And then today, this. WTF?Bailout for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.
This would be a valid point if there had not been requests for additional security…and if other violence in Benghazi hadn’t already occurred.
But violence had been happening. And there were requests for heightened security.
You are utterly confused. I know you’re too proud to learn anything new but kibitzers might review facts to learn that Congress forbids the prisoners’ transfer to U.S. soil, prevents their transfer to foreign countries, and forbids, in some cases, their release. How to close Guantanamo while obeying Acts of Congress must be an interesting logic puzzle.
More importantly, it should be stressed that the few Americans rational enough to oppose the stupid Iraq adventure (that Obama was one is a reason I like him despite his faults) opposed it because of the adverse long-term consequences. America captured innocents and tortured them so that now some would want to kill Americans if released. Blame Bush and Cheney for that stupidity. “Blame” Obama for doing his best to salvage us from Bush.
If I understand Trinopus’s point (and without researching whether it’s true or not) the requests for additional security went unanswered because, thanks to Congress, there were no additional resources to send.
I’m reporting you for stealing Bricker’s username and password.
But that’s nonsense. While a strained budget might force an overall reduction in security writ large, it doesn’t mean that security can’t be beefed up in a particular place when its called for.
But let’s say that that is an impossibility, what do you do? Simply ignore the request? Or do you pull the people out. That’s what the Brits did. And, I think, even the Red Cross. So if it’s not safe you either make it safe or get out, correct?
Challenge: Find TWO examples from any previous administration where ignorance of what their own government was doing was used as an excuse. The only one you might find is Reagan. Other Presidents either did not experience this much trouble with their government, or chose another means to quiet the furor.
This is actually fairly unique to this President, and it started with him as a candidate, when he blamed his staff for everything that went wrong. I’m actually surprised you aren’t seeing this, given how the media is pretty much united in making fun of him for always playing the ignorance card. And he’s got 2 1/2 years left. This could happen quite a few more times before he’s through.
Blaming funding cuts for everything, even when there have been no funding cuts, is a time honored liberal tradition.
Spending today is higher than it was as a % of GDP than at any other time since WWII. Where the fuck is the money going? Does the Democratic Party bear no responsibility for jacking funding up to 25% of GDP by 2010 and yet still finding programs cash starved? Not that I believe any were actually cash starved. Ever since the New Deal, Democrats have been explaining the failures of government as due to not enough spending.
Oh, I know that. The knee-jerk response to any failure of government is, “Well, if we had more money we could have done a better job. But the Republicans are the ones that don’t want to raise taxes!!”
But I was being generous and allowing their premise that there were financial factors. It STILL doesn’t excuse what happened.
My god you’re hilarious. Everything you’re saying here is wrong, and not just wrong, but obviously and quite self-evidently wrong to anyone with any sort of memory at all. In addition to Bush’s claim of ignorance about the ‘bin Laden determined to attack inside US’ memos, it took me all of two minutes to find two other ‘defense by ignorance’ instances from the 2nd Bush. Every presidency has used this defense to avoid responsibility for various unfortunate circumstances, both small and large, whether this defense was appropriate or not.
You’re just nearly always wrong when you talk about Obama. It’s like a tic, or perhaps just an unfortunate side affect of whatever terrible sources you get your news and information from. If it’s the second, then please, please find some different websites, TV shows, etc.
They cut off from the President’s request, which has been inflated every year. He always asks for vastly more domestic spending than he gets. Prove that they actually cut embassy security in real terms.
Obama has issued a statement about the VA scandal.
It does, if you think there are higher priorities elsewhere.
If we’re talking about Ambassador Stevens, he didn’t need to pull out of Benghazi, just not go there. The embassy is in Tripoli.
You’re cherry picking your data; got anything more recent than 2010? According to this chart, we’re down to about 21.5% of GDP, lower than in the early '80s.
To quote adaher’s spiritual predecessor Rep. Earl Landgrebe (R-IN): “Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve got a closed mind.”
And much higher than the last three administrations. So I ask again, where is the money going? What programs have actually been cut, as opposed to the President simply getting less than he asked for(and he always asks for big increases).
Everything adaher says should be assumed to be false unless backed up with multiple ironclad cites.
Seriously – in an Elections thread, he just said, and I kid you not, “There is no right to vote in the Constitution.” And after being shown the multiple amendments which explicitly reference “the right of citizens to vote”, he still won’t back down.
It’s amazing.
Since we’re viewing this as a percent of GDP, the figures say as much about a lack of GDP growth as they do about the budget.
Why did you single out 2010; couldn’t find anything newer, or couldn’t find anything higher?
Bricker, neither of those examples are scandals or wrongdoing. The first was an entirely legitimate action and the second was also legitimate, but a bad misjudgement.
You’ll notice I didn’t include Benghazi in my list for that reason. There was no wrongdoing that led to Benghazi for the President to claim ignorance of, unlike the five other examples I listed.
What I’m looking for is an example of the government being corrupt or experiencing gross mismanagement, and a President claiming unawareness of what was going on. What makes the President’s claims particularly unusual is that some of those decisions were things that would have had to have been put before him. Is it really plausible that the NSA took it upon itself to spy on foreign leaders without Presidential approval? Contrast the President’s actions in this case to GWB’s, when the furor over the NSA was much greater. He stood by the program and defended it.