Obama Administration Had $2 Billion in Extra Consulate Security Money When Benghazi Attack Occured

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
I thought the Right was complaining about Obama spending too much money?

And now they want him to spend more?


Oh right, they want it spent on killing people overseas, not helping Americans here at home, I forgot.


Ah, the Alinsky Model is motion.

On topic is that they had the funds to provide the requested security. Requested twice. And the Chairwoman during last weeks hearings stated the security was not denied due to lack of funding.

But, like you did on the other thread, you will just spin what ever, try to deflect, blame Bush and totally absolve 0bama and his people from any wrong doings.

The 0bama fanboys really are struggling.

edit on 15-10-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-10-2012 by macman because: Verbage




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by Destinyone
 


There is a consulate in Benghazi, not an embassy.

Do you know the difference?


Well excuse me....guess Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans aren't really *dead*...they're just permanently sleeping.

You and your semantic games, just makes you look silly...you know....


Des



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


So I guess you don't understand the difference.

Let me ask you something else.

Would increased security in Tripoli help someone in Benghazi? More specifically, the "increase" that was requested was a DC-3 airplane, how exactly was a DC-3 airplane going to stop the attacks that took place?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by HostileApostle
I thought the Right was complaining about Obama spending too much money?

And now they want him to spend more?


Oh right, they want it spent on killing people overseas, not helping Americans here at home, I forgot.


Ah, the Alinsky Model is motion.

On topic is that they had the funds to provide the requested security. Requested twice. And the Chairwoman during last weeks hearings stated the security was not denied due to lack of funding.

But, like you did on the other thread, you will just spin what ever, try to deflect, blame Bush and totally admonish 0bama and his people from any wrong doings.

The 0bama fanboys really are struggling.

edit on 15-10-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)


Mac - you don't want to confuse all this political spin with facts when it's working so well for them do you. Obama could have killed the Ambassador personaly and no one would care. Its sad.

Also, you used the word "admonish", which means to chastise or reprimand. I know what you meant though - just thought I'd jump in with an unsolicited vocabulary lesson in the whole spirit of deny ignorance.

I believe the word you were looking for is absolve...(to forgive or grant absolution) Obama and his people from any wrong doing.

I agree with you - this whole thing of deny, deny, deny, act confused, then hurt, then mislead, then after they go fishing for weeks to find something - anything other than themselves to blame. The best they can come up with is a half baked - "Oh we got it the Republicans cut funding etc.

Is a silly game the Obamites play with everything. Taking responsibility for your own actions is leadership 101 - sometimes being a leader is hard. It’s not a job for which everyone is suited as is clearly the case with Obama. I wouldn't let a Second Lieutenant get away with this much blame shifting - it’s a serious character flaw for a leader to develop.

And BTW unless the State Department works really differently than the other departments of government (my DoD experience is limited - I was never a true budget wiener but did deal as Bn XO with a lot of fiscal BS) monies are required to be spent in the FY they are allocated so I have no idea why they would sit on funds.

Unless, they have some special program that allows them to roll over or reallocate unused funds from FY to FY for contingency purposes. Which could be likely considering security is a fluid on call type thing.

Sometimes a Department can ask to use unspent funds from one line item, in this case security to another line item say travel or hireling more D.C. Staff or something who knows why they would sit on it. However, I do know that if you have a surplus you can't claim a budget cut as defense for incompetence.

Also, the "I didn't know" excuse lasts up to the rank of say Corporal then one is expected to know what his subordinates are up to and to take responsibility for their (in)actions.

Nice the POTUS doesn't even follow the example of our lowest enlisted leaders and he is the Blame Shifter-in-Chief. Sad!



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by Destinyone
 


So I guess you don't understand the difference.

Let me ask you something else.

Would increased security in Tripoli help someone in Benghazi? More specifically, the "increase" that was requested was a DC-3 airplane, how exactly was a DC-3 airplane going to stop the attacks that took place?


You forgot you already asked, and had that question answered on a past thread...you are tape-looping.....


Des



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Oh, I'd love for you to answer it as well.

You can even copy/paste if you claim it has already been answered.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Oh, I'd love for you to answer it as well.

You can even copy/paste if you claim it has already been answered.


Naaa...I'm through playing games with you. I don't like posting with someone who has zero empathy for 4 murdered Americans.

Des



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by jibeho
 


I would love to repost this.
However I don't see any mainstream news outlets carrying the story.
Google news search only mentions your website.
we need more sources.


There might be a reason why no other news outlet is carrying this, but don't let an indication like that slow you folks down. I'm sure that Obama is micromanaging the State Department and undermining Hillary Clinton's authority on that level of fund allocation.

I swear, it's as if no one here has ever worked for an actual bureaucratic organization before. You idiots actually think that Obama has any idea about - let alone input in on - the minute workings of the State Department's embassy security management process? Darryl Issa is a con-man, and you meats are suckers for the kind of boneheaded stuff he shills. Download an org chart of the State Department someday (if you can even figure out how to find one) and check out the layers and layers of managers that exist between Hillary and where that specific decision is made for embassy security funding. Then consider that Obama does not slink around behind Hillary's back to manager her staff and the people that they manage.

There's no actual connection between President Obama and the State Dept's foreign service operation, and definitely no connection between the WH and the management of embassy security funds.

This is why there's no larger media coverage of this story, relative to Obama's WH. No national level journalist is willing to be seen as such an idiot as to suggest that Obama is responsible for funds allocations at that level. He's got a lot of bigger fish to fry.
edit on 10/15/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 



Naaa...I'm through playing games with you. I don't like posting with someone who has zero empathy for 4 murdered Americans.


I'm not the one trying to use them as political pawns and use their deaths to push an agenda.


But of course you aren't going to answer, because you really have no clue what the hell you are talking about.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 

HERE'S what the Obama administration has been hoarding and spending the $2.2 Billion Embassy security funds for:
THESE PEOPLE ARE INSANE!


Chevy Volts For War-Torn Vienna, Nothing For Benghazi Read More At IBD: news.investors.com...



Priorities: While our consulate in Benghazi was guarded by unarmed Libyan contractors making $4 an hour, our embassy in Vienna received an expensive charging station for its new electric cars to help fight climate change. Read More At IBD: news.investors.com...



news.investors.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by jibeho
 

HERE'S what the Obama administration has been hoarding and spending the $2.2 Billion Embassy security funds for:
THESE PEOPLE ARE INSANE!


Chevy Volts For War-Torn Vienna, Nothing For Benghazi Read More At IBD: news.investors.com...



Priorities: While our consulate in Benghazi was guarded by unarmed Libyan contractors making $4 an hour, our embassy in Vienna received an expensive charging station for its new electric cars to help fight climate change. Read More At IBD: news.investors.com...



news.investors.com...


Now you're just being foolish. Yeah, right....2.2 billion for a charging station. Good grief. Well, this crap is certainly located in the right forum [Political Madness]

The "journalist" responsible for that editorial is probably laughing his *ss off right now. And you're being all worked up in righteous indignation over the idiotic claim that the Benghazi attack was allowed to occur because of money spent on a Chevy Volt charging station. What a joke.
edit on 10/15/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


No one else is buying Volts so now the govt. is buying them. Yes the State Department and also the Pentagon

NOT BS

How is this for smart spending


Not only does every Chevy Volt come with a $7,500 tax credit, but now taxpayers will also be boosting their sales numbers as the feds start to purchase them through the Department of Defense in order to ‘green up’ the military.

The Chevy Volt, the plug-in car that has been plagued by sluggish sales and mounting losses since General Motors rolled it out in 2010, has one deep-pocketed customer: the Pentagon.

The Department of Defense is planning to purchase 1,500 electric cars including Volts as part of its effort to make the military more environmentally friendly. But given the federal government’s bailout of Chevy maker General Motors, President Obama’s praise of the Volt and the car’s long-running problems, the federal purchase is likely to become the latest controversy in the Volt’s short life. …

Those sales will be boosted at taxpayer expense. The Department of Defense began buying Volts this summer as the Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, Calif., purchased two in July. Another 18 Volts will soon be delivered to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, where Air Force One is based, according to military magazine Stars and Stripes.

So, let me get this straight: The defense budget is looking at billions of dollars in budget cuts to create a “leaner military” over the next decade, and Secretary Panetta has said that the upcoming half-a-trillion sequester would be a “disaster” as-is, but now we’re using our limited defense funds to buy cars that the free market is rejecting in order to prop up the Obama administration’s green agenda? …Is this real life?


hotair.com...

GSA bought over 100 Volts last year
freebeacon.com...

Gotta Charge those Golf Carts somehow...


To power its electric vehicles, the military is installing the quick charging points at many of its bases.

Opconnect, a company that makes electric vehicle charging stations, announced earlier this year that it would install them at Navy bases in Washington; Indian Head, Md.; and San Diego.

Racasner, the Air Force spokeswoman, said fewer than 50 charging points for road-capable electric vehicles have been installed on military bases, but more are planned.

The Air Force, for example, is installing charging stations at Maryland’s Joint Base Andrews; at Los Angeles Air Force Base, which is preparing to take delivery of 41 new electric vehicles; and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, which will soon receive a pair of electric trucks.

Officials are pondering other locations for recharging stations and how to fund them, Racasner said.


Just another biased source

www.stripes.com...

It was a big deal in Vienna...
austria.usembassy.gov...

Spending money like its not theirs....
edit on 15-10-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by NorEaster
 


No one else is buying Volts so now the govt. is buying them. Yes the State Department and also the Pentagon

NOT BS

How is this for smart spending


Not only does every Chevy Volt come with a $7,500 tax credit, but now taxpayers will also be boosting their sales numbers as the feds start to purchase them through the Department of Defense in order to ‘green up’ the military.

The Chevy Volt, the plug-in car that has been plagued by sluggish sales and mounting losses since General Motors rolled it out in 2010, has one deep-pocketed customer: the Pentagon.

The Department of Defense is planning to purchase 1,500 electric cars including Volts as part of its effort to make the military more environmentally friendly. But given the federal government’s bailout of Chevy maker General Motors, President Obama’s praise of the Volt and the car’s long-running problems, the federal purchase is likely to become the latest controversy in the Volt’s short life. …

Those sales will be boosted at taxpayer expense. The Department of Defense began buying Volts this summer as the Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, Calif., purchased two in July. Another 18 Volts will soon be delivered to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, where Air Force One is based, according to military magazine Stars and Stripes.

So, let me get this straight: The defense budget is looking at billions of dollars in budget cuts to create a “leaner military” over the next decade, and Secretary Panetta has said that the upcoming half-a-trillion sequester would be a “disaster” as-is, but now we’re using our limited defense funds to buy cars that the free market is rejecting in order to prop up the Obama administration’s green agenda? …Is this real life?


hotair.com...

GSA bought over 100 Volts last year
freebeacon.com...

Gotta Charge those Golf Carts somehow...


To power its electric vehicles, the military is installing the quick charging points at many of its bases.

Opconnect, a company that makes electric vehicle charging stations, announced earlier this year that it would install them at Navy bases in Washington; Indian Head, Md.; and San Diego.

Racasner, the Air Force spokeswoman, said fewer than 50 charging points for road-capable electric vehicles have been installed on military bases, but more are planned.

The Air Force, for example, is installing charging stations at Maryland’s Joint Base Andrews; at Los Angeles Air Force Base, which is preparing to take delivery of 41 new electric vehicles; and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, which will soon receive a pair of electric trucks.

Officials are pondering other locations for recharging stations and how to fund them, Racasner said.


Just another biased source

www.stripes.com...


I'm not seeing the security issue here. I have no idea what you people have against an American car, but again, a Chevy Volt charging station isn't related to security requirements and 2.2 billion that is being held by the State Dept for future allocation. The connection isn't making any sense.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


You really dislike the US. It's very obvious.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I swear, it's as if no one here has ever worked for an actual bureaucratic organization before. You idiots actually think that Obama has any idea about - let alone input in on - the minute workings of the State Department's embassy security management process?


Idiots?? Watch where those other fingers are pointing!! Were not talking about Security at the embassy in Barbados. This is Libya!! Remember Libya in 2011? Remember the NATO airstrikes, the 100 plus Tomahawks that sailed into the strategic targets. Are you that dim?? This is also the same consulate that was attacked in June with an IED. Remember the supplies and indirect support for the unknown rebels. They were armed by Egypt and Qatar...

You'd better believe Obama knew about what was going on in Libya. They all did, considering the vast resources that we spent there just one year ago. Maybe Obama just missed on too many security Briefings.

Wake up !!!! Just look at the blame game that is being played between the State Dept, the White House and the Intel Community right now. That should tell you something!!! They can't pass it off fast enough. Obama is trying to leave the ball in HIllary's lap right after he backs his campaign bus over her. Not a good move.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by jibeho
 


You really dislike the US. It's very obvious.


A troll says what??



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
There's no actual connection between President Obama and the State Dept's foreign service operation, and definitely no connection between the WH and the management of embassy security funds.


A leader takes responsibility for everything his organization does or fails to do.

The POTUS is the Chief Executive of the US the Secretary of State reports to him, her department heads report to her and so on. The number of layers of bureaucracy in between the leader and the decision are irrelevant.

All the layers do is delegate authority to make decisions on his behalf - it doesn't abdicate the responsibility for those decisions. One can delegate their authority but not their reasonability. The leader is required to have systems in place to oversea all aspects of an organization for which he has responsibility. If those systems are found to be inadequate or to keep him informed as to what is going on then he has failed.

This doesn't surprise me really since he has never been in charge of an organization before - how would he know how to manage one? This is the problem with hiring "eye candy" instead of substance for the position.

The POTUS is directly responsible for anything the State Department (or any of its agents or employees) does or fails to do.

I can guarantee you this - if he were a General in the military and 4 of his subordinates were killed because at some level in his command a staff officer made the decision to not spend money requested on funds for a credible security threat he'd be fired for sure. Again, someone in his chain of subordinates should have informed him that this was a big issue. As the leader he selects these men/women - therefore is responsible for their actions as it should be.

Being POTUS doesn’t' change the rules of leadership. He appoints Hillary, who he trusts to support his policy and keep him informed on anything that could possibly affect his authority in terms of bringing his leadership into question. She appoints/hires people she trusts to do the same for her and so on down the line till it gets to the bottom.

The numbers of layers are irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
There is absolutely no excuse for what went down in Benghazi.

NONE!

The money was there, the security was not, the current adminstration is just as guilty as those who did the dead.

It doesn't take a harvard law graduate to know that people want Americans dead no matter where they are, and hell if you kill their leader they are really not going to "like it".

They (the Obama adminstration) need to own up to Benghazi, and make damn sure that will never happen agian.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by jibeho
 


You really dislike the US. It's very obvious.


Interesting. I see him as Patriotic, and in the know on the inner workings of military/delegation procedure. I think you don't like him, because what he's saying is...the truth.

Des



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I swear, it's as if no one here has ever worked for an actual bureaucratic organization before. You idiots actually think that Obama has any idea about - let alone input in on - the minute workings of the State Department's embassy security management process?


Wake up !!!! Just look at the blame game that is being played between the State Dept, the White House and the Intel Community right now. That should tell you something!!! They can't pass it off fast enough. Obama is trying to leave the ball in HIllary's lap right after he backs his campaign bus over her. Not a good move.


I rest my case. You have no idea how a bureaucracy operates. Nothing more to see here.






new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join