Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "And the SoS has plenty of power within their own portfolio."...

... But not the power to protect diplomatic personnel? Pyrtolin, this is an example the intractable ignorance that spills over into your frequent economic analysis. I don't know what else to do, but ignore your posts.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Are you claiming the warnings and exposure in Benghazi is a typical experience for all US Embassies?


Most embassies throughout the middle-east and other contentious areas. This does sound like you are attempting to assert that Benghazi was the only embassy that we had credible threat information about.

quote:
There is no need to pretend they could have known, nothing magical about it. They should have known of the risk. There were repeated, credible warnings.
Which embassies should they have taken security away from to put more defense there? If we count up all the possible places where such an attack could have happened, which should have been shorted on the bet that Benghazi was going to win the lo0ttery here?

quote:
The attack lasted 8 hours, forces were in position to respond during the attack.

And that becomes a question for the Generals in charge of Africa, because they were the ones who had the authority to move those forces, including getting clearance from Libyan and Benghazi authorities to conduct millitary operations in their airspace and on their soil.

And while the President does technically have the authority to override military command, it seems like it would be absurdly bad for him to be secondgussing experienced generals and overriding themin the middle of an operation rather than setting general goals and objectives and trusting them to know how to do their jobs.

quote:
Barry went to bed.
After the attack was over and the situation secured, unless you're going to try to hope that people here don't realize the time differences like the people pushing that lie bank on.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
- "And the SoS has plenty of power within their own portfolio."...

... But not the power to protect diplomatic personnel? Pyrtolin, this is an example the intractable ignorance that spills over into your frequent economic analysis. I don't know what else to do, but ignore your posts.

The Sos has a budget to hire security within the budget limits set by Congress. They can't command and branch of the US Armed Forces.

And now you double down on disingenuity with personal attacks.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay Pyrtolin, this is way past plain stupid:

- "And while the President does technically have the authority to override military command... "...

What do you think it means to be the CIC, and what specific "override" of military command are you talking about... Carter Ham's?

There is good reason to believe this is exactly what Barry did in exposing U.S. personnel, to thirteen hours of withheld military assistance, at a time of mortal threat.

- "They can't command and branch of the US Armed Forces."...

Her boss could have! Are you suggesting this type of preemptive action on Hillary's part is an unreasonable expectation? General Dempsey threw that hot potato back in her lap last week.

- "And now you double down on disingenuity with personal attacks."...

Should I read "disingenuity" as a "personal attack"? [Wink]

If you do not want to be called on dumb comments, just think a little before making them. I will not be engaging you further on this thread.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
You really consider that an unanswered question, Kate? I would have thought it was obvious.

I think I know the answer, but I would like to hear an answer by some of the folks providing such close scrutiny to this, and only this, attack.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "I would like to hear an answer by some of the folks providing such close scrutiny to this, and only this, attack."...

Is there something that you would like to elaborate on kmbboots?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you suggesting this type of preemptive action on Hillary's part is an unreasonable expectation?
I'll make that suggestion, sure. It's ridiculously unreasonable, in fact.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "I'll make that suggestion, sure. It's ridiculously unreasonable... "...

Well Tom, thanks for supplying your own rebuttal.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
- "I would like to hear an answer by some of the folks providing such close scrutiny to this, and only this, attack."...

Is there something that you would like to elaborate on kmbboots?

I would like you to elaborate on why, exactly, you are so much more concerned with this particular attack and not so much with any of the others.

ETA: Not just you, of course. The whole media flurry regarding this one.

[ February 13, 2013, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Okay Pyrtolin, this is way past plain stupid:


Then start resonding to what I'm saying instead of continuing to make up what you want it to be and pretending I said something else.

quote:

- "And while the President does technically have the authority to override military command... "...

What do you think it means to be the CIC, and what specific "override" of military command are you talking about... Carter Ham's?

It means that he has the power to micromanage the armey if he was so inclined, but have the power to do something does not mean that it makes sense for him to do that. It's very reasonable to use the power on a stratigic level, but making tactical calls should be reserved to very limited situations.

quote:
There is good reason to believe this is exactly what Barry did in exposing U.S. personnel, to thirteen hours of withheld military assistance, at a time of mortal threat.
What direct evidence do you have of him overriding the military's tactical calls here? The only statements we have suggest that hehe gave the DoD the goahead to respond as it felr was appropriate and then kept his finger out of the pot rather than second guessing the actual militray commanders in charge.

quote:

- "They can't command and branch of the US Armed Forces."...

Her boss could have! Are you suggesting this type of preemptive action on Hillary's part is an unreasonable expectation? General Dempsey threw that hot potato back in her lap last week.

The Secretary of Defense was informed very early in the process. That ball had already handed off to the appropriate people. Obama could have chosen to override the way the military chose to respond, but if the military thought it unwise to violate the soverign territory of a nominal ally in the time frame that5 you're suggesting that it should have, perhaps he had good reason to allow them to handle it their way rather than overriding their judgement and telling them to go in with guns bvlazing.


quote:
- "And now you double down on disingenuity with personal attacks."...

Should I read "disingenuity" as a "personal attack"? [Wink]

If you do not want to be called on dumb comments, just think a little before making them. I will not be engaging you further on this thread.

If you think the comments are dumb, then don't resopnd. If you think they're worth responding have the decency to respond to them earnestly rather than making up fake meanings and then constructing loaded questions based on false premises.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots,

- "I would like you to elaborate on why, exactly, you are so much more concerned with this particular attack and not so much with any of the others."...

Sure, in a situation where:

* A diplomatic mission is established in a city flying al Qaeda flags over government buildings...

* Al Qaeda training, and militias are active...

* An ambassador sends multiple pleas for a security upgrade to compound defenses...

* Local police are observed engaging in surveillance from the upper stories of adjacent buildings...

* A message is sent that the consulate cannot repel a concerted attack...

* An attack occurs, and requests for aid are transmitted...

* Those requests are systematically put off for thirteen hours without any offensive capability dispatched to protect U.S. citizens...

We have an event that finds no homologue in any other similar crisis.

[ February 13, 2013, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And why do you think that is, noel? What made them decide to respond so uniquely in this case?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "What made them decide to respond so uniquely in this case?"...

The decision not to decide was the product of incompetence, not deliberation.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So they were only incompetent in this one case, is what you're saying? [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "So they were only incompetent in this one case... "...

Do we have another CIC that I should know about?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We have had other threats, rather.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

- "We have had other threats, rather."...

None that have triggered a response like this:

[Originally published 04:45 a.m., September 12, 2012/Updated 09:52 a.m., September 12, 2012]; -"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Wednesday condemned attacks on a U.S. consulate in eastern Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three American members of his staff. He ordered increased security at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world.

In a White House statement, Obama said he had ordered 'all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe.' "...

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/sep/12/american-dies-libya-us-consultate-burned-protester/?print=1

Apparently Barry got the message that the presidency requires more hands-on involvement.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Apparently Barry got the message that the presidency requires more hands-on involvement.

We can always hope so ,.. seems like it's something he should have known going into this though ...
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Apparently Barry got the message that the presidency requires more hands-on involvement.
Which is it you want? More hands on or more hands off. you keep swithcing between saying that he was being too hands on and actively countermanding the military from responding to the situation as you belive that they should have and saying that apparently that he sould be commanding every tactical excersise as if the top brass can't even use the bathroom withoout his explicit go ahead.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "Just when you thought things couldn't get worse... "...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/harry-reid-republicans-look-to-block-hagel/2013/02/14/2779bf99-2895-4254-8274-b9786308234b_video.html

[LOL]

His president has crippled our navy, yet Reid sheds crocodile tears over delayed confirmation of a moronic SOD nominee.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or, looking at it another way: the Republicans in Congress are willing to hold our Navy and our military effectiveness in general hostage to score political points, because there are idiots on the Internet who are willing to put blame anywhere but where it belongs.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "... because there are idiots on the Internet who are willing to put blame anywhere but where it belongs."...

True!

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wouldn't it be interesting if this conversation were about ways to get appointments and laws moving through Congress again, so that the government actually functions, instead of arguing about which side is to blame for not blinking?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "Wouldn't it be interesting if this conversation were about ways to get appointments and laws moving through Congress again... "...

"Interesting"? Not at all. If proposed policies coming from the Whitehouse are harmful to the welfare of the United States, then I am all for grid-lock. This president has invited confrontation, and that is exactly what he is going to get for the next four years.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If proposed policies coming from the Whitehouse are harmful to the welfare of the United States, then I am all for grid-lock. This president has invited confrontation, and that is exactly what he is going to get for the next four years.
So, to clarify, the fact that we can't pass a defense budget or get important positions staffed is Obama's fault, because he disagrees with you and compromise on points of disagreement is simply not done?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Interesting"? Not at all. If proposed policies coming from the Whitehouse are harmful to the welfare of the United States, then I am all for grid-lock. This president has invited confrontation, and that is exactly what he is going to get for the next four years.
Why don't you ask the Poles how gridlock worked out for them?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

- "So, to clarify, the fact that we can't pass a defense budget... "...

We have passed a reduced defense budget of 9.4% for 2013, not including war draw down reductions (2.5%), or the coming sequester (10.3%).

As I have mentioned twice already, the immediate effect is to cripple our navy. Today, only CVN-74 (John C. Stennis) is at sea, operating with the 5th Fleet in the Middle East. CVN-74 (George Washington) in port, at Yokosuka, on selected restricted availability... rather than around the Senkaku Islands where it is needed. CVN-77 (George H.W. Bush) is in carrier qualification off Norfolk, and CVN-75 (Harry Truman) is in the waters off Norfolk for "local operations" per Panetta's recent order. The remaining seven carriers are in repairs, or overhaul.

We normally have three carriers active in fleet operations at all times. What exactly would you like Republicans to compromise on?

NH,

- "Why don't you ask the Poles how gridlock worked out for them?"...

You are Canadian, correct? The U.S. has experience with grid-lock, and we are not Poland.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The disdain for compromise shown by Republicans and some conservatives recently seems to be a recipe for rather more grid-lock than the US has usually had to put up with. Though maybe I'm under-estimating the shenanigans of previous Congresses.

If believing "proposed policies coming from the Whitehouse are harmful to the welfare of the United States" is justification for shutting down the federal government, then how will anything ever get done? There's always going to be a substantial group of people that believe a policy is going to be bad for the country. Should they have the right to bring things to a screetching halt until they get what they want?

You may not be Poland, but I'm worried that you'll turn into them.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

- "... is justification for shutting down the federal government... "...

Only on the left would fiscal restraint be interpreted as "shutting down government". Do you appreciate how out-of-proportion this hyperbole is?

Both sides agree sequestration is not the preferred method of budget cutting per their priorities. At this stage; let Barry bring his brain-child to action, and trade the scalpel for an ax. Jack Lew will be confirmed around the time fall-out from his idea effects the nation... which seems fitting.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Only on the left would fiscal restraint be interpreted as "shutting down government".
For my part, I consider things like the Republican sequester and their general refusal to accept any appointees in order to depower entire agencies to indeed be efforts to shut down government. It is very difficult to ascertain what, if anything, the Republicans in Congress are willing to do -- assuming that not doing anything doesn't count as doing anything.

[ February 15, 2013, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
For my part, I consider things like the Republican sequester...

Republican sequester? Certainly you know that Obama and his team invented that!
quote:
In the debate, Obama said he didn’t propose sequestration, Congress did. (We asked the White House for comment, but didn't hear back.)

To determine the question of ownership, we turned to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics.

Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House.

<snip>

Obama said that the sequester -- and the defense cuts that would result from it -- was not his proposition. "It is something that Congress has proposed," he said in the debate.

But it was Obama’s negotiating team that came up with the idea for defense cuts in 2011...

I can't blame you for not wanting Democrats and Obama to own it but when even Politifact says they do then you gotta know you're not really being honest.

[ February 15, 2013, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Sequester only exists because of Republican intransigence. No one would have proposed it if they hadn't used the debt ceilng to hold the economy hostage to extort a cut proposal. The fact that this was they plan they chose to accept after shooting down less severe measures puts its creation fully in their laps, because they're the ones that extracted it under duress in the first place.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

- "... their general refusal to accept any appointees in order to depower entire agencies... "...

You really do not understand conservative motives. Neither they, nor Republicans, are happy about Hagel. Notwithstanding, he will eventually be confirmed absent a blockbuster in his speech portfolio (soon to be turned over to the Senate). What is really being sought is information on Benghazi that Barry is still sitting on four months later. We want him held accountable in the full light of day.

This is not about "depowering agencies". If it was, defense is the last department we would target.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The Sequester only exists because of Republican intransigence. No one would have proposed it if they hadn't used the debt ceilng to hold the economy hostage to extort a cut proposal. The fact that this was they plan they chose to accept after shooting down less severe measures puts its creation fully in their laps, because they're the ones that extracted it under duress in the first place.

Ah, so Barry didn't want to create the sequestration, those wascally wepublicans forced him to do it against his will. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The Sequester only exists because of Republican intransigence. No one would have proposed it if they hadn't used the debt ceilng to hold the economy hostage to extort a cut proposal. The fact that this was they plan they chose to accept after shooting down less severe measures puts its creation fully in their laps, because they're the ones that extracted it under duress in the first place.

Ah, so Barry didn't want to create the sequestration, those wascally wepublicans forced him to do it against his will.
Snideness aside, that is exactly what happened despite the attempts to rewrite history in hopes that people forget just who threw out the Gephardt rule and rode the debt cilieng issue to the brink rather than passing it after the normal level of theatre or helping to get rid of a completely stupid suicide pact that keeps coming up for extension.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The devil made me do it!
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is not about "depowering agencies"
Tell that to Elizabeth Warren.

(Also: Grover Norquist, despite many similarities, is probably not the devil.)

[ February 15, 2013, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "Tell that to Elizabeth Warren."...

The wanabee cherokee, how does she come into this discussion?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From what I've read, the sequestration idea came from the White House.

But it was passed with far more Republican votes than Democrat.

So saying the sequestration is entirely Obama's fault is disingenuous. It is planned that was loved by Republicans at the time.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The wanabee cherokee, how does she come into this discussion?
Hers is, I believe, the most indisputable example of an appointment deliberately delayed to depower an agency. (I find it interesting that you went with "wanabee cherokee," by the way.)
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1