GOP responsible for cutting State Dept. Security overseas - including the Benghazi, Libya, consulate

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

There is no proof that it was the budget cuts that prevented them from providing adequate security. In fact the hearing made it clear that the budget had little if nothing to do with the decision made.

Right here, sorry

www.huffingtonpost.com...

So where do HR bills end up?

Do they not go to the Senate then signed in to law by those other 2 branches ?

Why yes they are anything the Senate wants they add in,

The left owns Benghazi.

Huh? You obviously have no idea of how the US government works. The House and Senate have to agree on a bill. The Senate has filibustering, so that a super majority of 60 senators is necessary to override what the other side wants, and the compromise bill has to satisfy both the House and Senate. So as it is, the Senate budget has to pretty much conform to Republicans' desires and it most certainly has to be close to what the House wants. After they agree on a compromise bill the president signs or vetoes it. Given the make up of the two houses of congress during this time, the president didn't have a lot of choice. Remember the drawn-out fights on the budget bill and how Obama was essentially extorted into continuing the Bush II tax cuts for the rich, which he didn't want? THAT budget bill including this State Department funding cut. So no, the Benghazi attacks aren't owned by the left; the Republicans are responsible for having cut the security budget by $500 million over two years, including the period in which this attack occurred.

That's the thing about you right-wingers, you cannot except any blame for anything, and must blame it all on your political rivals. Tell me this one thing: do you blame the right for the massive security failure that was 9/11? If not, then you have no business saying anything in this thread nor in any other thread blaming Obama/the Democrats/the left for the relatively small possible security failure involving the Benghazi attack. Can you dig it, Mr. Gasmask?

That is nice, but you still ignore this little fact.

Originally posted by Sparky63


So what does this have to do with the deaths on Benghazi? Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb admitted that her decision had nothing to do with budget restraints.
Your argument has no legs

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator
It was the GOP who is in fund cutting mode
'
'
'
The Democrats tried to restore funding

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.

So what does this have to do with the deaths on Benghazi? Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb admitted that her decision had nothing to do with budget restraints.
Your argument has no legs.

edit on 10/11/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

The security presence at the embassy were impacted by budget

Here is an article that discusses how the embassy in Vienna (a real security hotspot) got some Chevy Volts while security in Libya was cut.


Article

I think that people need to understand what really happened. I also think that we, as a country, need to hold people responsible and when people screw up, they need to be fired.

You can't support incompetence in important positions.

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator
It was the GOP who is in fund cutting mode
'
'
'
The Democrats tried to restore funding

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.

So what does this have to do with the deaths on Benghazi? Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb admitted that her decision had nothing to do with budget restraints.
Your argument has no legs.

edit on 10/11/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

The security presence at the embassy were impacted by budget

So her statement is what, a lie?? Or do you have more information to suggest something that teh person in charge doesn't know.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by campanionator

 

As usual the GOP made up something that they created in the first place.

Who put us in Libya?

Who?

The GOP didn't so who created what?

There has been an embassy in Libya for decades, that bird don't hunt.

No, who has put us there in a Military force, not embassy.

The tyranny of a brutal dictator put us there

Keep passing the buck though

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by campanionator

 

As usual the GOP made up something that they created in the first place.

Who put us in Libya?

Who?

The GOP didn't so who created what?

There has been an embassy in Libya for decades, that bird don't hunt.

No, who has put us there in a Military force, not embassy.

The tyranny of a brutal dictator put us there

Keep passing the buck though

So the dictator ordered the US Military there?
Or was it the grand 0bama?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Obama is the president. The buck stops with him.

(at least, it's supposed to)

Fine, so then you are also saying that Bush II was completely responsible for letting 9/11 happen, right? Right? RIGHT??? RIGHT????? And it was Reagan's fault for the 250+ marines killed in a suicide bombing attack in Lebanon when there were lapses in the base defenses?

But you're seriously saying that the President doesn't have to make do with the budget congress gives him? And you're serious that you expect Obama to micromanage every small-scale security alert that comes down the pike? You're serious about that? But let me guess: you don't accept that Obama had any responsibility in the killing of Osama Bin Laden and that it was all the stuff Bush II did that actually got him, right?

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator
It was the GOP who is in fund cutting mode
'
'
'
The Democrats tried to restore funding

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.

So what does this have to do with the deaths on Benghazi? Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb admitted that her decision had nothing to do with budget restraints.
Your argument has no legs.

edit on 10/11/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

The security presence at the embassy were impacted by budget

If you believe it, Prove it. The Obama administration does not agree with you.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

ine, so then you are also saying that Bush II was completely responsible for letting 9/11 happen, right? Right? RIGHT??? RIGHT????? And it was Reagan's fault for the 250+ marines killed in a suicide bombing attack in Lebanon when there were lapses in the base defenses?

Actually Bush inherited Clintons failed foreign policy decisions and the 4 opportunities to kill bin Laden the inspiration of 9-11 and the founder of Al qaeda.

Had Gore won in 2000 9-11 still would have happened.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by campanionator

 

As usual the GOP made up something that they created in the first place.

Who put us in Libya?

Who?

The GOP didn't so who created what?

There has been an embassy in Libya for decades, that bird don't hunt.

No, who has put us there in a Military force, not embassy.

The tyranny of a brutal dictator put us there

Keep passing the buck though

So the dictator ordered the US Military there?
Or was it the grand 0bama?

edit on 11-10-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)

I guess you believe in dictators -

I'm glad the US and the president ousted dictators in Libya and Egypt

reply to post by MrInquisitive


That post was really rich haven't seen the current administration own up to its abysmal failures of the last 4 years it is always the gops fault as per the thread title,

Sorry

house bills go to senate then sign in to law. so yeah i do know how government works.

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator
It was the GOP who is in fund cutting mode
'
'
'
The Democrats tried to restore funding

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.

So what does this have to do with the deaths on Benghazi? Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb admitted that her decision had nothing to do with budget restraints.
Your argument has no legs.

edit on 10/11/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

The security presence at the embassy were impacted by budget

If you believe it, Prove it. The Obama administration does not agree with you.

I gave you all the links you need, if you are in denial, that is your thing man.

Originally posted by campanionator

I guess you believe in dictators -

I'm glad the US and the president ousted dictators in Libya and Egypt

That is not my question.
You stated that a brutal dictator sent them.
That really doesn't sound right, does it.

WHO order the US Military there?
Was it the Dictator, or was it 0bama?
I will wait to read a simple response.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

ine, so then you are also saying that Bush II was completely responsible for letting 9/11 happen, right? Right? RIGHT??? RIGHT????? And it was Reagan's fault for the 250+ marines killed in a suicide bombing attack in Lebanon when there were lapses in the base defenses?

Had Gore won in 2000 9-11 still would have happened.

edit on 11-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

No, because Bush and his business partners made a killing from 9/11 - Gore was not in the war business

Originally posted by campanionator


I'm glad the US and the president ousted dictators in Libya and Egypt

SO, you are then glad we went in and got rid of Saddam, right?

Getting rid of them is not the job of the US and its Military.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by campanionator

I guess you believe in dictators -

I'm glad the US and the president ousted dictators in Libya and Egypt

That is not my question.
You stated that a brutal dictator sent them.
That really doesn't sound right, does it.

WHO order the US Military there?
Was it the Dictator, or was it 0bama?
I will wait to read a simple response.

Actually this is what I said

"The tyranny of a brutal dictator put us there"

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by campanionator


I'm glad the US and the president ousted dictators in Libya and Egypt

SO, you are then glad we went in and got rid of Saddam, right?

Getting rid of them is not the job of the US and its Military.

Uhhh,

the difference is Obama didn't need to send 1 million troops or spend a Trillion dollars

Originally posted by campanionator


Actually this is what I said

"The tyranny of a brutal dictator put us there"

I know that is what you said, but you failed to answer my question.
It is very simple, and your willingness not to answer it directly is very telling.

Here it is again. Who (Meaning what person) ordered (Meaning having authority to make decisions) the US Military (Meaning the US Military Forces that are commanded at the top by the sitting US President) to Libya (Meaning outside the US).

i will wait again, but am willing to bet you will avoid the answer.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Here is an article that discusses how the embassy in Vienna (a real security hotspot) got some Chevy Volts while security in Libya was cut.


Article

I think that people need to understand what really happened. I also think that we, as a country, need to hold people responsible and when people screw up, they need to be fired.

You can't support incompetence in important positions.

And the oil companies continue to get billions in subsidies too -- predominantly on account of support of them by GOP congressmen. So we have money to give tax subsidies to oil companies already making windfall profits, but we cut the State Dept. security budget by $400-500 million dollars for a two year period.

Given the whole reason we are in the Middle East is to protect our oil interests, it seems like a good idea to start converting to electric cars, and diplomatically speaking, when in Vienna, do as the Vienese do, and I imagine that involves switching over to electric cars.

So Bush II and company screwed up in sleeping on the job when the 9/11 attacks were being planned and carried out, and the he and his lackeys did a craptastic job in the Afghan and Iraq wars and gave up even bothering to find Osama Bin Laden. So were you for their firing? Were you? Huh? Please point me to any posts in which you argument for the impeachment of Bush II or the firing of any of his cabinet. If not, you have no right to claim this argument concerning Obama.

reply to post by campanionator


Double

Post