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

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

There is no proof that it was the budget cuts that prevented them from providing adequate security. In fact the hearing made it clear that the budget had little if nothing to do with the decision made.

Right here, sorry

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Please point out in that article where it was determined that the budget cuts that were passed by a Democrat majority were responsible for the inadequate security.
You can't because it's not there.

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator

The GOP cut funding guns, security and personnel, period.

More Democrats voted for the current budget than Republicans. You may want to play the game of party loyalty but you are not being intellectually honest. 149 Democrats voted for it and 147 Republicans voted for it. How does that make it the GOP's fault?

It was the GOP idea...

Are you saying the big government liberals who love spending money cut the funds?

NO

It was the GOP who is in fund cutting mode

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Obama is the president. The buck stops with him.

(at least, it's supposed to)

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

There is no proof that it was the budget cuts that prevented them from providing adequate security. In fact the hearing made it clear that the budget had little if nothing to do with the decision made.

I, too, listened to the hearings and when Charlene Lamb was asked if money was the issue, she point blank said "No".

And...remember, over $108,000 was just recently spent on our embassy in Vienna to "green" it up with a charging station and Chevy Volts while a blind eye was virtually turned to Libya's growing problem.

Money was not the issue in this horrendous bungle in Libya.

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator

The GOP cut funding guns, security and personnel, period.

More Democrats voted for the current budget than Republicans. You may want to play the game of party loyalty but you are not being intellectually honest. 149 Democrats voted for it and 147 Republicans voted for it. How does that make it the GOP's fault?

It was the GOP idea...

Are you saying the big government liberals who love spending money cut the funds?

NO

It was the GOP who is in fund cutting mode

And it was the state department sending volts to Vienna instead of security to Libya.

The GOP can not be blamed here.

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

There is no proof that it was the budget cuts that prevented them from providing adequate security. In fact the hearing made it clear that the budget had little if nothing to do with the decision made.

Right here, sorry

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Please point out in that article where it was determined that the budget cuts that were passed by a Democrat majority were responsible for the inadequate security.
You can't because it's not there.

edit on 10/11/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator

The GOP cut funding guns, security and personnel, period.

More Democrats voted for the current budget than Republicans. You may want to play the game of party loyalty but you are not being intellectually honest. 149 Democrats voted for it and 147 Republicans voted for it. How does that make it the GOP's fault?

It was the GOP idea...

Are you saying the big government liberals who love spending money cut the funds?

NO

It was the GOP who is in fund cutting mode

Then how do you explain the 149 Democrats who supported it? And where has it been determined that the Administration was incapable of supplying the needed security in Benghazzi as a direct result of those cuts?
Once again you are so determined to spin this to remove the blame from the current administration that you re overlooking the facts or intentionally obscuring them.

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

There is no proof that it was the budget cuts that prevented them from providing adequate security. In fact the hearing made it clear that the budget had little if nothing to do with the decision made.

I, too, listened to the hearings and when Charlene Lamb was asked if money was the issue, she point blank said "No".

And...remember, over $108,000 was just recently spent on our embassy in Vienna to "green" it up with a charging station and Chevy Volts while a blind eye was virtually turned to Libya's growing problem.

Money was not the issue in this horrendous bungle in Libya.

Yes it was

hurry and change the subject!!!

www.washingtonpost.com...

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.

Originally posted by queenofswords

I, too, listened to the hearings and when Charlene Lamb was asked if money was the issue, she point blank said "No".

And...remember, over $108,000 was just recently spent on our embassy in Vienna to "green" it up with a charging station and Chevy Volts while a blind eye was virtually turned to Libya's growing problem.

Money was not the issue in this horrendous bungle in Libya.

What in the hell are you doing with facts? Don't you know that the truth has no place in the left's message?

*wags a finger!*

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.

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator

The GOP cut funding guns, security and personnel, period.

More Democrats voted for the current budget than Republicans. You may want to play the game of party loyalty but you are not being intellectually honest. 149 Democrats voted for it and 147 Republicans voted for it. How does that make it the GOP's fault?

It was the GOP idea...

Are you saying the big government liberals who love spending money cut the funds?

NO

It was the GOP who is in fund cutting mode

Then how do you explain the 149 Democrats who supported it? And where has it been determined that the Administration was incapable of supplying the needed security in Benghazzi as a direct result of those cuts?
Once again you are so determined to spin this to remove the blame from the current administration that you re overlooking the facts or intentionally obscuring them.

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.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by queenofswords

I, too, listened to the hearings and when Charlene Lamb was asked if money was the issue, she point blank said "No".

And...remember, over $108,000 was just recently spent on our embassy in Vienna to "green" it up with a charging station and Chevy Volts while a blind eye was virtually turned to Libya's growing problem.

Money was not the issue in this horrendous bungle in Libya.

What in the hell are you doing with facts? Don't you know that the truth has no place in the left's message?

*wags a finger!*

Aww Beepers mad because he has to resort to magical thinking now...

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.

As usual the GOP made up something that they created in the first place.

Like the economy

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.

Go ahead and change the subject quick!

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?

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?

There has been an embassy in Libya for decades, that bird don't hunt.

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.

Money management is over the heads of most Dems. All they know how to do is spend and tax.

Originally posted by campanionator

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.

Go ahead and change the subject quick!

I don't need to.
The fact is that it came out during the hearing that money was not the issue.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

There is no proof that it was the budget cuts that prevented them from providing adequate security. In fact the hearing made it clear that the budget had little if nothing to do with the decision made.

Right here, sorry

www.huffingtonpost.com...

So where do HR bills end up?

Do they not go to the Senate then signed in to law by those other 2 branches ?

Why yes they are anything the Senate wants they add in,

The left owns Benghazi.

Huh? You obviously have no idea of how the US government works. The House and Senate have to agree on a bill. The Senate has filibustering, so that a super majority of 60 senators is necessary to override what the other side wants, and the compromise bill has to satisfy both the House and Senate. So as it is, the Senate budget has to pretty much conform to Republicans' desires and it most certainly has to be close to what the House wants. After they agree on a compromise bill the president signs or vetoes it. Given the make up of the two houses of congress during this time, the president didn't have a lot of choice. Remember the drawn-out fights on the budget bill and how Obama was essentially extorted into continuing the Bush II tax cuts for the rich, which he didn't want? THAT budget bill including this State Department funding cut. So no, the Benghazi attacks aren't owned by the left; the Republicans are responsible for having cut the security budget by $500 million over two years, including the period in which this attack occurred.

That's the thing about you right-wingers, you cannot except any blame for anything, and must blame it all on your political rivals. Tell me this one thing: do you blame the right for the massive security failure that was 9/11? If not, then you have no business saying anything in this thread nor in any other thread blaming Obama/the Democrats/the left for the relatively small possible security failure involving the Benghazi attack. Can you dig it, Mr. Gasmask?

Originally posted by campanionator

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?

There has been an embassy in Libya for decades, that bird don't hunt.

No, who has put us there in a Military force, not embassy.

And it is "Dog won't hunt". Not bird.