The VP Debate: "bunch of malarkey..." - page 5

by Joe V 3,874 Views | 72 Comments Admin

What did you think about the VP Debate? Who won? What was your favorite moment?... Read More


  1. 3
    You're either missing my point, or deliberately twisting my words.

    Your bolded information references proposals for fiscal 2013, which began 12 days ago, well after the Benghazi attack and therefore is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Funding for embassy security (and every other aspect of the federal budget) is initiated in the House and must pass the Senate, so with the current make-up of Washington, both parties are due responsibility for the decisions made, as well as the President who signs the bills into law.

    That said, I acknowledged that overall spending on security has been reduced in recent years and indicated that it is up to the Administration to provide leadership on where that money is directed, once appropriated. Spending it in the nice neighborhood of France is foolish, while ignoring pleas from the team in Benghazi for additional support. It is irrelevant whether spending there was maintained or cut. They didn't receive what they begged for and obviously needed. If the senior administration did not have sufficient funds for those individuals' security, they had the option of closing the embassy and getting them the hell out of there. The buck for that stops at Obama and Biden.
    VivaLasViejas, tntrn, and Spidey's mom like this.
  2. 1
    I agree that the buck stops at the White House and I think ultimately they have taken responsibility for the attacks. I don't think they should be throwing people under the bus like they've been doing and just say "this administration screwed up and we've learned some lessons here".

    Still there's a lot of spinning on both sides until the facts get confused and people "misspeak" based on what they think is true, when it's actually purely speculation.



    The requests were denied, but they were largely focused on extending the tours of security guards at the American Embassy in Tripoli — not at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 400 miles away. And State Department officials testified this week during a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that extending the tour of additional guards — a 16-member military security team — through mid-September would not have changed the bloody outcome because they were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi.
    The handling of these requests has now been caught up in a sharply partisan debate over whether the Obama administration underestimated the terrorist threat in Libya. In a debate with Representative Paul D. Ryan on Thursday night, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said White House officials were not told about requests for any additional security. “We weren’t told they wanted more security again,” Mr. Biden said.
    The Romney campaign on Friday pounced on the conflicting statements, accusing Mr. Biden of continuing to deny the nature of the attack. The White House scrambled to explain the apparent contradiction between Mr. Biden’s statement and the testimony from State Department officials at the House hearing.
    The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said Friday that security issues related to diplomatic posts in Libya and other countries were dealt with at the State Department, not the White House. Based on interviews with administration officials, as well as in diplomatic cables, and Congressional testimony, those security decisions appear to have been made largely by midlevel State Department security officials, and did not involve Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or her top aides.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/wo...anted=all&_r=0
    BCgradnurse likes this.
  3. 3
    I am pretty sure that most of the discussion is supposition and guessing and extrapolation. There is not enough evidence yet...the media has not ferreted it out yet and the federal government is not historically a fountain of fresh information.

    But there will be...
    And then there will be hearings and ugliness and accountability. Hopefully what will come out of that is not political destruction of an individual but rather the improvement of a processes and systems to create safer environments for our patriots.
    NRSKarenRN, BCgradnurse, and herring_RN like this.
  4. 3
    Here is a big difference between us...

    No matter the party...the POTUS is my guy

    After the election there is not "your guy" and "my guy" ...not for me anyway.

    Bush was my guy...
    Clinton was my guy...
    Obama is my guy...

    Here's the rub for me...messing up is often a retrospective acknowledgement. Now, in nursing I can mess up a medication or a procedure and have immediate indication that I have made an error. Errors in judgment are often not as easily identified and sometimes take time to discover all of the elements of the error(s)...not to mention the ramifications of the error(s) in judgment.

    History will reflect this story better than we can now...our election will likely reflect our immediate response to the situation but the history books will reflect a larger story and image. (of course the veracity of our history books is the topic of another thread I suspect).
  5. 2
    For me, the prez isn't "my guy". He might be my president. But if I didn't vote for him and I don't agree with him, he's not "my guy". I'll speak out on things I don't agree with and I'll do everything I can to make sure he doesn't get re-elected.
    Jolie and KelRN215 like this.
  6. 0
    Quote from Jolie
    You're either missing my point, or deliberately twisting my words.

    Your bolded information references proposals for fiscal 2013, which began 12 days ago, well after the Benghazi attack and therefore is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Funding for embassy security (and every other aspect of the federal budget) is initiated in the House and must pass the Senate, so with the current make-up of Washington, both parties are due responsibility for the decisions made, as well as the President who signs the bills into law.

    That said, I acknowledged that overall spending on security has been reduced in recent years and indicated that it is up to the Administration to provide leadership on where that money is directed, once appropriated. Spending it in the nice neighborhood of France is foolish, while ignoring pleas from the team in Benghazi for additional support. It is irrelevant whether spending there was maintained or cut. They didn't receive what they begged for and obviously needed. If the senior administration did not have sufficient funds for those individuals' security, they had the option of closing the embassy and getting them the hell out of there. The buck for that stops at Obama and Biden.
    2011 and 2012 embassy security finding was also cut, you'll find that in the next sentence after the 2013 statement. I didn't actually bold that, it was that way in the article. Here's what happened to 2011 and 2012 budgets.


    "... House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected."
  7. 3
    Quote from Spidey's mom
    For me, the prez isn't "my guy". He might be my president. But if I didn't vote for him and I don't agree with him, he's not "my guy". I'll speak out on things I don't agree with and I'll do everything I can to make sure he doesn't get re-elected.
    Understandable.

    While I'm voting for Obama because he's clearly the best candidate for the job, I don't necessarily call him "my guy". Certainly if Romney was elected I wouldn't call him "my guy". I'd deal with it and respect that he's the President, just like I don't like my CEO but respect her authority, title and position.

    I practically loathed GWB and wouldn't fathom considering calling him "my guy".
    Jolie, Spidey's mom, and KelRN215 like this.
  8. 1
    Quote from tntrn
    Joe did a poor job. He was rude, disrespectful and over all, looked like he thought he was at a carnival, not a debate of issues serious to millions of US citiziens. He looked, to me, like an angry old white guy. He was even rude to the commentator on several occasions. He interrupted Ryan 82 times! In a 90 minute time frame that is almost once a minute.

    His comments (more than once) of "if they'd just get out of the way (referring to Republicans) hardly sounds like a we'll reach across the aisle sort of theme, does it?

    And he has lying about the Syria thing....but then the Syria thing has been one lie after another since it happened, and he is hardly the first person or the highest in rank to have done it.
    How many times was Obama and Jim interrupted? :|
    herring_RN likes this.
  9. 0
    Quote from man-nurse2b
    How many times was Obama and Jim interrupted? :|
    Did Biden try to talk over them, too?
  10. 3
    A bunch of Malarkey indeed. I think Joe won the people over. Joe was direct. He was sincere and passionate (some call it rude), I think Romney was plain rude and disrespectful, especially to Bird Bird and Jim. Ryan was a stif, he sounded like and old tape saying the same thing Romney said with no specifics and dodging the questions. Ryan tried to get personable but he's always been and always will be a book type policy guy. He needed to relax a bit and once again, like his counterpart they have no specifics on their plan.
    Let me ask all of you Republican and Democrats...if you got a budget for your house, you in debt, both husband and wife are working to pay the bills. Would you cut your income? by working less and yet expect to bring in the same amount of money? The is what Ryan and Romney are saying, even an elementary school students knows 1 plus 1 equals 2. My question is where is the money going to come from? And keep this in mind that Bush had opportunity to make these tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, but HE AND the Republicans did not, so all Obama is doing is just letting them expire.
    The other comment that is a bunch of Malarkey is Romeny Ryan is going to get tough of China? really? the most populous country in the world. There is absolutely nothing they can do to stop China's growth in this global economy. The only way to beat China is by putting education first, using our technogology and coming up with better innovations. Fact is China will not just go away.
    As for the debate on Libia and Iran...Ryan sounded like they want another war that we can't afford. I say let those people fight their own wars and USA should be neutral and take care of our own. Our first priority should be education, jobs, health care and eliminating the debt we owe China.
    CruzanNurseRN, KelRN215, and herring_RN like this.


Top