Romney Refuses to Answer Questions on FEMA

I suppose there's a reason you are trying to change the subject?

Oh yeah! Romney fucked up! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

IB is the queen of deflection COF is the king...

Five unanswered questions about Benghazi attack
President Obama owes explanation to American people

Nearly two months after the murder of four American citizens in Benghazi, Libya, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, there remain many more questions surrounding this tragedy than credible answers provided by the Obama administration. The American people want to know what happened on Sept. 11, 2012, and they deserve to hear an explanation directly from the president.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...nghazi-attack/

Romney is going to cut FEMA by 20% in order to grow it.

Oh and he will stop Chrysler from moving their Jeep production line to China , even though they are not planning on doing so.

Oh and he will eliminate the cap on estate tax so his kids will not pay taxes on money that they haven't earned.

Mitt Romney, the lying selfish SOB you can believe in

Originally Posted by markroxny

Petraeus and Panetta Speak—But Not the President
1:00 PM, OCT 31, 2012 • BY WILLIAM KRISTOL

“Seven weeks later, the White House still hasn't explained what President Obama did and didn't do during the seven hours of the attack on Benghazi on September 11.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...nt_659902.html

Well it depends on how you want to look at it, but the media is not Mitts friend. No matter what his response would have been to their questions, somehow they wouldn't have been aired accurately anyway. In these last few days before the election I think Mitt would do himself a big favor and be selective of what he says and who he talks to. Originally Posted by acp5762

Well, the way I look at it is that the question is legitimate since it came a day after one of the largest natural disasters to ever hit the east coast. The American people are entitled to know how this clown who wants to be President would respond.

Of course, as with everything else, Romney has now flip-flopped and indicated he's all for FEMA. Shameless. The man would swear that the sun rises in the west if he thought it would be beneficial to his campaign.

It just astonishes me the the whackaloons on here aren't calling him out on his shift back towards the center now that he's desperately trying to capture the remaining independents who haven't decided. It's all about hating Obama.

THE WEEKLY STANDARD understands that it will take some time to "gather all the facts" about what happened on the ground in Benghazi. But presumably the White House already has all the facts about what happened that afternoon and evening in Washington—or, at least, in the White House. The president was, it appears, in the White House from the time the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began, at around 2:40 pm ET, until the end of combat at the annex, sometime after 9 p.m. ET. So it should be possible to answer these simple questions as to what the president did that afternoon and evening, and when he did it, simply by consulting White House meeting and phone records, and asking the president for his recollections.

1.) To whom did the president give the first of his "three very clear directives"—that is, "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?"

2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies?

3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room?

4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly?

5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack?

6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus?

7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?

8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests?

9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?

10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a AC-130 or MC-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has asked the White House these questions, and awaits a response.

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/ten-...se_657977.html


It is just astonishing how the Kool Aid sotted whackaloons on here haven’t demanded an honest accounting of what he and his administration did to help Ambassador Stevens.

Originally Posted by markroxny

Bears emphasis.

Hey IBCrying, go post your Benghazi shit in the appropriate thread. You are hijacking this thread and I think even in the Sandbox, that's a violation of ECCIE rules.

STFU in here about that or open another Benghazi thread.

Or, just stfu, DIPSHIT of the YEAR!

Thanks,for reminding us.

Obama, Where the H-- Were the Marines?


I have some questions and you get presidential candidates up here, so I want you to ask the President this when he comes up here: Where the hell were the Marines?

In Libya, where were the Marines?

There were no uniformed Marines guarding our ambassador?

Where do you think the most dangerous embassy in the world is? It's got to be Libya or Iraq.

In Iraq, I think they've got 17,000 people guarding the ambassador. They're not all Marines, but there's probably several hundred Marines, but there's a host of armed people guarding the ambassador. We have a fortress guarding the ambassador there.

We didn't have any uniformed Marines? There was personnel, a 16-person security team.

If the President comes up here, ask him: Why in the hell did you send them home? They specifically requested to stay.

Col. Wood, who is head of the security team, says he sent the cables: I want to stay in Libya because it's unsafe and the ambassador is unsafe.

The President says the buck stops here, ask him where in the hell were the Marines? Ask him, where the hell was that 16-person security team?

And then finally ask him: What happened to the plane? There was a DC-3 there supposed to be able to help people out of the country or to move about the country, they took their plane.

They took their plane on May 4 of this year. You know what happened on May 8 of this year, four days later? The State Department spent $108,000 buying a new electrical charging station to green up the Vienna embassy.

So you have to ask yourself, is the green initiative, is the global warming campaign, more important than the security of an embassy?

Greening up the Vienna Embassy. You know, the electric car, it's subsidized $250,000 per car. We probably spent $1 million to buy these electric cars to make a political statement in Vienna.

We spent $100,000 for an electrical charging station to show off how green we were, but we wouldn't have one Marine guarding our embassy, we wouldn't allow 16 personnel to stay in Libya, we wouldn't allow them a plane, but we've got enough money to make a show of a very politicized agenda by the President.

I think it's inexcusable and if he says the buck stops here, someone should be fired.

by U.S. Senator Dr. Rand Paul


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12352#.UIo2lW_A9rM

Well, the way I look at it is that the question is legitimate since it came a day after one of the largest natural disasters to ever hit the east coast. The American people are entitled to know how this clown who wants to be President would respond.

Of course, as with everything else, Romney has now flip-flopped and indicated he's all for FEMA. Shameless. The man would swear that the sun rises in the west if he thought it would be beneficial to his campaign.

It just astonishes me the the whackaloons on here aren't calling him out on his shift back towards the center now that he's desperately trying to capture the remaining independents who haven't decided. It's all about hating Obama. Originally Posted by timpage

It's not about hating Obama. Thats just a lame excuse really. Romney is actually at a huge disadvantage. The reason being is the sector of the population that relates to him the best are the working class and the rich entrapenures. These individuals do most of the living and dieing in this country and their numbers aren't very large. Obama on the other hand appeals to the members of society that are greatly concerned with the idea of social equality that would include Minorities, uneducated and under employed whites and the homosexual community. Believe it or not these groups represent the highest numbers in population. Now equality in all areas of life under a Capitalistic form of Government is difficult to achieve. In Obama's eyes this has been the bane of America. Obama's whole premise to achieve equality in this country is to "Change" something. That something is Capitalism. Now each voter must decide whats best for themselves as well as the country. Thats why we vote. If a person wants to see Capitalism stay afloat then that person would most likely vote for Romney. If a person feels Capitalism is not in the best interest for themselves or the country then they would vote for Obama. All the issues with the economy, job growth, the deficit, healthcare you name it. Obama cannot and will not change it or improve it under the premise of a Capitalistic form of Government.

Douchebags can't discuss Romney's policies at all, can you!

NO WONDER YOU'RE HIJACKING EVERY THREAD!!!

Good luck boys. See you from the winner's circle!

It's not about hating Obama. Thats just a lame excuse really. Romney is actually at a huge disadvantage. The reason being is the sector of the population that relates to him the best are the working class and the rich entrapenures. These individuals do most of the living and dieing in this country and their numbers aren't very large. Obama on the other hand appeals to the members of society that are greatly concerned with the idea of social equality that would include Minorities, uneducated and under employed whites and the homosexual community. Believe it or not these groups represent the highest numbers in population. Now equality in all areas of life under a Capitalistic form of Government is difficult to achieve. In Obama's eyes this has been the bane of America. Obama's whole premise to achieve equality in this country is to "Change" something. That something is Capitalism. Now each voter must decide whats best for themselves as well as the country. Thats why we vote. If a person wants to see Capitalism stay afloat then that person would most likely vote for Romney. If a person feels Capitalism is not in the best interest for themselves or the country then they would vote for Obama. All the issues with the economy, job growth, the deficit, healthcare you name it. Obama cannot and will not change it or improve it under the premise of a Capitalistic form of Government. Originally Posted by acp5762

seems I remember you took a shot at a typo I made, asshloe to be specific on one of LL's dumbass threads, then got a hearty LOL from IB and crew ... Ive seen you make a few honest typos and let it slide simply because most everyone makes a few typos, but since you opened that door I think I'll walk in and say hello to blatant ignorance

dieing .... really Einstein?

its DYING.

as for the rest of your post, its a damn good thing Willard isnt a capitalist, and no president before Obie cam along was either .... isnt it?

peace... OUT!

President Barack Obama's administration has faced a storm of pre-election questions about why there was not more security at the US consulate where four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed on September 11.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-Benghazi.html

President Barack Obama's administration has faced a storm of pre-election questions about why there was not more security at the US consulate where four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed on September 11.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-Benghazi.html Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Maybe it had something to do with the republicans cutting funding for embassy security!

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.


For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1954912.html