Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the real issue here is the safety of Americans employed at foreign offices, then why are the Republicans not lobbying like crazy for increased funding for embassy security in hostile countries?
Or are they simply remaining consistent with their previous policy of voting down any increases in funding for embassy security?
It is like the US education system. One can throw large amounts of money at the problem, but liberal incompetence can overcome abundant funding.
We have seen this in Benghazi and the teacher's union at home in the US.
There was (and are) PLENTY of resources to defend the ambassador. Obama and the libs, as I recall, has been (and is) the only one calling for MORE REDUCTIONS in military funding.
Obama - "No there, there" ... hits the nail on the head. Whole Benghazi "issue" thing is just another Issa.
That was probably the name for the secret meeting the White House had with select members of the press on Friday. It was called the "No there, there....or else" meeting.
"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.
"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.
Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."
"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.
"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."
It is like the US education system. One can throw large amounts of money at the problem, but liberal incompetence can overcome abundant funding.
We have seen this in Benghazi and the teacher's union at home in the US.
There was (and are) PLENTY of resources to defend the ambassador. Obama and the libs, as I recall, has been (and is) the only one calling for MORE REDUCTIONS in military funding.
How do you know that there are and were "plenty of resources to defend the ambassador?" By all indications, the embassy was requesting more security.
"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."
But the House is more than happy to fund the 15,000 private contractors in Iraq and 6,000 in Afghanistan---because that is in the interests of corporate terrorists like Haliburton.
Save some of your indignation for the U.S. Congress which, if I'm recalling correctly, did not fully fund the Department of State's financial requests pertaining to securiing diplomatic missions. But the Ambassador knew of the risks and like all other diplomats who serve our nation -and who are appreciated by most of us - did his job. If there's shame to apply to anyone as a result of this tragic incident, it's the RWNJs who care nothing about the lives lost ... but deeply care about public posturing against someone who all of us expect to run for President in the next election.
For the umpteenth time.... State Department official Charlene Lamb testified before the house oversight committee that budget cuts had nothing to do with security decisions in Benghazi.
In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
Of course, the LWNJs think we routinely write off the lives of our diplomats as "as good as dead" and never bother to endure they have adequate security.
For the umpteenth time.... State Department official Charlene Lamb testified before the house oversight committee that budget cuts had nothing to do with security decisions in Benghazi.
In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
Of course, the LWNJs think we routinely write off the lives of our diplomats as "as good as dead" and never bother to endure they have adequate security.
I'll bet.
"When is Issa going to call for an investigation into the House's decision to cut funding for embassy security?"
You will never get a response from a right winger on this BIG factor in how and why the end result of the attack played out. Just look at how many times it was brought to light on the last Benghazi phony outrage fest before the last election. At least the GOP are getting into the recycling groove.
Now that I think about it, Hillary made a very strategic move in taking a hiatus before the next presidential election. If she stuck around, the GOP would be following her to the toilet just to get anything to hurt her chances. She is so high in the polls that they are desperate. I wonder when they will begin digging way back to her high school days for their next pseudo scandal.
When funds are stretched, the responsible thing to do is to prioritize. For example, you might want to prioritize a place where other countries had pulled their people out, where attacks had already happened, or where they were asking for additional support. If you have all of those and don't prioritize that place, it's irresponsible at best.
And if he US ambassador to Libya decided that a consulate is not safe, due to over a dozen previous terrorist attacks against the consulate, the Red Cross, and the British embassy, you either shut down the consulate, or beef up security. But according to partisan, liberal progs around here, they think our State Department not only keeps the consulate open, but reduces security personnel even further, and then writes off all those US civilians as expendable assets. And this is how the progs think it should be done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whole Benghazi "issue" thing is just another Issa. 
