• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Mitt Romney exploits the death of a Navy seal.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,417
10,324
136
How about the dead ambassadors mom? You know the one that's getting stonewalled by the Obama administration? Getting stonewalled like the press and the American public on the facts. What about the American public's right to know what the hell happened?

Little Sunny says "but that's diff'rent, You leave my Obama alone!"
There are multiple investigations going on. Why not let them play out? Oh yeah, there's that thing in Nov.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Also there's this

http://www.973kiro.com/108/1353861/Romneys-emotional-story-remembered-very-differently-by-friend-of-fallen-SEAL

But one of Glen Doherty's best friends remembered Doherty's impression of this meeting much differently.
Elf Ellefsen met Glen Doherty skiing in Utah when he was 19, and the two men remained friends for more than 20 years.
"A guy living life wise beyond his years. Always trying to be progressive as well as do the right thing. Always challenging himself to his greatest ability," Ellefsen remembered.
He last saw Doherty a week before the final mission to Libya. "I stayed in his house (in California), we paddled out in the ocean together, spent some good quality time."

Ellefsen said Doherty recalled meeting Mitt Romney years ago, but the account was much different from what the Presidential candidate retold in Iowa.
According to Ellefsen, Romney introduced himself to Doherty four separate times during the gathering.

"He said it was very comical," Ellefsen said, "Mitt Romney approached him ultimately four times, using this private gathering as a political venture to further his image. He kept introducing himself as Mitt Romney, a political figure. The same introduction, the same opening line. Glen believed it to be very insincere and stale."
Ellefsen said Doherty remembered Romney as robotic.


"He said it was pathetic and comical to have the same person come up to you within only a half hour, have this person reintroduce himself to you, having absolutely no idea whatsoever that he just did this 20 minutes ago, and did not even recognize Glen's face."

Ellefsen described Glen Doherty as a humble, non-political guy, and said it was ironic for him to be used during a presidential campaign.

"Whether it be Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, it doesn't make a difference. Because this guy is using our great friend, our humble, and honorable great friend...who is truly larger than life...He has become part of the soapbox routine for politics in a presidential race."

Ellefsen said he understands why people would want to link themselves with Doherty. "Of all people to tie yourself to for advancement in life, it's not surprising that Romney or anybody else would want to tie themselves to Glen Doherty. Because he was incredible. And I can honestly say beyond a shadow of a doubt, he was the greatest person I have ever met in my life."

I asked Ellefsen what he thought of his friend's story being used on the political stump:
"Honestly it does make me sick. Glen would definitely not approve of it. He probably wouldn't do much about it. He probably wouldn't say a whole lot about it. I think Glen would feel, more than anything, almost embarrassed for Romney. I think he would feel pity for him."

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/boston/12008755850115/mother-of-navy-seal-killed-in-libya-speaks-out/

"I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,” said Barbara Doherty, Glen’s mother.
At least the Romney Campaign has agreed to stop telling that story.

Although I really doubt this would be given anything more than a cursory mention on Fox News
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
There are multiple investigations going on. Why not let them play out? Oh yeah, there's that thing in Nov.
Which is one of the reasons that the Obama administration is stonewalling those investigations. Transparency? Oh yeah.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
You repeat the accusations of Issa as if they were fact, as if he ever says anything truly factual...
It is factual that enhanced security was requested at least 2 times and denied both times. Will it make any real difference to you if I show citations to prove that what I stated is indeed fact?
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,079
3
76
monovillage said:
How about the dead ambassadors mom? You know the one that's getting stonewalled by the Obama administration? Getting stonewalled like the press and the American public on the facts. What about the American public's right to know what the hell happened?

Little Sunny says "but that's diff'rent, You leave my Obama alone!"

From the article linked.


Yes, but less then the Obama administration is.

L .....o .......L .....
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,785
1,091
126
It is factual that enhanced security was requested at least 2 times and denied both times. Will it make any real difference to you if I show citations to prove that what I stated is indeed fact?
It's also a fact that the House GOP cut the funding for embassy security, forcing the State Dept to turn donw more of such requests than they wanted to. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback but the GOP's propensity to find conspiracies and cast blame first is rather sickening.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
It's also a fact that the House GOP cut the funding for embassy security, forcing the State Dept to turn donw more of such requests than they wanted to. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback but the GOP's propensity to find conspiracies and cast blame first is rather sickening.
That's horseshit. The Embassy security budget was increased $33m for 2012.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/11/libya-security-lapse-the-budget-for-embassy-security-is-not-responsible/

Libya Security Lapse: The Budget for Embassy Security Is Not Responsible

There has been some back and forth between Republicans and Democrats over funding for security in Libya in the wake of Ambassador Chris Stevens’s death. Republicans have questioned whether the State Department had adequate security to protect the ambassador, and Democrats have countered that Republicans tried to cut funding for embassy security. What does the budget record show?

According to the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations (p. 11), overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. Despite reductions from budget peaks in FY 2009 and FY 2010, both budget lines are higher than in FY 2008. (continues below chart)


Comparing FY 2011 actual funding versus the FY 2012 estimate, there appears to be a reduction in Worldwide Security Protection and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance. But that reduction does not account for additional funding in FY 2012 from Overseas Contingency Operations funds amounting to $236 million for Worldwide Security Protection (p. 63) and $33 million for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (p. 467). As a result, total funds for Worldwide Security Protection for FY 2012 are estimated to be $94 million higher than in FY 2011, while Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance is estimated to be $61 million less than FY 2011. Together, there is a net increase.
In terms of people, the budget justification reported that Worldwide Security Protection had slightly fewer positions budgeted (1,777 in FY 2011 versus 1,707 in FY 2012) and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance had the same number of positions budgeted (1,014 for both years).

In its budget request for FY 2013, the Administration requested significantly more funding for embassy security—mostly through the Overseas Contingency Operations budget—but retained the same number of positions, apparently on the assumption that security staffing was adequate. Regardless, that budget, even if approved in its entirety, would have entered into effect after the events in Libya.

It is tempting to look for a scapegoat for the tragic events in Libya. However, if one exists, the overall budget for embassy security is not it. Funding for that purpose has risen sharply over the past decade. Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,356
18,973
136
The deaths were a tragedy and everyone trying to use the incident as a political football disgust me.
-The administration for pretending it was all about a film at first (on 9 fucking 11)
-Mitt for issuing his stupid press release (and his I'm-a-smug-asshole press conference)
-Republicans for monday-morning-quarterbacking the security (protip: every terrorist attack ever was a security fuck up)
-Democrats for claiming budget cuts caused the security fuck-up (just STFU)
-Mitt for his new 'someone I talked to one time died' sound bite
-I'm sure there's stupid shit I forgot (thankfully)

And all of you assholes posting this inane shit trying to score political points. God knows WTF you're trying to accomplish. People died. People much, much better than you.

You know what--this current belief irks me. I remember the week of this event, all into the following two weeks, that In every single press conference by Clinton, or other DD officials, that they very clearly proclaimed that they are investigating the potential that this was a terrorist attack. Essentially, and paraphrasing because I'm not sure how to find such audio clips for these specific pc's--"the amount of coordination, the date of the attack, this currently seems to us more than outrage over this video," "we are investigating possible terrorist links to the attack on the embassy, " etc. I heard this for a fricking week, yet every single time the Media would mention it, they would simply claim that the attack was based on on the reaction to the video. I never heard media say "the administration claims...." I only heard them referencing the attack as a reaction (without attribution to admin claims), while subsequently playing video and audio where the administration clearly says otherwise.

And I mentioned this in passing, since day one, to various people with me as we were listening to this or talking about it, or watching coverage on TV. I never thought this would become such a silly issue....but it was always strange to me that for a week, the government was clearly saying that an investigation into a possible terrorist link is ongoing, while the media simply never reports it as something that the admin is doing.

It's very odd....the same outlets now reporting it as a fumble by the admin, when it's certainly on record that this is not the case.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
That's horsesh*t. The Embassy security budget was increased $33m for 2012.
Shush, don't let little things like facts get in the way of the leftist narrative. They cut funding, that's why it happened, and that's why the administration keeps pretending it was because of a movie! ;)
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,344
271
126
That's horseshit.

(snip)

According to the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations (p. 11), overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. Despite reductions from budget peaks in FY 2009 and FY 2010, both budget lines are higher than in FY 2008. (continues below chart)



(snip)
Cough Cough - It went up in 2008 because the funding was actually on the books, not hidden in a 600billion funding shell game. Bush was forced to sign a $162 billion supplemental war funding bill 6/30/2008 and further funding by Obama was on the books to the tune of $105.9 and $101.1 billion 2009. It's all nice to say look Obama has had these high budgets compared to Bush and therefore was spending more, but that doesn't count when Bush hid 90% of the spending off the books. If heritage wasn't trying to make some lame out of context point, they probably should of mentioned it.

Looking at future 2012/2013 is equally useless?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,356
18,973
136
Shush, don't let little things like facts get in the way of the leftist narrative. They cut funding, that's why it happened, and that's why the administration keeps pretending it was because of a movie! ;)
god damn, I thought the problem with lefties was that all they do is spend spend spend!

you mean to say that you agree they are capable of saving money?

:hmm:
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Cough Cough - It went up in 2008 because the funding was actually on the books, not hidden in a 600billion funding shell game. Bush was forced to sign a $162 billion supplemental war funding bill 6/30/2008 and further funding by Obama was on the books to the tune of $105.9 and $101.1 billion 2009. It's all nice to say look Obama has had these high budgets compared to Bush and therefore was spending more, but that doesn't count when Bush hid 90% of the spending off the books. If heritage wasn't trying to make some lame out of context point, they probably should of mentioned it.

Looking at future 2012/2013 is equally useless?
I was responding to Thump553's assertion that the House GOP cut funding for embassy security which forced the State Dept to turn down additional security requests. It's a lie. And this has nothing to do with Bush. Capeesh?
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
You know what--this current belief irks me.
-snip-
Wow.

Carney was out pimping the video. Susan Rice was out (5 shows on the following Sunday) pimping the video. Clinton several times bashed the video and it's maker when talking about the embassy attack. Obama did the same thing at his UN address.

The video of the Administration's attempt to paint the video as the cause is all over the place. Even CNN is claiming the Admin attempted a cover up.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
-snip-

It is tempting to look for a scapegoat for the tragic events in Libya. However, if one exists, the overall budget for embassy security is not it. Funding for that purpose has risen sharply over the past decade. Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.
Bingo.

Even if the "budget" claim was correct, which it isn't, it's an issue of resource allocation. Skimping in Libya with all the known threats (e.g., British Ambassador attacked etc.) demonstrates extremely poor judgement.

I suspect many of the requested security measures were denied for the sake of appearances: Small footprint so as not to offend Arab sensibilities.

Fern
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,633
3,433
126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theb
The deaths were a tragedy and everyone trying to use the incident as a political football disgust me.
-The administration for pretending it was all about a film at first (on 9 fucking 11)
-Mitt for issuing his stupid press release (and his I'm-a-smug-asshole press conference)
-Republicans for monday-morning-quarterbacking the security (protip: every terrorist attack ever was a security fuck up)
-Democrats for claiming budget cuts caused the security fuck-up (just STFU)
-Mitt for his new 'someone I talked to one time died' sound bite
-I'm sure there's stupid shit I forgot (thankfully)

And all of you assholes posting this inane shit trying to score political points. God knows WTF you're trying to accomplish. People died. People much, much better than you.

This, 100%.
Not 100% The claim that the people who died are better than those criticized by the post is not a necessary claim. It is just more demonization of others. Theb was an asshole for adding that. All the folk on both sides believe what they did was right and that their claims were moral including Theb. What we also know is that no real American wanted those people to die, democrat or Republican. What we do know also is that the Republicans, acting as a team, set out to demonize the Democrats as responsible for those deaths. Errors of judgment may have taken place. But is the effort focused on finding ways to improve on how to handle such situations in the future or to score political gain. How you answer can be very subjective too. And are the Democratic rebuttals to these charges just trying to shift the blame or is there real problems with the diplomatic budget caused mostly by Republicans. This is something that rational politicians on both sides should be open to examining.

The question I ask is who is most responsible for the political madness we see and I blame Republicans for their unyielding, uncompromising demonization of Democrats. Assume that Democrats make mistakes. Does that mean we want to vote them out and install lunatics in their place. The modern Republican party has gone insane, and voting THEM out is a step back to moderation and the potential for rational dialog between conservative and liberal leanings. You can't surrender to a team that believes that to compromise with you is to compromise with the devil. That is the devil and the evidence shows it to be a fact. No matter how bad Democrats are they are better than Republicans now and until we can find a way to get rid of both, it's best to vote for the better.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,356
18,973
136
Wow.

Carney was out pimping the video. Susan Rice was out (5 shows on the following Sunday) pimping the video. Clinton several times bashed the video and it's maker when talking about the embassy attack. Obama did the same thing at his UN address.

The video of the Administration's attempt to paint the video as the cause is all over the place. Even CNN is claiming the Admin attempted a cover up.

Fern
Look, Fern.

All I know is what I heard. I tend to listen to NewsHour and the World on a daily basis while at work, or driving around. The press conference clips they woud play the days after this absolutely included comments about the video, but every single one of them also included comments about terrorist investigation. all the fricking time. Then, in the same show later on, the anchors would simply say "due to reaction from the video."

I mentioned, many times over..why is the Admin painting two pictures of this event, and the media is claiming there is only one?

the only qualified "wow" is how certain clips being played at certain time periods of news story completely change the tide of "historical information," if only on micro scale. I thought it both bizarre and obnoxious at the time, never thought it would become this absurdly misguided political issue.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,344
271
126
I was responding to Thump553's assertion that the House GOP cut funding for embassy security which forced the State Dept to turn down additional security requests. It's a lie. And this has nothing to do with Bush. Capeesh?
I was pointing out that the "overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade" was a lie. To the tune that the responsibilities shift as conflicts wind down, requests will also shift from agency to agency. Places that previously would receive security from war funding, now receive funding from the state department.

If the state department requests funding and they dumb it down, you bet they will have to deny requests for security.



You can spin any numbers you want. When you look at the context, the dude in your story is deliberately glossing over reality.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
So their funding was cut from a requested $2.15B to $1.934B? What you're saying is in one of the hottest places our people could be, the most in flux, that Obama's State dept. decided to go lean there to spend on security in the UK/Frace/Germany/etc?

I think you might want to re-think this line of argument, you're proposing something far worse than the Rep's wanting to spend 'only' a 'paltry' $1.934B...

Chuck
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,344
271
126
So their funding was cut from a requested $2.15B to $1.934B? What you're saying is in one of the hottest places our people could be, the most in flux, that Obama's State dept. decided to go lean there to spend on security in the UK/Frace/Germany/etc?

I think you might want to re-think this line of argument, you're proposing something far worse than the Rep's wanting to spend 'only' a 'paltry' $1.934B...

Chuck
Way to straw man dude. I said nothing of the sort. FU.

I'm saying. Regardless of what the numbers are, in the past things were hidden off budget, and currently requests were not fully funded.

PS we just started 2013 budget a week and a half ago.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Way to straw man dude. I said nothing of the sort. FU.

I'm saying. Regardless of what the numbers are, in the past things were hidden off budget, and currently requests were not fully funded.

PS we just started 2013 budget a week and a half ago.
Yes, I see what you're saying: "If the state department requests funding and they dumb it down, you bet they will have to deny requests for security."

And what I'm saying is that regardless of what the numbers are, if you're sending people into a hot zone, you can send them properly protected at a $1.934B budget. There are no 'deny requests for security' when going into a ME shithole. Don't do something in some other place that's stable so you can do what you need to do in some place that is not stable.

Chuck
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY