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

reply to post by campanionator

No, because Bush and his business partners made a killing from 9/11 - Gore was not in the war business

So you’re a truther? You do know that Halliburton didn’t attack this country, right?

Why are most Obama supporters “truthers” yet any suspicion by the right about Obama is instantly defended? Double standard?

Originally posted by campanionator

Uhhh,

the difference is Obama didn't need to send 1 million troops or spend a Trillion dollars

So, you deem it ok because your definition places metrics of boots on the ground and money spent.
WOW.... Very telling of your character.

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63

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.

edit on 10/11/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

The security presence at the embassy were impacted by budget

If you believe it, Prove it. The Obama administration does not agree with you.

I gave you all the links you need, if you are in denial, that is your thing man.

None of your links support the claims you are making. You can post them all day long but they don't prove that the budget cuts had anything to do with the level of security that was there.
Maybe it would help to see what Charlene Lamb actually said,

Deputy Secretary of State Charlene Lamb told the panel, quote, "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11."

plattsenergyweektv.com... ate-for-911-anniversary-level

So the State Department official in charge of protecting American embassies and consulates around the world stated for the record that the security was correct. She didn't say that the security was lax due to budget restraints. She did not say that she had to ration security personnel. You have no proof of your claims and you dishonor the men who died by trying to make this a partisan issue.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Spin
Spin
Spin

Obama blamed a video.
Lamb stated under oath that money was not an issue.

But go ahead, blame republicans.

Heck, blame Thomas Jefferson! You're denials are getting rather shrill.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by campanionator

 

No, because Bush and his business partners made a killing from 9/11 - Gore was not in the war business

So you’re a truther? You do know that Halliburton didn’t attack this country, right?

Why are most Obama supporters “truthers” yet any suspicion by the right about Obama is instantly defended? Double standard?

Uh,,, the neocons did make a killing from 9/11 and Bush's entire domestic and foreign policy hinged on 9/11.

The difference is the liberal did not have a NEW conspiracy every other day... Besides Bush being a retard
those are the TWO conspiracies. Obama is guilty of HUNDREDS of infractions says you and the neocon crew.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by campanionator

Uhhh,

the difference is Obama didn't need to send 1 million troops or spend a Trillion dollars

So, you deem it ok because your definition places metrics of boots on the ground and money spent.
WOW.... Very telling of your character.

Why yes, if it doesn't risk a million soldiers and a trillion dollars it is a difference.

IF Obama sent a million men I would feel different.

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by Sparky63

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.

edit on 10/11/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

The security presence at the embassy were impacted by budget

Wrong the security presence at teh embassy was cut down because they reduced the risk level at the embassy......

WATCH THE HEARING!

Why do you people refuse to listen to the facts? And keep droning on with posts from news sources in teh pocket of the administration, instead of LISTENING to the ACTUAL hearing where all this was admitted?

You tell conservatives to use facts, how bou tyou do it the same?

reply to post by campanionator

No, because Bush and his business partners made a killing from 9/11 - Gore was not in the war business

Actually China and Europe, and Russia have made a killing off the wars.

True fact still free to blame Bush but then again that is the only thing those who deride him can do instead of holding their people to those same standards.

Originally posted by campanionator


Why yes, if it doesn't risk a million soldiers and a trillion dollars it is a difference.

IF Obama sent a million men I would feel different.

WOW...Very telling.

So, if for $1 we could topple Iran and rebuild it? You are ok with this?

Look at you swarm!

The hive mind is strong

Originally posted by campanionator
Look at you swarm!

The hive mind is strong

To interject fact instead of speculation? To denounce the bullcrap and spin coming out and uphold the facts?

You DAMN right we will swarm........as should ANYONE on either side of the isle who sees the facts that have come out in this hearing and the ones to come SHOULD

you on the other hand are something all together, new member, coming on every single thread like this not only knowingly putting up information that isnt true, but denying facts and figures........

Instigating ? trolling? Im not sure, but I do think one thing

Me thinks the gentleman doth protest ....too much...

Originally posted by campanionator
Look at you swarm!

The hive mind is strong

Deny Ignorance.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

ine, so then you are also saying that Bush II was completely responsible for letting 9/11 happen, right? Right? RIGHT??? RIGHT????? And it was Reagan's fault for the 250+ marines killed in a suicide bombing attack in Lebanon when there were lapses in the base defenses?

Actually Bush inherited Clintons failed foreign policy decisions and the 4 opportunities to kill bin Laden the inspiration of 9-11 and the founder of Al qaeda.

Had Gore won in 2000 9-11 still would have happened.

edit on 11-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Bush inherited Clinton's failed foreign policy decisions, huh? Again, it's the right-wing blame game. Blame the other guy for your own guy's atrocious faults. And I guess it was Carter's failed foreign policy decisions that caused that attack on Reagan's watch in Lebanon. Never mind that it might be the fact that Bush II two major wars against Arab and/or Muslim countries, which ended up killing hundreds of thousands of civilians that might be part of the reason for this attack against the Benghazi embassy; I wasn't going to bring this fact up, but since you are spewing the usual right-wing blame drivel all about, I'm throwing it back at you.

Oh, and you know that if Gore had been elected, 9/11 would have still happened huh? Right, Guess you can see the future and/or the would-be past, oh great Karnack. Never mind that Clinton and Clinton's terrorist expert, Richard Clarke, warned the Bush administration about Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden, but that BushCo II paid no attention to these warnings or even intelligence warnings from his own CIA.

Also never mind that Clinton, rather than focus on foreign policy issues during his second term, had to deal with the Monica Lewinsky scandal for years -- at the insistence of the GOP congress. And he did launch at least one attack against OBL in Afghanistan but it wasn't successful. Remember, too, that he was also stuck involved with a War in Somalia that Bush I started and also was very involved in stopping the war in the former states of Yugoslovia. And his efforts in this latter war were criticized as his having the "tail wag the dog" in order to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal. I can understand why he didn't also go full throttle against Al Queda given all the resistance by the Republicans in congress.

It's amazing how you have an excuse to cover the behind of your precious GOP presidents for every mistake they made and how you won't acknowledge how GOP-driven domestic politics hamstrung Clinton's foreign policy. But then you live in bizzaro right-wing world where everything Rush Limbaugh says is fact.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


As opposed to the left wing blame game as per this thread premise?

reply to post by MrInquisitive


So the news assumed there was a protest in Libya, and Obama just went with that? It took them a whole month to figure out there weren't protests in front of their embassy, no wonder it was such a soft target, the door was probably wide open. Once again, both parties seem at fault.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

As opposed to the left wing blame game as per this thread premise?

The GOP started the witch hunt if you weren't sleeping Neo...

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by campanionator

 

No, because Bush and his business partners made a killing from 9/11 - Gore was not in the war business

Actually China and Europe, and Russia have made a killing off the wars.

True fact still free to blame Bush but then again that is the only thing those who deride him can do instead of holding their people to those same standards.

WAIT. You are saying all the US and multinational companies contracting to the Pentagon didn't and still aren't making bank off these wars????

You do realize that Halliburton was and is one of the main contractors to the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Dick Cheney was the former CEO of it?

You're saying China, Europe and Russia are? Please do explain how and cite some sources. You do realize that the US employs more mercenaries and contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq than soldiers, don't you?

You're also aware that the US is responsible for 75% of the international armaments trade, aren't you?

You are a piece of work. A fact is put to you contradicting your argument and then you go and make a specious statement trying to deflect that fact. You're pathological. Seriously.

reply to post by campanionator




Want to try again?

Um, liberals?

You're a little behind.

It's not the GOP's fault anymore.

The attacks in Libya happened. . . . . get this. . .

Because of Romney and Ryan.
Linky-poo