Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-05-2014, 12:09 PM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,003,681 times
Reputation: 2521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
How come the guys who voted to reduce embassy security (house Pubs) are now whimpering and whining about terrorists making a successful attack?

Epic deflection?

I report.

You decide.

I already posted it somewhere, can't remember, but it seems the claim that
they did not have money for security due to Republican cuts might not be as true as
Hillary & Co. are saying.

A memo prepared by Democratic staff last year made the claim about budget
cuts at some length, quoting the Center for American Progress as a source. ...
Sen. Barbara Boxer revived this claim ...
"If my Republican colleagues are serious about conducting real oversight on
the tragedy in Benghazi, they should start by looking in the mirror."

"If we want to know what happened in Benghazi, it starts with the fact that there
was not enough security. There was not enough security because the budget was cut."

BUT

as Kessler notes, it's simply not true. And it's not true in several notable ways
starting with the fact that funding was not actually cut. Kessler writes "while
Boxer claims that Republicans “cut” the budget, she is only comparing it to
what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy
security has increased significantly in recent years."

The ARB report does suggest an increase in funding for security but does
not claim lack of funding was an issue in Benghazi. Also, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State Charlene Lamb was asked directly about this during her congressional
testimony last October:


Lack of Budget Not a Factor in Benghazi Security Decisions - YouTube

"it is almost as if Boxer is living in a time warp, repeating talking points from
six months ago that barely acknowledge the fact that extensive investigations
have found little evidence of her claim..."

Democrats Once Again Smacked Down on Benghazi Funding Cuts Claim


So there you have it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2014, 12:13 PM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,003,681 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
I realize lying isn't an impeachable offense
It is if it is under oath...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2014, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,471,413 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin View Post
I already posted it somewhere, can't remember, but it seems the claim that
they did not have money for security due to Republican cuts might not be as true as
Hillary & Co. are saying.
I'd expect Republicans to claim nothing other than that. They're really good at making things up.

In any case, pointing it out pretty much ends the whole Benghazi discussion with all but the most rabid Obamaphobes. But in their case, nothing will ever register with them. They're still on the birther bandwagon, too.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2014, 01:01 PM
 
8,061 posts, read 4,872,728 times
Reputation: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
I'd expect Republicans to claim nothing other than that. They're really good at making things up.

In any case, pointing it out pretty much ends the whole Benghazi discussion with all but the most rabid Obamaphobes. But in their case, nothing will ever register with them. They're still on the birther bandwagon, too.

The other point is the evidence is pretty clear and we know the motives of the Obama Administration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2014, 01:03 PM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,944 posts, read 5,575,068 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ View Post
The other point is the evidence is pretty clear and we know the motives of the Obama Administration.
So, when are the House Republicans going to do something about it besides,whimper and whine?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2014, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,835,644 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
.............. based on incomplete information, which has not been released from the White House.

If you know the answers to all of those questions, please provide them to the congressional select panel, as it would save the tax payers money. When those questions are answered, the next logical progression will be impeachment hearings.

Do liberals understand that without uniform enforcement of the law that there is no law? For the same reasons that Nixon needed to be impeached, Obama must, and will be, impeached to restore some faith in the office of the POTUS and the legal system.
The House's Armed Services committee interviewed and received testimony from those in the DOD with direct operational control of the response to the attack in Benghazi. This included who informed Obama and what he ordered them to do.

What I understand is that some people, no matter what evidence is produced and testimony received, will always assume the worst about Obama. That is not a reasonable basis for impeachment or for how the United States legal system should work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2014, 01:39 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
9,352 posts, read 19,987,957 times
Reputation: 11621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Nope. But the long draw-down in security for months before the big attack, during which lots of smaller attacks took place but he ignored, was sanctioned by Obama himself, for the purpose of pretending Al Qaeda was "on the run" as he kept publicly insisting in the runup to the election.

And that long draw-down in security, led directly to the big attack against the consulate on Sept. 11, and the deaths of four Americans including the Ambassador.

your purported security draw down could not have POSSIBLY had anything to do with budget cuts??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2014, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,198 posts, read 22,269,306 times
Reputation: 23827
This is an election year. Republicans who want to have a chance against a strong Democrat aren't going to touch Benghazi, as the issue is already completely polarized, and the Republicans are a minority in their desire to carry on hearings.

Republicans who are defending their incumbency in the swing states aren't going to touch it either. Several are facing very hard challenges from within the GOP primaries, which is draining their campaign funding early, and if they win in the primaries, they'll go into the general election with less funding than their Democratic opponents.

Benghazi is a double loser right now for the GOP. People have already made up their minds, and the Repubs have no ability to change the majority of them. The best this can do is mobilize their base, but their base is already mobilized by the internal battles within the party this year. All Benghazi would do is increase the Democratic turnout in the general election.

The only thing that could be worse for the party is a failed impeachment proceeding this summer, which would become the final nail in the coffin for their hopes of taking over the Senate. The Republican House majority would take a greater hit if impeachment is pushed, just as it did in the 1998 election.

If the House majority is lost, Hillary can skate into the White House without breaking a sweat in 2016.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2014, 01:48 PM
 
15,355 posts, read 12,598,675 times
Reputation: 7571
please keep talking about BENGHAZI...

freaking idiots can't get out of their own way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2014, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Alaska
7,449 posts, read 5,716,173 times
Reputation: 4832
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
This is an election year. Republicans who want to have a chance against a strong Democrat aren't going to touch Benghazi, as the issue is already completely polarized, and the Republicans are a minority in their desire to carry on hearings.

Republicans who are defending their incumbency in the swing states aren't going to touch it either. Several are facing very hard challenges from within the GOP primaries, which is draining their campaign funding early, and if they win in the primaries, they'll go into the general election with less funding than their Democratic opponents.

Benghazi is a double loser right now for the GOP. People have already made up their minds, and the Repubs have no ability to change the majority of them. The best this can do is mobilize their base, but their base is already mobilized by the internal battles within the party this year. All Benghazi would do is increase the Democratic turnout in the general election.

The only thing that could be worse for the party is a failed impeachment proceeding this summer, which would become the final nail in the coffin for their hopes of taking over the Senate. The Republican House majority would take a greater hit if impeachment is pushed, just as it did in the 1998 election.

If the House majority is lost, Hillary can skate into the White House without breaking a sweat in 2016.
Liberal fantasy yet again..

Here's one of the many reasons the poll below is so bad

90k to loose Health Insurance in Nevada

This might be the worst poll yet
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:46 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top