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

reply to post by Nite_wing


You should try a country that really has a dictator... If you want to sit around and claim America has a dictator, then you should go to see what it is really like in a nation like that before you belittle it with the trivial issues you hold in team politics.

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by Nite_wing

 

You should try a country that really has a dictator... If you want to sit around and claim America has a dictator, then you should go to see what it is really like in a nation like that before you belittle it with the trivial issues you hold in team politics.

Obama has made Congress obsolete.
Obama has made the Constitution obsolete.
Obama has made the laws obsolete.

That doesn't sound like a President to me.
I don't care to live in a dictatorship. That is why I will vote for ABO.

reply to post by Nite_wing


Please pass whatever you are smoking this way.

hmm, One thing i wish.. And please no one take this personal... I wish there was a propaganda law iIn the main stream media and far political sites that claim to be news sources. Opinion news and all, we just need the facts and America can make up its own mind. We are in dark days when it comes to American journalism.

Originally posted by Resurected
hmm, One thing i wish.. And please no one take this personal... I wish there was a propaganda law iIn the main stream media and far political sites that claim to be news sources. Opinion news and all, we just need the facts and America can make up its own mind. We are in dark days when it comes to American journalism.

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

Thats why I watch live coverage whenever I can........

As ive said numerous times, i watched the whole hearing, and ive been watching the spin ever since......

Watch it all yourselves and then make your decisions, dont rely on sound bites and snippits to do so......

When you do that, you get to see just how bad it really is........and how in the pocket MSM is of politicians on both sides of the isle....

I have been here a long time, but i rarely post unless I have something that I feel is meaningful to add.


Well, here it is.

_javascript:quote()

Federal contract records show the department in May spent $108,000 on Chevy Volt charging stations for the American Embassy in Vienna.

Link 1

Link 2

The State Department had it's budget cut for stupidity such as this. That money could have bought a lot of security for the Consulate.

It's not that they had their budget cut, it's what they chose to do with the money they had.

Originally posted by neo96

Then someone bombed Libya again, then got an American ambassder killed and 3 others, then tried to cover it up.

At least that failure did something right for that one time. Not like when he cut and ran from Lebanon after a couple of hundred Marines were killed. Cowardice is far worst than a apology.

REMINDER~~

ATS insists on courteous debate.
In order to maintain a civil atmosphere bickering and name-calling must cease.
Failure do abide by this will result in post removals and warnings.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

As opposed to the left wing blame game as per this thread premise?

It's pretty obvious that this thread can be written off as left wing trolling. The OP fills page after page with 'right wing' this and 'right wing that' and insult after insult. Whereas those that disagree with him present facts and do so in an agreeable manner.

It's obvious that those trying to blame the GOP for Benghazi-gate are refusing to look at the facts .. including the fact that the government has clearly stated that $$$ played no part in how much security was provided to our diplomats in Benghazi ... including the fact that Hillary's State Department is responsible for the safety of our overseas diplomats ... including the fact that our diplomats knew they were in danger and didn't have enough security, they told the State Dept, but they were left to be slaughtered.

Obama has skipped more than half his security briefings and he can't find time to meet with certain world leaders, but he finds plenty of time to play golf, attend fundraisers and get his ugly mug on The View with those cackling hens.

The OP continually spits on 'the right wing' and says they are brainwashed. But the truth is that those who continually defend the Obama administration and blame Bush/Right Wing on this ... well .... Time to write this thread off as nothing more than factless and mindless far left wing trolling.

edit on 10/11/2012 by FlyersFan because: FIXED SMILIE

So it's okay for right-wingers/conservatives/Republicans/Teabaggers to say "leftist this, lefty that", but we "lefties aren't supposed to use the term "right-winger"? What's fair an equitable about that. And you claim this is left-wing trolling, so what are all the Obama-hating threads on this same topic, where it is claimed the president was responsible for this attack, yet no evidence is presented.

Speaking of evidence presented, you claim all the right-wingers responding to this thread are providing evidence in their posts. Very few of them are in fact. A typical one goes something like this (I'm paraphrasing):

"Obama is a dictator. He broke laws. He broke the Constitution. He broke Congress."

Yet no evidence is given. This is just pure, unsubstantiated opinion.

And your are either lying or misstating what I, the OP, have said when you claim I say all or even most or many right-wingers are brainwashed. I have not used this term. I do point out how most all of these right-wing posts use the same tired rhetorical tricks, including refusing to address directly the points presented to them. And when some right-winger makes some egregious claim that other countries are making big money off the American wars and denying that US-affiliated companies are not, then I do say they are living in bizarro right-wing world that Rush Limbaugh weaves -- as this is clearly what it is. I'm not claiming anyone is brainwashed; I think it is just a matter of being duped by specious propaganda -- which is different from brainwashing.

I also never said Hillary Clinton is not responsible for embassy and consulate safety, but you claim otherwise. You also claim that the Obama administration did not say that the security budget cuts had any part in the success of this attack; VP Joe Biden said otherwise just tonight in the debate, so again, you and your fellow travelers are waxing mendacious.

You claim the diplomats knew they were in danger and request more security, but were refused. Please provide evidence of this, including citations; Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly or some other FOX minion saying it is the case does not count. Give a reliable, documented news source to this effect.

Also love how you claim Obama is AWOL from his job and only finds time to play golf. Bush II set a new record for days of vacation spent and if he did listen to/read all his intelligence briefings, he clearly didn't bother to pay attention to them, to wit: the 9/11 attacks, which were warned of -- in general terms -- and which he and his administration did nothing about. And yes, Obama is doing political fund raisers. You're claiming Bush II didn't when he was running during his second term? Worse still, there were instances of his political appointees making official government meetings into political campaign meetings. Again, it's just more right-wing double standard.

By all means write this thread off and stop posting here. I don't care to read any more of your right-wing dissembling, deflecting and prevaricating here. Stick to your right-wing, Obama-hating echo-chamber threads for all I care. I don't bother with most such piffle much because it is pointless to do so.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

What I clearly said is that other countries are benefiting from the Iraq war like this one :

WASIT, Iraq — Perspiration staining their orange jumpsuits, the Chinese engineers and laborers form Al-Waha Oil Co. work alongside their Iraqi counterparts under a sweltering sun readying an expanse of arid land southeast of Baghdad for infrastructure to extract and carry the viscous liquid on which Iraq's future lies: oil.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Isn't the thread about bashing the Gop for "cutting money to libya" ?

Sure, other countries and companies are now working in Iran and likely making money; that's their right to do so. They didn't make money off the war itself, like the war-profiteering US companies that contracted with the US military. Your original post on this particular subtopic skirted the issue of profiteering by US companies during the Iraq and Afghan war, and this your above quoted post just does more of the same. You can't acknowledge facts presented to you that contradict your warped world view. Your only response is to go off on a tangent about foreign companies that are now doing business in Iraq and Afghanistan -- not making money war profiteering, but just doing normal business. Do you even know what war profiteering means? It's means companies like Halliburton getting sweet-deal, cost-plus non-bid contracts to supply substandard services and products to the US military. Amercian troops were getting electrocuted to death because of sub-standard electrical systems supplied by Halliburton and other crony-capitalism companies associated with Bush/ChenyCo.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by beezzer
Um, liberals?

You're a little behind.

It's not the GOP's fault anymore.

The attacks in Libya happened. . . . . get this. . .

Because of Romney and Ryan.
Linky-poo

reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Yeah some people are fighting the last adminstration why some of us are fighting the current one.

go figure.

My point is that you right-wing Obama haters never criticized Bush Ii for all of his MASSIVE mistakes, yet you want to make a humungous deal out of this lone isolated consulate attack. I'm showing your extreme bias and double standard, WHICH I HAVE YET TO HEAR ONE OF YOU ADDRESS DIRECTLY, by bringing this up. I am not fighting the last administration or blaming it for this attack, your specious claims otherwise notwithstanding.

I no of no one claiming Romney was responsible for this attack, but you again claim that we "lefties/liberals" are. What has been said about Romney is that it was very poor judgment and form to go off half-cocked and try to make political hay of this attack on the very day of the attack -- the anniversary of the 9/11 attack no less -- when all the facts of the matter weren't even in yet. But you want to make the specious claim that Romney is being accused of being responsible for this attack, which is very disingenuous and/or ignorant of you.

As for Ryan, yeah, he is part of the Republican-controlled House, which cut the State Department security budget by some $400-$500 million over a two-year period, so he and his Teabagging fellow travelers in congress are partly responsible for this security breach.

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?

The GOP budget cut caused security to be lessened at US diplomatic installations, so yes they helped to create the situation in the first place. As for who put us in Libya, John McCain and many other Republicans were arguing for the US to get even more involved militarily in Libya, hence your comments here make no sense whatsoever.

These embassies and consulates also have CIA assets affiliated with them. Are you saying the US shouldn't have had any CIA assets in Libya or that we shouldn't have a diplomatic presence in a newly liberated country that we wish to have political influence with? Seems if we are going to go to the trouble of throwing out a dictator who we had some understanding with, because of a liberating civil war there, we should try to buddy up with the new government there in order to gain influence with it. Your comment seems to imply that you would rather have the US stay out of Libya and let whatever kind of government form there, possibly one unfriendly to the US and becoming a safe haven to terrorists.

And yeah, I realize there were some terrorists in Libya who conducted this attack, but they didn't have the blessing of the fledgling Libyan government and said government has since taken steps to disarm militia groups there and to run out terrorist groups.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by campanionator

 

Like a true Liberal Progressive Govt.
Can't operate within the realm of a lower budget. Always needs more, so they can purchase stupid crap like Chevy Volts, instead of what they should be spending money on, like Security items.

It was also stated during the hearing that cash was not the issue.
But, ignore that fact.
Go bury your head in the 0bama sand.

Who squandered US tax dollars in Iraq, to the tune of billions of dollars? It was the Bush II administration. It was also his administration and the GOP-controlled House that wanted to pay on cerdit for these unnecessary wars and to simultaneously give massive tax breaks to the richest Americans, so your "Like a true Liberal Progressive Govt." trope is completely off-base. The Bush II administration and the GOP House completely squandered the budget surpluses of the Clinton administration that would made with bi-partisan support. To claim liberal governments can't manage finances is totally fatuous. Billions in Pentagon spending for Iraq under the Bush administration wre never accounted for. If this had happened under Obama you folks would be having a hissy fit, but BushCo losing pallets of actual money worth $9 billion is a non-issue to you.

And wow, $108,000 for an electric car charge station at the Vienna embassy. Compare that to the State Dept. security budget cut of at least $400 million dollars: That former amounts to 0.027% of the latter -- a drop in the bucket. And if the GOP thought this electrical charge station was such a boondoggle, they could have scratched it from the budget and put this pocket change into the the security budget, but they didn't. So this is just another specious, prevaricating argument thrown up as chaff to deflect from the crux of the matter: that the GOP is at least partly responsible for this security breach too, because of the budget cut, and for the right-wingers to put all the blame on the Obama administration is just rank hypocrisy and yet another example typical right-wing double standards.

You right-wing zombies just keep coming up with more specious arguments in response to all the facts put in your face. It's plain to see that it is pointless arguing with the likes of you.

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.

Yeah, it does. Did you listen to Biden during the debate? He specifically mentioned this budget cut and its effect on security. He also noted that the White House was not made aware of any hightened security risks. Perhaps the CIA or the State Department knew something, but nothing was evidently reported to the White House. However, as far as I know, any supposed warnings have not yet been documented in the news media. In addition, there is an investigation to determine all the facts of the matter, so how about waiting to hear the findings before making all the unsubstantiated claims.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by campanionator

 

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

So you’re a truther? You do know that Halliburton didn’t attack this country, right?

Why are most Obama supporters “truthers” yet any suspicion by the right about Obama is instantly defended? Double standard?

Nothing in this thread has been said about Halliburton being responsible for 9/11. What has been said is that Halliburton made windfall profits through war profiteering via no-bid, cost-plus contracts during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, that Halliburton and other such companies had direct links to the Bush II White House, yet the Bush II administration was never criticized by by conservatives and/or right-wingers for such malfeasances. Which is just more of the typical double standard of these ideological partisans.

And no, just any suspicion by the political "right" of Obama is not instantly defending by the "left"; rather it is the hyperbolic and inane arguments spawned by the "right". There are plenty of issues over which that the "left" has a problem with Obama, and it criticizes him on them. That you don't hear this from the quasi-MSM such as MSNBC is no surprise because it is essentially a propaganda organ of the DNC; however FOX is the conservative counterpart and much worse with its double standards and outright "factual" fabrications. But as to independent progressives and liberals, there is a large segment that criticizes Obama on a number of issues. So, no -- no double standard for liberals or progressives as a whole.

But again, let's look at conservatives. Did they criticize Bush II for the massive security/intelligence failure that was 9/11 and the supreme intelligence failure or just made up fiction that were the supposed Iraqi WMDs? No. Was Bush II criticized for starting a second war against Iraq when the first one in Afghanistan against Al Queda hadn't yet been successfully completed? No. Was Bush II criticized by the right for not continuing to search out Osama Bin Laden and for letting him slip out of Tora Bora? No. Was the Bush administration criticized by the right for its egregious mishandling of the occupation of Iraq? NO! These were massive policy failures, yet nary a word was said of them by the right, and the right supported Bush II's relection. It is the right that is culpable of extreme hypocrisy and holding to double standards in how it treats presidents of its party compared to those of the Democratic party. I've yet to read one post by any conservative or right-winger that addresses this point in any meaningful way. Rather all these posts are more Obama/Democrat/lefy hating ones that just repeat the same tired and debunked talking points and/or typical misdirections, deflections and prevarications -- your post included.

Please stop this fighting nonsense.....this isn't about left vs right, democrats vs republicans, conservatives vs. liberals. Fact is GOP cut the budget, did they still have enough money? Obama? yes or no? did he miss security meetings? did intelligence agencies not pay attention to warnings and hearsay on their intelligence networks?

Let's all agree just say its Obama's, the GOP's, and the Intelligence Agency's fault. Instead of fighting for who to blame, lets have some meaningful discussion about what we could do, to not allow this to happen again in relation to budget, military and intelligence power.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Information on the congressional hearings regarding the Benghazi attack

Here is an additional news source link (NYT) that regards the congressional hearing concerning the Benghazi attack and events leading up to it. Suffice it to say, the facts brought out at the hearing do not jive a whole lot with what the Obama detractors are claiming -- big surprise there, huh?. In particular, the extra 16-man security force that was requested by US diplomats in Libya but was rejected by the State Department in Washington, DC, would have been stationed in the embassy in Tripoli, not in the consulate in Benghazi, so they wouldn't have helped out in this matter.

Also, as far as marines are concerned, there are only 1,000 that are earmarked for embassy duty (and hence they would not have been available to protect the consulate in Benghazi in any case) and their primary duty is to protect information, with personnel security only being a secondary function of them. I suspect there are a lot of bigger embassies with larger intelligence assets that need these marines more than a relatively small embassy in Libya, which is in Tripoli anyway, not in Benghazi. So any claims about marines could have been on duty at the consulate are complete hogwash.

So yet again the conservative noise machine at ATS proves to be nothing more than a big whoopie cushion.

Here's the link to the NYT article:

congressional hearings on the Benghazi attack


In addition, here is a Politico article that quotes some of the witnesses at the hearings; it includes this:

“The ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service,” said Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer at State. “Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guard or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault.”

Politico article on Congressional Benghazi attack hearings

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Don't confuse the issues at hand with facts.

We all know what you are trying to do.

You elitist with your education and flaunting the fact that you can read, does no body any good.

We are trying to take this country back from women and minority loving "libs" who don't know how to fight a war and give it to those who will do WAR justice.

If you were right and GWB is responsible for the horrible mess this country is in,
you would think he would have gone into hiding by now.

Actually now that I mention it - Has anyone seen George?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

When all else fails…blame republicans!

Do you want to know how I know this is ridiculous (besides the fact that democrats continuously use the same tactic for every problem); because this administration would have instantly pointed this out if it was true. This is nothing but the latest in a long line of excuses for the failures in Benghazi.

Is it also too late, or beyond the point where we continue to blame Al Qaada for the WTC attack?

Waaaa waaaaa, bad Al Quaada! It was all Al Qaadas fault!

This pic of the crying baby is cute and an obvious attempt to deflect and spin, like using the phrase "trickle down government." It can fool people. Stupid people anyway.

Look if it's his fault, and it is, why not just accept the blame?

You think history is going to blame Obama for the condition the country is in now. History is smarter and deals with facts and not repercussions.
This is NOT a case where POSSESSION IS 9/10's of the law.
Obama is stuck with Bush's disastrous policy results - but it still isn't "his."
He is playing cleanup and has cleaned quite a bit of it up. Still Obama did not get a magic wand when he was appointed to the office and this was the biggest disaster since the great depression. The recovery is moving along faster than I expected. I was waiting for bread lines to tell the truth.

e.g. I don't see 2 new World Trade center building where the old ones were. What's the holdup?

What you are saying is equivalent to "Stop blaming Al Qaada for the WTC attack after all these years. It is just a scapegoat and an excuse. There is no reason why there are not 2 shiny new buildings up in their place"

Same flawed and wrong argument.
It is Al Qaada's fault there are not 2 buildings standing there.
With enough time passing, it never does become NOT their fault.

Obama is fault, he is the president no? he failed to protect his people. it's his job to do everything in his power to defend his citizens.