NYTimes: Al-Qaeda not behind Bengahzi attacks (video in part to blame)

[Incorruptible]

If by "fix" you mean "destroy" then yes.

You're a socialist which is clearly not in line with American values. Cutting spending would have fixed the economy along with tax cuts and regulations.

 

[Matt1970]

It's funny because you posted the video but apparently you didn't watch it. Btw, in the first three minutes he talks about things that need to be done, how many of those things were done? Why was he asking for more stimulus money several years later? Why would he say, in the speech, that the recovery would take years?

The recovery would take years (if it worked) because it was spanned out over years. Maybe instead of insulting everyone on here you should at least be able to put 2 and 2 together. That was one of the reasons why it didn't work as well as hoped. You will notice that he isn't asking for stimulus money now, and another stimulus package later in that video because in his mind it was a one time deal. Why else would he be saying it's the right size and the right scope?

 

[ivwshane]

You're a socialist which is clearly not in line with American values. Cutting spending would have fixed the economy along with tax cuts and regulations.

And do you have a shred of evidence to back up your claim or is this the last post you will be making until you think people will forget about the claim you made (you know, your typical M.O.).

 

[Matt1970]

Stimulus spending doesn't work. The best way to fix the economy would have been not bailout the banks along with cuts in spending, taxes and regulations.

When the economy was showing signs of going into a recession in the early Bush years, that $300 or $600 check didn't help you out?

 

[schmuckley]

Here is a good start:

www.google.com

Hint: there is no one source for accurate info

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dg...ing-about-hillarys-benghazi-terrorism-denial/

That's the 1st thing I came up with.

 

[theeedude]

The term is rocket science, a scalpel won't do a whole heck of a lot to a rocket. Maybe it should be rocket science anyways since this is what a lot of those so called economic experts predicted would happen from the Stimulus:

Your basic logical fallacy in reading that charti is that it just means that reality with stimulus was worse than projection with stimulus. It doesn't mean that reality without stimulus would not have been worse than reality with stimulus. It most certainly would have. Look at the EU which tried austerity, now it's widely considered a failure.

 

[theeedude]

You're a socialist which is clearly not in line with American values. Cutting spending would have fixed the economy along with tax cuts and regulations.

Magically.

 

[ivwshane]

The recovery would take years (if it worked) because it was spanned out over years. Maybe instead of insulting everyone on here you should at least be able to put 2 and 2 together. That was one of the reasons why it didn't work as well as hoped. You will notice that he isn't asking for stimulus money now, and another stimulus package later in that video because in his mind it was a one time deal. Why else would he be saying it's the right size and the right scope?

I put 2 and 2 together, meanwhile you cherry picked what you wanted to hear without listening to what was being said

Btw, that speech was on 2/2, the ARRA was passed on 2/17, is it possible any changes to the bill might have occurred after his speech...naw couldn't be?

 

[Tom]

No, Obama was saying the Stimulus was the right amount.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kuGOfWSJ1fM#t=134

No, he wasn't. Obama never said whatever was passed on a certain day would solve every economic and fiscal issue and nothing ever needed to be done ever again.

And since it worked, it was in the range of what would work. The position you are arguing, that anyone could know exactly the right thing to do, and that Obama is a total failure because he wasn't that person, is ridiculous.

There was no such person. There's never going to be a person like that. The world is a process, what we do is try to affect change, or prevent it, and then do it again.

 

[theeedude]

Republican position on stimulus is like a guy on antibiotics who stops taking them once he feels a little better.

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dg...ing-about-hillarys-benghazi-terrorism-denial/

That's the 1st thing I came up with.

Yeah you suck at the google.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/about/about-fpm/

 

[werepossum]

Bhenghazi is on Hillary Clinton.
Requests were made for more security;She denied them.
She had "headache" when she was supposed to answer questions.
It's also on Obama;He went to bed instead of ordering assistance for the ambassador.
Wars have been started over less than Bhenghazi.

I don't think the bolded are really fair. Do we really know that Hillary (or Obama) personally denied the added security? We have a couple hundred ambassadors; I don't know that SecState personally reviews and approves security requests. It's possible, especially considering that this was Obama's main foreign policy focus at the time, but a lot of things are possible.

As for Obama, he and his administration have told so many conflicting stories that I'm not at all sure if assistance was ever ordered. However, the real screw-up was in preparations (or lack thereof) before hand, when we knew attacks were coming. Through whatever screw-ups or misunderstandings we had no effective way to reinforce. Either we did not attempt to reinforce, or we attempted to reinforce but had neglected to provide suitable transport, depending on which version you believe. We did eventually send troops after gathering a huge Syrian contingent, all of which scattered when brought under fire. Had he attempted to send a too-small force on foot for miles, they might well have been wiped out and we'd be talking about twenty dead Americans rather than four. And while I objectively think Obama should have stayed there, I can certainly understand why he might find that too difficult, considering that this was a man he personally appointed and he was powerless to save him. What people are seeing as callousness might be just the opposite.

 

[Matt1970]

Your basic logical fallacy in reading that charti is that it just means that reality with stimulus was worse than projection with stimulus. It doesn't mean that reality without stimulus would not have been worse than reality with stimulus. It most certainly would have. Look at the EU which tried austerity, now it's widely considered a failure.

When did you hear me say that? You may hear me say a lot of things about it but you are never going to hear me say it made things worse.

 

[theeedude]

When did you hear me say that? You may hear me say a lot of things about it but you are never going to hear me say it made things worse.

Then what's the point of bringing up that chart?

 

[Matt1970]

Then what's the point of bringing up that chart?

Because some people here seem to think it was a smashing success. Like Tom who said Obama "reversed the worst "recession" in 80 years."

Obama's stimulus trickled money into an economy that badly needed it. That's not how you do it. Then when things were at their worst and unemployment was at 10% he decided the most important thing in the country was health insurance.

 

[theeedude]

Because some people here seem to think it was a smashing success. Like Tom who said Obama "reversed the worst "recession" in 80 years."

Obama's stimulus trickled money into an economy that badly needed it. That's not how you do it. Then when things were at their worst and unemployment was at 10% he decided the most important thing in the country was health insurance.

It's a smashing success for what was actually spent on government spending.
Health insurance and stimulus are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Matt1970]

It's a smashing success for what was actually spent on government spending.
Health insurance and stimulus are not mutually exclusive.

Sigh.... Ya, when Unemployment was at 10% focus on a bill that won't even go into effect for 3 years.

 

[First]

Sigh.... Ya, when Unemployment was at 10% focus on a bill that won't even go into effect for 3 years.

lol

 

[schmuckley]

Yeah..but unemployment is 15% now..

 

[theeedude]

Sigh.... Ya, when Unemployment was at 10% focus on a bill that won't even go into effect for 3 years.

Why not? The two aren't related.

 

[Incorruptible]

Magically.

So you're wrong. Nice to see.

 

[Matt1970]

Why not? The two aren't related.

No, they really aren't. You just remember that when you ilk try and say that the Conservatives are out to destroy America. You remember that it was the left and Obama that decide the best thing to do with a 10% unemployment rate was to focus on a bill that won't take effect for 3 years.

 

[theeedude]

No, they really aren't. You just remember that when you ilk try and say that the Conservatives are out to destroy America. You remember that it was the left and Obama that decide the best thing to do with a 10% unemployment rate was to focus on a bill that won't take effect for 3 years.

Obama supported expanding stimulus, it was blocked by the Republicans.

 

[UberNeuman]

No, they really aren't. You just remember that when you ilk try and say that the Conservatives are out to destroy America. You remember that it was the left and Obama that decide the best thing to do with a 10% unemployment rate was to focus on a bill that won't take effect for 3 years.

I'm glad to see the GOP focused on passing on... well, much of nothing.....

 

[bshole]

So, Benghazi has been so throughly proven to be nothing more than dirty Republican political tricks that their faithful followers had to do a complete thread derail to distract us from the truth? Well done.