I just heard Hillary is taking the full blame...

1. 93

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   for the Libya problem. I'm not sure which channel it was on. I'm in the office. If hubby was watching the TV last, it's on FOX. If I was watching last, it's on CNN.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's on both
      
      http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/1 … -benghazi/

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It's not surprising though.
         
         Obama will not take responsibility for any of his actions. The deficits are Bush's fault. The unemployment rate is Bush's fault. The security problem is Hillary's fault. Iran getting a nuke would be Israel's fault. Rising healthcare costs are somebody's fault(weren't they supposed to go down?)... let's blame the insurance companies for those. Unemployment is Wall Street's fault. It's the Bankers' fault. It's the evil greedy CEOs' fault.
         
         I dunno, has Obama ever taken responsibility for something negative?

         replyreport
         1. 46

            Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Normally I do not like such lopsided comments -- But this one is right on no matter your view. Scary
            (But Hilary, like her or hate her -- she stands by her man)

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I find it interesting that Biden said they didn't know that the Embassy requested more security, they didn't know any information about Libya, but they will know when Iran will have the capability to arm a missile. Democrats, you gotta love their lies!

            replyreport
            1. 46

               Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               We said the election is Obama's to lose. I think he may have just done it, and Hillary set herself up for the next cycle.

               replyreport
   2. 61

      tammybarnetteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obama just took full responsibility! I am proud of my President

      replyreport
2. 78

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Well, I'd like to see some group that actually perpetrated the attacks take the blame -- or would that be the credit? Isn't it odd that there hasn't been more public gloating from the terrorist community on this?
   
   Well, now that Hill has been the good soldier (isn't she a lame duck as SOS anyway -- having announced awhile back she will step down at the end of the year anyway?) aybe people can stop pointing fingers.
   In the meantime, while the right politicizes this tragedy, it's not as simple as "Obama failed." Here's a really good article on the sensitivity of the aftermath.
   I can guarantee you that Obama will NOT manufacture some bogus excuse like WMD to go and invade Libya (or Mali) in response to this attack.
   http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-mulls … ction.html
   
   I have answers on your other accusations, too, Jaxson, but gotta go have dinner with my son.
   Meantime, here is a piece of positive news regarding JOBS.
   Read the story. One of the problems with the unemployment is an American skills gap.
   But feel free to blame Obama for that, too. I'm sure it's his fault that jobs today require math and technical skills that we haven't valued enough to teach our young people.
   
   http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-575 … more-vets/

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The Titanic suffered a tragedy, the Embassy suffered a terrorist attack!

      replyreport
   2. 59

      paintphdposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Someone to fall on Obama's sword for him isn't what people are seeking. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE COVER-UP . Why did the administration proceed to feed the public the BS when they knew full well within a 24 hour post attack period,  that the was attack was Al queda terrorist? If there is any political spin being perpetrated here, it's not that Mitt Romney has questioned the administrations failure's in protecting our Embassy and the brave American's slaughtered there. The spin is that alot of folks see the cover-up as a need for the administration to hide the fact that a terrorist attack occurred after the President has proclaimed the killing of Bin Laden and the dessimation of Al queda. And the more compelling question is, Does this president place more value on his public perception during his campaign than he places on his honesty and integrity?

      replyreport
3. 61

   PeppermintPaddyposted 11 years ago

   Not good for Obama, I think.

   replyreport
4. 61

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   lmao...all these point the fingers, he's no good. Have you researched Romney, or better yet listened to him the past 2 years? He has changed his position on any given issue. And not just once, more then one could count! Even Fox news doesn't know what Romneys plan is if elected? Does he even have one? Or are we to vote for him and then get the details? Would you buy a car sight unseen or not having test driven it? Heck no! So why do you endorse Romney? I keep hearing birther this and that about the POTUS, but defend Romney not giving up details or tax returns. What does this man have to hide? Maybe you know something I dont? Probably because I'm one of Romney's 41%! lol

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "Or are we to vote for him and then get the details?"
      
      A democrat is asking this???
      
      Here, this is for you.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

      replyreport
      1. 61

         movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hey I know, under the Morman religion, the congregation has a "living Prophet" who advises and leads the congregation. Maybe if Romney is elected the church Prophet will tell Romney what to do? After all, the Prophet does speak for God!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No, I don't think you know.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Lmao...Or perhaps the planet kolob will give direction? What do you know?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  That 4 follows 3.

                  replyreport
   2. 63

      mslizzeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Movingout, you haven't the slightest idea what Obama has planned for your future. Read a little bit, or watch some videos. "Fool me Once", "Dreams from my Real Father.""2016," The man is a marxist and carefully following the Alinsky program of tearing down the country, increasing the debt, getting as many citizens as possible on welfare, then eliminating everything the country stands for. He is going right down each step of the Marxist doctrine, because that is how he was trained by his Marxist father.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         LOL...I put as much value on a manipulated video about the POTUS as I do on Michael Moores documentaries. What is Romney's plan for the future? He hasn't released any details? Oh, that's right, he will tell about them after he gets elected? LMAO Marxist doctrine! LOL Then I should worry about Romney's religeous heritage? That he believe God appoints a "living prophet" to help the congregation make the right decisions! SO if the "Prophet" tells a president Romney to go to war, will he? Or perhaps I should believe their belief in Planet Kolob? Maybe you're the one who doesn't have the slightest idea of what Romney has planned for your future!

         replyreport
      2. 59

         Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         AHAHHAAH man you watched propaganda videos and believed them? Really?

         replyreport
      3. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         How on earth have you reached the conclusion that Marxist theory is about getting as many people as possible on welfare, or destroying the fabric of a country? And Keynesian economics are not about increasing debt for the sake of it, but spending in order to create growth. You may disagree with the principles, but that doesn't make them sinister or make Obama some kind anti-christ. Now that is far fetched!

         replyreport
      4. 78

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hello???!!!
         If Obama had wanted to get all Americans on welfare he had ample chance right after the Wall Street collapse.
         That did not happen.
         Instead, he has worked tirelessly, and against an obstructionist Congress, to create jobs to rebuild the middle class.
         
         As to your evidence of Obama's Marxist plans... I say, consider the source. The funding source.
         

         replyreport
5. 61

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   It's really comical how many Republicans are voting against Obama and reluctantly voting Romney. Says a lot for your candidate! lol If Romney was running against a white catholic, he wouldn't have a chance of winning!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'd much rather vote for Reagan but well, you know. And yes, I am voting against Obama isn't that what you do when you don't vote for him?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So you agree with me. So you understand the "Job" of the Prophet and just what Planet Kolob is? As for Reagan, he deregulated and started this spiral falling. And let's not forget Clinton, with NAFTA. This recession is a direct result of 30 years of poor administration decisions. But, then it's easy to blame the guy in office I guess? I voted for Bush, because he said giving tax breaks to the wealthy would create jobs. Did it? NO. He also had a chance to allow business of the same nature (say all painting companies) to pool together and get group insurance rates. Did he sign it? No. Maybe the Prophet and Planet Kolob is the answer to the world's problems?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I have no clue about a prophet or kolob. Vote for whomever you like, you're scaring me.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Scaring you? Not my intent. Research the Mormon Church and how it's followers believe and follow the word of their "living prophet". I don't want a President in office who may follow the words of another from his Church. As for Planet Kolob, do a google search. I was totally shocked by what I found out! Happy voting!

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Obama said we weren't supposed to discuss Romney's religion. lol

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     All I heard during the last election was Obama was a muslim. It's important to know how the candidate stands on religion. Especially one where the congregation believes in the words of the living Prophet and has songs about the planet kolob. That's scary to think this prophet could tell a sitting President to go to war.

                     replyreport
               2. 59

                  Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not voting for a religious leader, his religion is not my concern unless his religion is to give my money away.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     LOL...was an issue during the Obama Presidential campaign for most! And perhaps a little more research is needed on your part as to the power of the church "prophet".

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't think it was an issue for most.  Most people are capable of looking beyond the single issue of religion.  Some apparently aren't.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           The way Fox News, especially Hannity hammered the issue with Rev Wright, it was definately an issue by many if not most watching that show.

                           replyreport
6. 61

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   And just for the record, I'm not a Democrat or Republican. I'm known as the Independent swing voter. Having said that, there is no way I would vote for Romney! He changes positions more then most people change their socks! I don't like a lot of Obama's policies, but at least I know for the most part what his plans are. Slow growth is better then no growth. And no growth is what I see with Romney. He boast fair trade with China, but reaps the rewards of "blind trusts with China" (how convenient to say, I didn't know I was making money in China). One has to laugh! l0l

   replyreport
7. 63

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   Oliver North, Colin Powell were Republicans and also took the blame for their president's mistakes!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What blame did Colin Powell take?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         As far as I remember, Powell accepted responsibility for misleading (Lying) to the United Nations concerning Iraq and their WMD.  He told absolute falsehoods and had pictures to prove it! 

         replyreport
8. 78

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Is it really the American people who are so up in arms about what "really" happened in Libya? And who gets to decide what time period is acceptable to sort out who perpetrated the attack? Is it 1 hour? 24 hours? Is a week too long?
   Seems to me we are still waiting for the truth about what happened on 9/11 -- the original one, 11 years ago.
   I find it hypocritical in the extreme that the Republicans are turning this into "the" issue of the reelection.  Armchair quarterbacking after the fact is as bad as chickenhawking.
   
   More to the point, I wonder what Mssrs. Romney and Ryan would have done differently or what they would do right now in the Commander in Chief's shoes?
   Invade Libya? Or how about invade Iran? Makes about as much sense as invading Iraq for the original 9/11.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Iraq was not invaded for 9/11, to continue to spread that lie is ridiculous.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm an American and I'm up in arms by this administrations incompetence and willingness to lie about what really happened. If they would lie about something so easily found out what bigger lies have they told us? Four Americans killed and you don't seem to care, whats more is YOU are the one politicizing it,Romney and Ryan are asking questions that SHOULD be asked!

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I've never agreed with NATO's role in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. But it seems ludicrous to me that those who are pontificating about Libya, are more than willing to go to war with Iran, the war that may well end all wars!

      replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

   I believe its all political , Hillary is an empty" pant suit ", she just happens to be the most rhetorically voiced "leader" to ever come along . So far the closest woman to ever come as close to leading our country and yet , Blah blah blah , she never says anything of substance , merely politi-speak!  She knows she can never run now for prez. so shes jumping under the bus .....or sort of jumping ,but not really jumping , 'We'll look into this on many levels ".......kind of jumping.!  Obama should crown her for this especially the day before hiis only chance to wake up during a debate !

   replyreport
10. 78

    Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

    BTW, I just read that the requested additional security was for the Tripoli, not the Benghazi embassy.
    Hmmmm.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Different requests.
       
       The Tripoli request was to keep security team there, that was already there, for longer. Benghazi requests(multiple) were for additional security, period.

       replyreport
    2. 59

       paintphdposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It's irrelevant if it were Tripoi or Benghazi, the Ambassador moves between the two as well as the security force that was pulled out. Ambassador Stephens numerous wire's to the State Dept. admonishing them to address security concerns were by all accounts, ignored. WHY?

       replyreport
11. 0

    JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

    Additionally...
    
    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 … 37236.html
    
    They had been attacked twice before, and asked for more security multiple times.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       KFlippinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       the liberal folks really don't want to hear facts, nor do they care about much beyond their own tomorrow, that is clearly a sad fact.  too many libs don't care who is really paying their bills for food and electricity, much less their safety, clearly we will as a country become a Greece long before they give a damn -- when the checks run short for McD's - is that when they'll give a damn about the direction of the USA?

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Most of the US debt is accumulated under conservative presidents, the two biggest spending increase presidents in our history are Reagan and Bush 2. Who has been the most debt responsible president in the modern era? Clinton a liberal. What conservatives don't seem to get is investment in the future, spending creates future income and stimulates the economy so sometimes it's necessary, the spending from liberal presidents is doing that instead of being wasted on useless wars abroad.
          
          As for liberals not knowing who is paying their bills if you are referring to welfare, liberals are on average 6 to 7% wealthier and red states have the highest welfare concentrations by far so it appears it's largely conservatives living off others, not to mention that the conservative states are all costing the country more than the produce except for Texas and who is paying for that? The Blue states.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

             http://www.businessinsider.com/who-incr … ebt-2012-9

             replyreport
          2. 61

             KFlippinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             If that were in fact true. . . . the entirety of the 47% comment by Romney would have never made the news, much less been so blatantly politicized by the Obama/Dem Party . . . jeez.  If it were mostly rural repulicans on the dole and negatively impacted by this crap economy, you guys would not even care about the dole!!!

             replyreport
             1. 59

                Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                It is in fact mathematically and statistically irrefutably true much as you don't like to admit it.

                replyreport
          3. 59

             paintphdposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Bunch of far left propoganda horse $hit.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Just the facts, too bad you don't have any actual reply to them

                replyreport