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

So all the Obama haters have yammered on and on about how it is his fault the Libyan consulate attack happened. Well who was responsible for the less than adequate security? Yep, you guessed it -- the Republican-controlled House:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010...

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

GOP Congressman acknowledges his party has cut State Dept. Security

While on this general topic, which political party was spending all of its time embarrassing and impeaching the sitting president while Al Queda was training and plotting against the US? Why that was also the GOP. And which party's president allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen under his nose even those he was given many warnings, including warnings from the previous administration and the previous administration's terrorism expert, Richard Clarke? Why that would be the GOP again, folks.

As always, conservatives and Republicans like to lay the blame for everything at their enemies' feet, never taking responsibility for their own actions. To wit, the constant refrain from the Bush II administration when confronted with the gross negligence that went on in the Afghan and Iraq campaigns: "Mistakes were made." Made by who? Made by the Bush administration and its lackeys.

But hey, we got an election coming up and so it's time to lay every mistake or mishap at the current president's feet because he is both a Democrat and -- far worse still -- he's half African American. Never mind that his Republican opponent is a back-flipping flip-flopper power-waffler who changes his policy multiple times a day and shows over and over again that he knows nothing about foreign affairs* and is a paragon of mendacity and/or ignorance.

Now I have my problems with Obama, but he is clearly more competent and informed than his Republican predecessor as well as his current opponent. It would be one thing to heap criticism on Obama IF your party had a good record or your candidate is a good one; however, neither of these is the case.

*His latest whopper was claiming in a recent talk to a veteran's group that there was no discussion of terrorism during the 2008 presidential campaign. Where has he been?

It's not the party in power or the president's fault, nope! It's the party OUT OF POWER's fault! Makes perfect sense! It's the fault of the favorite whipping boy of the MSM and Democrat party!

Not buying it. Nothing is Obama's fault when it comes to the left, the MSM and it's supporters. You people are like the modern equivalent to Stalin supporters. Those people were still blaming everyone else when working in the camps.

For Obama supporters, President Obama and his officials weren’t at fault for this fiasco. It was the Republicans who added “pressure” with their votes to cut off embassy security funding and it, in no way, had to do with President Obama missing almost half of his intelligence briefings and his State Department not knowing what was going on five days before the attack.

Piers Morgan said it best last night in an interview with Wassermann Schultz.

Mediaite.com

“You’re flogging the wrong dead horse! It isn't about what Mitt Romney or Republicans did. The really… important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who were in positions of responsibility and, we would assume, knowledge, and it’s pretty un-American… to put out completely false statements before you know the facts, isn’t it?”

Exactly. Obama is the guy in charge. Why didn't he move extra security to Bengzi ween there were multiple warnings and signs of an attack? Why leave the SEALS there UNARMED? This is about a failure of leadership and a guy more worried about going on lap dog talk shows than doing his job.

Originally posted by PvtHudson
It's not the party in power or the president's fault, nope! It's the party OUT OF POWER's fault! Makes perfect sense! It's the fault of the favorite whipping boy of the MSM and Democrat party!

Not buying it. Nothing is Obama's fault when it comes to the left, the MSM and it's supporters. You people are like the modern equivalent to Stalin supporters. Those people were still blaming everyone else when working in the camps.

Man, do you even know how the US government works and did you read the source I linked? Congress makes the US budget, i.e. it funds the government. The Republican controlled House of Representatives was responsible for cutting the US State Department security budget, plain and simple. The Republicans are not out of power. They control the House and they have a deadlock in the Senate with use of the filibuster -- which they have used way more frequently than it has ever been used in the past. We have divided government right now. I am not blaming the party out of power. I am blaming the party that is responsible for having cut the US State Department budget.

I also pointed out past major screw-ups by the executive branch when it was controlled by a Republican, but which the Republicans conveniently forget about. The way you conservatives go on and on about Obama, yet you have never criticized the past administration, which was guilty of all kinds of malfeasance and incompetence. So clearly you are biased and extremely one-sided in your criticisms of the government, i.e. you only complain about things done by the Democrats.

Yeah, us "lefties" are just like Stalin supporters. What is that even suppose to mean? Stalin was a tyrant who ran a strict and oppressive police state and the citizenry lived in fear of him and said nothing bad about him. I and other good progressives/liberals criticize Obama on plenty of things, just not the same inane things you and your Teabagger fellow travelers get lathered up about.

And I love your second post quoting Piers Morgan. He's saying something to the effect of Romney isn't to blame. Well who's blaming Romney yet for anything concerning US foreign policy? The guy was only governor of Massachusetts. What people did criticize Romney for was trying to score political points off of a terrorist attack that happened on the anniversary of 9/11 -- and on the very same day! Did you hear any Democrats blaming Bush and his administration for the 9/11 attacks? I have yet to hear any elected officials blame the Bush administration for that massive security screw-up. I never heard any Democrats running for office making hay out of the incompetency of the Bush administration and its handling of US security leading up to 9/11 and I heard very little criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. But this guy Romney comes out with cheap shots the day of the attack before he has any facts, and that is OK by you and Piers Morgan.

Moreover, know what else your man Romney just said recently? That there was no discussion of terrorism during the 2008 presidential campaign. The guy demonstrates over and over again that he either is a liar or does not know what the heck he is talking about -- personally I think it is a combination of the two.

Your avatar is an extremely appropriate one.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
"Mistakes were made." Made by who? Made by the Bush administration and its lackeys.

Oh gawd ... so Benghazi-gate is somehow Bush's fault? You do realize Bush left office 4 years ago .. right? You do realize that it's the responsibility of the State Dept (Hillary) to keep our diplomatic staff safe, right? Ugh .. 'Bush's fault' ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
"Mistakes were made." Made by who? Made by the Bush administration and its lackeys.

Oh gawd ... so Benghazi-gate is somehow Bush's fault?

You do realize Bush left office 4 years ago .. right? You do realize that it's the responsibility of the State Dept (Hillary) to keep our diplomatic staff safe, right? Ugh .. 'Bush's fault' ...

Geez, you conservatives are addle-brained and lacking reading comprehension skills. THE CURRENT GOP-CONTROLLED HOUSE is responsible for State Dept. security cuts. That was the crux of my post and your reply addressed this in no way. No, I did not in anyway claim that Bush was responsible for the Benghazi attacks; it was only your inability to comprehend what was written or your desire to confuse matters that makes you say otherwise.

My point about the Bush administration is that all kinds of incompetencies and malfeasances occurred on Bush's watch and the most that his lackeys would acknowledge was that "mistakes were made." More to the point, I didn't see any of you Teabaggers criticizing the Bush administration for its bad policy decisions and various major mistakes in foreign policy and domestic policies. The Bush administration was a massive disaster for the United States, yet Republicans cannot acknowledge this. This tells me that Republicans, on whole, are quite pathological and cannot acknowledge mistakes or crimes committed by their party's politicians. Yet they froth at the mouth over any possible mistake by a Democratic president.

And even when said Democratic president -- unlike his Republican predecessor -- orders a mission to successfully kill Osama Bin Laden, the conservatives say that Obama had nothing to do it with, that it was only the Seal group that did it. Never mind that the President is commander in chief and there were plenty of other intelligence and military assets responsible for the success of this operation.

As always, you Republicans/conservatives/Teabaggers cannot address the facts of the matter and make a coherent argument, but rather you must conflate, prevaricate and obfuscate in order to detract from the well laid-out, fact-based arguments of your opponents.

If only they went all the way and closed the embassies entirely.

They have no business being there in the first place.

The notion of sovereign soil in someone elses land is just asking for trouble.

The State Dept had the resources to protect the consulate in Benghazi, they failed. This argument only came about because a congressman(d) asked if Clinton had received the zillion dollars she asked for in the pending 2013 budget would you be better able to protect and upgrade consulates like that one. The guy with his butt in a sling said 'yes.'

There you have it folks, the 2013 budget that failed 99-0 because Obama is asking for the sky is to blame for these deaths on 9-11 in Benghazi. Cut through the smoke people...The State Dept had the resources to protect them, WHERE WAS THE BREAKDOWN?

Okay, I'll give it to you, but how then do you explain all the lies and cover-ups, "there was a protest, there wasn't a protest" ? Why did Obama not call this a direct terrorist attack? Why didn't Obama immediately point out this republican backed security flaw? (rather than waiting, what, almost a month now?) My guess is because BOTH parties are to blame, but since you seem to hold a "left-wing" mentality I'll let you answer.

And p.s., I'm not a conservative so please don't refer to me as such.

So the funding was cutoff but does that mean that special requests during crisis situation should be ignored? There were several emails and requests sent by the Ambassador prior to the embassy incident. Its like our military refusing to serve or use weapons due to budget cutbacks even if the citizens are being attacked.

Originally posted by GeneralMishka
The State Dept had the resources to protect the consulate in Benghazi, they failed. This argument only came about because a congressman(d) asked if Clinton had received the zillion dollars she asked for in the pending 2013 budget would you be better able to protect and upgrade consulates like that one. The guy with his butt in a sling said 'yes.'

There you have it folks, the 2013 budget that failed 99-0 because Obama is asking for the sky is to blame for these deaths on 9-11 in Benghazi. Cut through the smoke people...The State Dept had the resources to protect them, WHERE WAS THE BREAKDOWN?

No, it may well have had to do with the fact that the Republican-controlled House cut the State Departments budget by about $500 million in 2010/2011, and a Republican House member acknowledged that these budget cuts cut into State Dept. security overseas.

Could it be that there was some dropping of the ball on security and intelligence by the State Department as well? Possibly. Seems that still remained to be seen, however.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the Obama haters are blaming Obama for this entirely -- never mind that the Secretary of State is more directly responsible for State Dept. security and there are obviously intelligence agencies involved as well.

But what we have is a terrorist attack in an unstable country overseas and four Americans, including an ambassador, killed, and the Obama haters are all laying the blame at Obama's feet. Yet when 9/11 happened, did these same people or even their political counterparts, i.e. Democrats and liberals, blame Bush II for that catastrophe, even after national intelligence estimate memos came out that showed that the Bush admin. was forewarned about the potential for airline-hijacking terrorists attacks? No. Seems that there is a MASSIVE DOUBLE STANDARD here.

Tell me GeneralMishka, did you ever criticize Bush for this or for how the Katrina disaster was handled? If so, please provide the link. Otherwise, please drink up a piping hot mug of you know what the next time you have an urge to criticize Obama or another Democratic president for some unforseen act out of their control. And yeah, yeah, yeah, there was supposedly some warning of possible terrorist attacks in North Africa before this attack. Keep in mind that the intelligence agencies often get such information/rumors and that it is not feasible to act on all of them all of the time.

Don't try comparing this to the warnings regarding the 9/11 attacks since all the intelligence memos regarding the pre 9/11 are still not made public, and don't forget that the CIA and FBI failed to follow-up on the would-be hijackers who were taking piloting lessons in the US DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND AFTER THERE WERE INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF POSSIBLE AIRLINER HIJACKING TERRORIST ATTACKS. And don't forget that NORAD, under Bush II's command, failed to intercept at least three of the four 9/11 airliners, including the one that went into restricted airspace above Washington D.C. Nor do I believe that Obama sat reading a children's story about a pet goat to kindergarteners during the Libyan attack, unlike Bush during the 9/11 attacks. Everybody saw Bush's reaction when he first heard about the attacks -- he looked like a deer caught in headlights.

And why are you talking about a 99-0 vote? That would be the Senate. This post talked about the actions of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for the 2010 and 2011 budgets (which fund 2011 and 2012, respectively), and which involves some 438 votes -- not 99 or 100. But you try to make it sound like I am blaming the 2013 budget for this attack. Again, the usual conservative tactic: confuse, prevaricate and obfuscate. You claim the State Dept. had the resources to defend the consulate adequately. Please provide some corroborating evidence of this rather than just making this unsubstantiated claim.

Originally posted by filosophia
Okay, I'll give it to you, but how then do you explain all the lies and cover-ups, "there was a protest, there wasn't a protest" ? Why did Obama not call this a direct terrorist attack? Why didn't Obama immediately point out this republican backed security flaw? (rather than waiting, what, almost a month now?) My guess is because BOTH parties are to blame, but since you seem to hold a "left-wing" mentality I'll let you answer.

And p.s., I'm not a conservative so please don't refer to me as such.

It was Romney, the day of the attack, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks no less, who first started taking political cheap shots on this matter. It then took a little time to investigate and figure out exactly what did happen. At the time there were evidently protests elsewhere in North Africa and the first couple of news cycles assumed that it was the case in Libya too; however, this now appears not to be the case and the White House has said as much. Obama did call this a terrorist attack -- the very next day, and he has vowed to punish the perpetrators. Being that he said early in his administration that getting Osama Bin Laden was a top priority, and he indeed made good that promise, I take him at his word on this. Whatever political ideology you hold, why are you claiming that Obama didn't say this was a terrorist attack? This is plain not the case. Makes me suspicious of your actual political agenda.

As to why Obama didn't lay the blame for this attack on security lapses due at least in part to the cut State Dept. budget, first of all he, unlike Republicans, doesn't attempt to cast blame elsewhere when something bad happens; in addition, it would look very silly to blame the cut budget for this attack and security breach. Second, he likely also knows that there could have been security lapses made by the State Dept. or intelligence agencies, so he is not going to be throwing blame willy nilly. That said, it may still be a little early do know for sure just what happened and where there were lapses in intelligence and/or security. How long did it take for the 9/11 commission to come to its findings? And remember that the Bush administration stonewalled on many lines of investigation by this bipartisan commission (wonder why?...).

You claim I have a "left-wing mentality". Perhaps by your standards. I think I have a fairly open-minded and objective view. I've acknowledged that there may have been security/intelligence lapses, but point out that all the facts of the matter aren't necessarily known yet and there may have been other logistical issues that the legislative branch of the government could be responsible for. My point in creating this post was to make a counterpoint to the battery of posts blaming Obama singularly for this attack. And all I have seen in the few responses, besides yours, are the same Obama haters refusing to look at the facts and trying to obfuscate matters, and denying any possibility that their beloved GOP-dominated House of Representatives may have been in anyway complicit in failing to adequately protect against an attack such as this. And even in your post you state things that are factually incorrect, as I have already pointed out.

The other point of my post is to point out how quick to criticize a Democratic administration are the conservatives out there, yet when their own party officials in office have made far, far more egregious errors these same people have said nought. Anybody remember the truck bombing of a US marine base in Lebanon during peace keeping mission that took some 250+ American lives back during Reagan's administration? Didn't hear a lot of criticism of the Gipper for that or for his negotiating with hostage takers. Also don't hear much condemnation of the Bush I administration for shooting down a loaded civilian Iranian jet airliner just of the coast of Iran.

Clearly the silence is deafening with respect to all the incompetence of the Bush II regime and its handling of the Afghan and Iraq wars and hurricane Katrina. Never mind all the the partisan politics DoJ shenanigans under Gonzalez. And yet we have Republicans, including Romney, criticizing Obama's handling of the Afghan war -- a war he did not start, but is trying to end -- and complaints about Holder and the DoJ regarding a program that is a continuation of one from the Bush II administration.

And I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am no knee-jerk defender of Obama, but I do tire of all the double-standard attacks against him by Republicans/conservatives/Teabaggers. I am only trying to bring into context Obama's alleged misdeeds compared to those of his predecessors and point out how the conservatives never criticize a president when he is from their party. The same cannot be said of liberals or Democrats. LBJ got tons of flack from his own party and decided not to run for a second term.

Originally posted by hp1229
So the funding was cutoff but does that mean that special requests during crisis situation should be ignored? There were several emails and requests sent by the Ambassador prior to the embassy incident. Its like our military refusing to serve or use weapons due to budget cutbacks even if the citizens are being attacked.

The funding was not cutoff; it was cut back. Can't you read? As for special requests, you are assuming that this was a clear cut case of a crisis situation, which is not at all clear. This occurred in a country that is still unstable and recently underwent a civil war, and clearly way more funds were already put into US assets in Libya in the last year and a half. Given budget constraints, and security concerns throughout the region it is hard to foresee this one attack and prevent it. No doubt other embassies and consulates have had similar security concerns. Hindsight is 20/20, and consequently Republicans are trying to make maximum hay out of this during an election year.

You claim emails and memos were sent regarding security concerns. Provide some evidence of this. And even if this is the case, so what about the pre-9/11 warnings, including memos and intelligence estimates and even FBI reports yet nothing was done? And US air defenses couldn't shoot down at least three of the four hijacked planes before they hit their targets. Did you criticize the Bush administration for this MAJOR security lapse on US soil? If so, please provide links to your comments to this effect. If not, you have no business criticizing this president for a much smaller incident that may or may not have been due to security lapses -- unless of course you wish to join the Legion of Flaming Hypocrites.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


F&S to MrInquisitive for exposing the truth! I saw this story on the MSM news last night and was thinking about posting it myself.

I've got an idea, lets quit paying our electric bill and when the power gets cut off we'll blame the meter man. It won't get the power back on but it sure will make people hate the meter man. This is beyond stupid. (For those TP/GOP readers here on ATS who don't understand the anology, the electric bill represents State Dept. security spending and the meter man represents our government.)

Remember the movie, "Dumb & Dumber?" Well I'm here to tell you that the GOP is "Dumb" and the Tea Party is "Dumber." Now, when you combine these two elements together and place them in the seat of government of the most powerful nation on earth, we have problems. Go figure!!!

This is the problem with the TP/GOP mindset that all of America's economic problems are related to spending and have nothing to do with revenue. This mentality is beyond stupid, it's outright dangerous and what happened in Benghazi is proof of that fact. This is precisely why I have repeatedly stated here on ATS that the TP/GOP is far more dangerous to America and the World, than Al Qaeda ever was.

Welcome to the TP/GOP, the party of willful, lethal ignorance.

Under Bush our embassies were extremely secure. Obama/Clinton decided to do the exact opposite and have no security. Al Queda has become stronger than ever before under the current administration. Romney will have his hands full straightening the huge mess out that this administration has created. If we have war in the Middle East it will be on the Democrats heads due to their pathetic foreign policy.

reply to post by jimmiec


Polly want a cracker?

Spoken like a true right-wing parrot. Just repeat the talking points. Don't bother thinking for yourself. You want to talk about 'failed foreign policy'? How do you think we ended-up in the current treasury-emptying mess we're in to begin with? Sheesh...

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Too bad that the current Admin refused to increase security not because of a lack of funds.
Just refused flat out.

I am sure that the State Department can work within the budget they were given.

Oh wait, I forgot, the Govt can't do anything without more and more of our money.

Originally posted by jimmiec
Under Bush our embassies were extremely secure. Obama/Clinton decided to do the exact opposite and have no security. Al Queda has become stronger than ever before under the current administration. Romney will have his hands full straightening the huge mess out that this administration has created. If we have war in the Middle East it will be on the Democrats heads due to their pathetic foreign policy.

Apparently you didn't take the time to read the OP's source article, because your entire statement is vivid proof that you, like most Romney supporters, have completely disassociated yourselves from reality. Not only do you live in a bubble, I think someone may have farted in there.

reply to post by MrInquisitive
I'm dazzled by the amount of deflection that this thread is generating. Civilised nations have embassies. Period. Obama should have found enough money for staffing? So he should go out and violate the spirit of the GOP cuts, and do it anyway? Is it that easy for the Right to talk out of both sides of their mouths?

Guess so.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Obama should have found enough money for staffing? So he should go out and violate the spirit of the GOP cuts, and do it anyway?

Why not, he has done it with everything else out there.
Are you suggesting that he abides by the laws set???


And please, spare us the retorts that Bush did something.
The topic at hand is the current issue, not what Bush did.