bodyguards and is under mortar fire. The least Obama could have done is asked "what are we going to do to get them out or chase off the attackers"

Quote:Mistakes definitely happened but your overall hatred of all things Obama clouds your judgement. So you insulate yourself with group think.

As oppsed to "the buck never stops with Obama" group think?

Quote:Only watch news sources that parrot your line of thinking.

I don't get cable so unless ABC/NBC/CBS are parroting a conservative line of thinking you have no basis for this statement.

(11-12-2012 10:35 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  One that came through half ways saying they were in the "safe" house. I.E. they are safe.

Mach, being in the safe house does not mean they are safe. It means they have made it to their fall back position. Turns out it wasn't very safe now was it?

Quote:I'm sure Obama was notified of this and expected for it to be taken care of.

So he issued no orders you think? Didn't tell them to do anything? Wasn't told the attack was still going? Wasn't notified when it had moved to the safe house? He was told they were in the safe house and just said "cool, this will all work out."

Quote:When has this guy shown any restraint in allowing the military to do it's job?

Um, the new rules of engagement he issued for both Iraq and Afghanistan when he came into office maybe? But even if he had never showed restraint before your entire argument is based on the premise he was never, not once, asked if he wanted to send in military assets to assist. I can't believe you honestly think that's even a remote possibility.

Quote:Mistakes definitely happened

But none by Obama of course right?

Quote:but your overall hatred of all things Obama clouds your judgement. So you insulate yourself with group think. Only watch news sources that parrot your line of thinking. Now you think the Petreus resignation is connected to Benghazi. There is no end to the partinsanship with the extreme right.

That's a cute narrative but it's not true. Multiple news sources, including the Washington Post and ABC have noted the inconsistencies and shifting stories from the administration on Benghazi. That's not a fantasy, it's a fact. The partisanship resides in your willingness to suspend disbelief and think that the decision to use military force resides somewhere other than the Commander in Chief. The CIA and Seals had to receive orders from Obama himself to go get Bin Laden. You think the same wasn't needed to go in and help in Benghazi?

You are all too quick to blame the right for politicizing this and it's a convenient excuse for you ignore what we do know. The fact that we still, 2 months later, have yet to get a tick tock from the White House on what happened when should tell you something.

Let me help you out Mach, from the right wing news outlet that is ABC News

Quote:As of now, the White House has disclosed that President Obama was informed about the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi at roughly 5pm by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as he was in a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. At that meeting, senior administration officials say, the President ordered that the U.S. begin moving military assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies.

So in the narrative you've constructed Obama ordered that we begin moving military assets into the region, but was never once asked if we should deploy them? That's what you want to go with? For real?

Quote:But beyond that, the White House has punted, saying the Accountability Review Board established by the State Department is investigating the matter and what went wrong. No detailed tick-tock, no information about the president’s involvement in decision-making. In addition, they’re preparing for a closed-door hearing of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence on November 15.

Yes, this has been politicized by both sides as everything in an election season is. But the danger is when you willfully ignore the actual facts we do know and hide behind the excuse of "partisanship" when they are pointed out.

(11-12-2012 10:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bull and Niner................

Do you honestly think Obama made "THE CALL" to abandon people.? Honestly

At the end of the day it's his responsibility to command the military when a US asset is attacked.

There are two options

1) Obama made the calculation that sending in more soldiers would result only in more death. Or that firing missiles from drones to get the insurgents when there were civilians in the are was unacceptable for either political or military reasons..

I disagree with that but at least he was involved and had some reasoning.

2) Obama was too busy campaigning, flying out to Nevada, to be bothered. In this case he gets a pass on the decision to abandon those people but thats not what the CIC should be doing.

(11-12-2012 10:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bull and Niner................

Do you honestly think Obama made "THE CALL" to abandon people.? Honestly

I believe Obama was asked if he wanted to deploy the military assets we know he ordered be moved into place.

When was he asked that? What information was he given before being asked? What was he told were the chances of success? Obama has been flatly unwilling to answer those, or really, any questions about that day, which to me begs the question of why?

If Obama was told, "Mr. President we have assets in position and we can go in, but we believe the Ambassador is already dead and there is a real likelihood we lose more people if we go in now" and he said no, don't send them in, I can live with that. It's an incalculable decision that a Commander in Chief makes to send lives into harms way, especially when you've been told there's not a great chance it will make much difference.

But don't have the unmitigated gall to try and create a narrative that he wasn't even asked cause you're scared of the political implications of him saying no. It defies all reason and logic to try and claim a president who we know ordered assets into the region was never asked if he wanted them deployed.

(11-12-2012 10:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  You mean after Hurricane Sandy?

Let's just say if W were president, there'd be no end to the finger-pointing and recriminations.

I do not recall the backlash for bush on these:

22 January 2002 Calcutta Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attack Consulate, 5 DEAD

14 June 2002 Karachi al-Qaeda truck bomb detonates outside Consulate, 12 DEAD

12 October 2002 Denpasar Consular Office bombed by Jemaah Islamiyah as part of the Bali bombings, (Thankfully)0 DEAD

28 February 2003 Islamabad Unknown gunmen attack Embassy 2 DEAD

30 June 2004 Tashkent Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks Embassy, 2 DEAD

6 December 2004 Jeddah al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound, 9 DEAD

2 March 2006 Karachi Car bomb explodes outside Embassy Assailants unknown, 2 DEAD

12 September 2006 Damascus Gunmen raid US Embassy 4 DEAD

12 January 2007 Athens RPG Fired at Embassy by Revolutionary Struggle (again, thankfully ) 0 DEAD

(11-12-2012 10:55 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bull and Niner................

Do you honestly think Obama made "THE CALL" to abandon people.? Honestly

I believe Obama was asked if he wanted to deploy the military assets we know he ordered be moved into place.

When was he asked that? What information was he given before being asked? What was he told were the chances of success? Obama has been flatly unwilling to answer those, or really, any questions about that day, which to me begs the question of why?

If Obama was told, "Mr. President we have assets in position and we can go in, but we believe the Ambassador is already dead and there is a real likelihood we lose more people if we go in now" and he said no, don't send them in, I can live with that. It's an incalculable decision that a Commander in Chief makes to send lives into harms way, especially when you've been told there's not a great chance it will make much difference.

But don't have the unmitigated gall to try and create a narrative that he wasn't even asked cause you're scared of the political implications of him saying no. It defies all reason and logic to try and claim a president who we know ordered assets into the region was never asked if he wanted them deployed.

So back to the topic - are you deflecting from the topic that Mittens screwed over his own staff to save a buck?

(11-12-2012 11:54 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:55 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bull and Niner................

Do you honestly think Obama made "THE CALL" to abandon people.? Honestly

I believe Obama was asked if he wanted to deploy the military assets we know he ordered be moved into place.

When was he asked that? What information was he given before being asked? What was he told were the chances of success? Obama has been flatly unwilling to answer those, or really, any questions about that day, which to me begs the question of why?

If Obama was told, "Mr. President we have assets in position and we can go in, but we believe the Ambassador is already dead and there is a real likelihood we lose more people if we go in now" and he said no, don't send them in, I can live with that. It's an incalculable decision that a Commander in Chief makes to send lives into harms way, especially when you've been told there's not a great chance it will make much difference.

But don't have the unmitigated gall to try and create a narrative that he wasn't even asked cause you're scared of the political implications of him saying no. It defies all reason and logic to try and claim a president who we know ordered assets into the region was never asked if he wanted them deployed.

So back to the topic - are you deflecting from the topic that Mittens screwed over his own staff to save a buck?

No. I'm pointing out you have zero evidence Romney was even involved in the decision process. But you obviously don't care because, as you've admitted, you hate him. I'm also pointing out the your hatred of someone for supposedly saying anything to get elected clearly doesn't extend to your guy Obama, who on multiple occasions has done just that. So your outrage is, let's just say, selective at best.

How would Romney have no involvement in the decision making process of his campaign? You might could claim he wasn't consulted, but the buck stops with him.

(11-12-2012 12:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  How would Romney have no involvement in the decision making process of his campaign? You might could claim he wasn't consulted, but the buck stops with him.

Who claimed he had no involvement in the decision make process for his campaign? I'm claiming it's silly to think a decision like this would have gone up to him. Having participated in working campaigns myself I can tell you that not every single decision made goes to the candidate. They typically delegate. Maxi Goebbels and dcid seem to believe that Romney made the decision to cut the cards off himself. I find that fairly unlikely.

Do you believe Obama is consulted about credit cards for his campaign?

I would actually think that the decision to cut off the cards at that moment, when they knew it would leave their workers stranded without any way to get home or pay for the hotel rooms they were promised, should have gone to Romney, yes. Did it? We don't know, but it *SHOULD* have made it to the top of the campaign.

(11-12-2012 12:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I would actually think that the decision to cut off the cards at that moment, when they knew it would leave their workers stranded without any way to get home or pay for the hotel rooms they were promised, should have gone to Romney, yes. Did it? We don't know, but it *SHOULD* have made it to the top of the campaign.

I agree. But may libs in this thread believe Romney made the decision himself. There's no evidence of that.

Lots of stuff goes on in campaigns that a candidate never knows about. Mostly because it's impossible for them to know everything, make every decision and also actually campaign.

You think Obama knew Dem election officers in Philly threw out republican poll watchers? He's the head of the Dem party. Using some of the "logic" employed in this thread not only did he know he probably told them to do it.

(11-12-2012 12:04 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 11:54 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:55 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bull and Niner................

Do you honestly think Obama made "THE CALL" to abandon people.? Honestly

I believe Obama was asked if he wanted to deploy the military assets we know he ordered be moved into place.

When was he asked that? What information was he given before being asked? What was he told were the chances of success? Obama has been flatly unwilling to answer those, or really, any questions about that day, which to me begs the question of why?

If Obama was told, "Mr. President we have assets in position and we can go in, but we believe the Ambassador is already dead and there is a real likelihood we lose more people if we go in now" and he said no, don't send them in, I can live with that. It's an incalculable decision that a Commander in Chief makes to send lives into harms way, especially when you've been told there's not a great chance it will make much difference.

But don't have the unmitigated gall to try and create a narrative that he wasn't even asked cause you're scared of the political implications of him saying no. It defies all reason and logic to try and claim a president who we know ordered assets into the region was never asked if he wanted them deployed.

So back to the topic - are you deflecting from the topic that Mittens screwed over his own staff to save a buck?

No. I'm pointing out you have zero evidence Romney was even involved in the decision process. But you obviously don't care because, as you've admitted, you hate him. I'm also pointing out the your hatred of someone for supposedly saying anything to get elected clearly doesn't extend to your guy Obama, who on multiple occasions has done just that. So your outrage is, let's just say, selective at best.

I do not hate him, I do not know him personally. Detesting someone for their actions is not the same as hating someone. So if you admire someone who apparently screws his own loyal supporters, I am ok with that.

(11-12-2012 12:36 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I do not hate him, I do not know him personally. Detesting someone for their actions is not the same as hating someone.

Sure thing.

Quote:So if you admire someone who apparently screws his own loyal supporters, I am ok with that.

You do realize that you still have no evidence Romney made this decision right? But you don't care obviously. So the question is, if you don't hate him as you claim, why you would accuse him doing something you have no evidence he did?

And if you detest him for the action of saying anything to get elected, why don't you also detest Obama, who has done the same?

(11-12-2012 12:20 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 12:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I would actually think that the decision to cut off the cards at that moment, when they knew it would leave their workers stranded without any way to get home or pay for the hotel rooms they were promised, should have gone to Romney, yes. Did it? We don't know, but it *SHOULD* have made it to the top of the campaign.

I agree. But may libs in this thread believe Romney made the decision himself. There's no evidence of that.

Lots of stuff goes on in campaigns that a candidate never knows about. Mostly because it's impossible for them to know everything, make every decision and also actually campaign.

You think Obama knew Dem election officers in Philly threw out republican poll watchers? He's the head of the Dem party. Using some of the "logic" employed in this thread not only did he know he probably told them to do it.

No, but that's not a campaign-wide finance issue, that is a single person being a moron. I don't think Romney knew anything about those different robocalls made by Republicans candidates that said the wrong thing about election locations/times, and I think it's idiotic and disingenuous to compare these two things. Romney should have known about it, and if he hadn't, once he heard about it he should have righted the situation. I don't see that happening, so in the end, it was his decision (either for it to happen, or to not correct it).

(11-12-2012 12:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Romney should have known about it, and if he hadn't, once he heard about it he should have righted the situation. I don't see that happening, so in the end, it was his decision (either for it to happen, or to not correct it).

You go with that. I'll wait to see some follow up reporting on the matter. If it happens.

In the mean time, President Obama deliberately stiffs Ohio municipality for campaign expenses

Quote:President Barack Obama is coming under fire for not paying municipal expenses during past campaign events in the all-important swing state. Fiscal officers in both Copley Township and Fairlawn have still not been repaid approximately $50,000 the municipalities spent on police overtime and other related expenses.

Quote:Prior to hosting a rally at the Falls’ Natatorium, Mitt Romney’s campaign staff contacted local officials, and promised to reimburse the town for any extra expenses they incurred because of the event. Romney’s staff reportedly requested an invoice in advance and noted the bill could be increased if estimated expenses surpassed the stated amount. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie introduced the GOP candidate at the event, according to the Falls News Press.

The final cost of Romney’s rally last week was $7,050, most of the cost was for the venue rental and police officer overtime. The Republican candidate opted not for a luxurious hotel room at the nearby Sheraton Suites, but a bed at the moderately priced Fairfield Inn a little further away. Before departing from the hotel, the presidential hopeful (who carried his own luggage) spent 15 minutes chatting with the mayor and local police and fire chiefs.