No Shame

The Republicans have no shame.

There are many unanswered questions about the vicious assault in Benghazi last month that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. And Congress has a responsibility to raise them. But Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/op...e.html?hp&_r=0

There will be a hearing and both Democrats and Republicans will have a chance to pose questions.

The reason there is a hearing is because legitimate questions where asked to the Obama administration and there was stonewalling and wailing about "the film".

So the budget was cut from $5B to $4.5B. Our Corporate Security would not send an employee to a foreign country without a proper security detail if one is warranted.

The proper level of condolences expressed by both parties for the loss of the individuals at Benghazi to their families has occured.

Time to stop throwing the First Amendment under the bus and find out what happened....and time to start answering 3 a.m. phone calls.

One question has been answered about the attacks. Obama lied about them.

Lets see, the democrats control the state department, the democrats control the white house, the democrats control the nomination oversight in the senate, the democrats control most of the media... I don't know, why do you think the democrats should NOT be answering questions? When it comes to questions who should be asking; the media lapdogs? the democrats in the senate? maybe the democrats in the House? I didn't know you could be so dense Fast. It must be a latent talent.

poor JD there is a democrat behind every bush..

The Republicans have no shame.

There are many unanswered questions about the vicious assault in Benghazi last month that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. And Congress has a responsibility to raise them. But Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/op...e.html?hp&_r=0 Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

I love this one Fast GUN ... Ask your self this >>>
1. Is it fuckin big time dangerous in Libya ?
2. Are the natives pissed off ?
3. If you were running the show / and i hope you are smart enough to know its FUCKIN DANGEROUS , would you have NO protection for the Ambassador ?

Paint it any way you want to , some big time dumb shit dropped the ball, sent the guys in there, told em the were fucked if they were attacked AND then for 2 weeks the White House tried to tell the World it all happened because a stupid utube film clip... Now fn really , how many of those nut jobs do you think sit around Libya with there Apple computers watchin U tube ???? If you actually buy into that load of bs then you need to start lookin at crap withOUT those rose colored glasses on.....

It's really a matter of perspective.

A President has hundreds of thousands of direct reports.

I would say it should be the decision of the Ambassador to ask the US government for more security. They are in the thick of things and know the dangerous better than someone on the other side of the world.

. . . A President is in charge of the general direction of the ship. He is not responsible for making sure that every pump and gear needed on board is properly greased.

It's really a matter of perspective.

A President has hundreds of thousands of direct reports.

I would say it should be the decision of the Ambassador to ask the US government for more security. They are in the thick of things and know the dangerous better than someone on the other side of the world.

. . . A President is in charge of the general direction of the ship. He is not responsible for making sure that every pump and gear needed on board is properly greased.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

You mean the "Liar in Chief".

No shame. No shit!

It's really a matter of perspective.

A President has hundreds of thousands of direct reports.

I would say it should be the decision of the Ambassador to ask the US government for more security. They are in the thick of things and know the dangerous better than someone on the other side of the world.

. . . A President is in charge of the general direction of the ship. He is not responsible for making sure that every pump and gear needed on board is properly greased.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Uh, FastGoon. The Ambassador DID ask for more security. He was ignored by the Obama administration. Then he was killed. Then Obama lied about it.

Don't you read the papers?

It's really a matter of perspective.

A President has hundreds of thousands of direct reports.

I would say it should be the decision of the Ambassador to ask the US government for more security. They are in the thick of things and know the dangerous better than someone on the other side of the world.

. . . A President is in charge of the general direction of the ship. He is not responsible for making sure that every pump and gear needed on board is properly greased.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

You didnt answer the question !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now fn really , how many of those nut jobs do you think sit around Libya with there Apple computers watchin U tube ?

... there is a democrat behind every bush.. Originally Posted by ekim008

They should be hiding. If for nothing else ... embarrassment.

Don't you read the papers? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It was on TV. Oh, wait.

It WAS on TV!

It was on the internet. Oh wait.

It WAS on the internet!

. . . A President is in charge of the general direction of the ship. He is not responsible for making sure that every pump and gear needed on board is properly greased.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

So, Obaminable was NOT responsible for the death of OBL, after all.

Glad you finally clarified that, and thank you for your honesty.

Yes, I read the papers, but I filter out what I hear.

If the ambassador did ask for more security, but did not get it, it was because of a disconnect in the system.

President Obama did not lie, he just did not get the request.

. . . No President wants this to happen and much less on his watch.

Uh, Fast Gunn. The Ambassador DID ask for more security. He was ignored by the Obama administration. Then he was killed. Then Obama lied about it.

Don't you read the papers? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy