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

reply to post by MrInquisitive

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

As a matter of fact, Obama did reportedly refuse to authorize the Osama mission several times before finally going in. Inn his book, "The Amateur", Edward Klein explains how much control Valerie Jarrett has over Obama. Obama himself stated he runs every decision by her. It is pretty plain that Iranian born Jarrett does not wish to see operatives of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood be taken out.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

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

As a matter of fact, Obama did reportedly refuse to authorize the Osama mission several times before finally going in. Inn his book, "The Amateur", Edward Klein explains how much control Valerie Jarrett has over Obama. Obama himself stated he runs every decision by her. It is pretty plain that Iranian born Jarrett does not wish to see operatives of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood be taken out.

Wow, that's one mojo non sequitur, ThirdeyeofHorus. My point was that Obama did go after Osama Bin Laden and was apparently successful in doing so -- unlike Shrub II. Rather than try to refute this undeniable fact, you go off on a whole 'nother direction, citing some sketchy auther about what he claims to be Obama's decision-making protocol.

As to this author, Edward Klein, here is what I found out about him at wikipedia:

Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton, titled, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005.[2] Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life." [3]. The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by conservatives as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, “Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn’t have to suffer through another word.” In National Review James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”

the skinny on Edward Klein

If John Podhoretz is criticizing somebody who is making claims against Hilary Clinton, then you know the guy is full of hooey. Yet you cite him as evidence that Obama is treating the Muslim Brotherhood and such with kid gloves. And if Obama does have some Iranian-born advisor, so what? Are you that biased/bigoted/racist that you assume anyone born elsewhere is actually a double agent or something? If so, that's really disgusting and despicable.

But in any case, your post didn't address anything in my post -- particularly the part you quoted. I pointed out that Obama got OBL and Shrub II didn't, yet where was the criticism of the political right of Dubyah, and how come it also could acknowledge that Obama, the Commander in Chief, was in no small part responsible for the successful search and destroy mission against Osama Bin Laden. But you bring up some non-sequitur stuff presented by a very dodgy author -- and I mean dodgy even to other extreme conservatives. AGAIN, typical conservative/right-wing/Republican misdirection, prevarication and obfuscation. You folks are tiresome one-trick ponies incapable of having an intelligent debate on a matter. All you can do is throw up mud and hope it sticks. Intelligent, knowledgeable people aren't buying your bovine fecal matter. Sorry.

Obama requested $1,8 billion.
Congress gave him $1.6 billion.
A majority of House Democrats and the Democrat-led Senate approved it.

So, not providing a unit of 12 marines in Benghazi is Congress' (read: "Republicans") fault?

Your logical skills are amazing!

Deny ignorance!

jw

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
Obama is fault, he is the president no? he failed to protect his people. it's his job to do everything in his power to defend his citizens.

Oh, your compelling, incisive rhetoric has finally swayed me on this matter. Yes, indeed, Obama is fault. I surrender.

But now I have just one question: Did Bush II protect his people on 9/11? And didn't 750 times as many people die because of his failure as in this Libya case? Did you criticize Bush II for reading kids' books on the job? I've yet to see one knuckle-dragging conservative say that he/she/it thinks Bush II should be blamed for letting the 9/11 attacks succeed, and that the person raised a stink about it like the political right is now doing with Obama regarding this Libya attack.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
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.

That's because Bush left office in 2009 and you joined this website in 2011.

Originally posted by jdub297
Obama requested $1,8 billion.
Congress gave him $1.6 billion.
A majority of House Democrats and the Democrat-led Senate approved it.

So, not providing a unit of 12 marines in Benghazi is Congress' (read: "Republicans") fault?

Your logical skills are amazing!

Deny ignorance!

jw

Holy mole', did you not read my post that cited news articles that explained that marines never guard consulates, but only embassies, and that their mission is to protect information, i.e. cryptography equipment, computers, files and such? And that the extra marines or other security detail requested by US diplomats in Libya were meant for the embassy in Tripoli, not the consulate in Benghazi, so it would not have made a difference in this case? And that only 1,000 marines are allotted to embassy detail duty worldwide anyway, and there's a lot of other embassies where there is important information to be protected?

So there never was any chance of stationing marines in the Benghazi consulate, yet you conservative detractors of Obama keep claiming otherwise, even after the evidence is starkly presented to you.

You're the one denying your ignorance, champ, and incapable of using logic or getting informed. Not I.

But please, I welcome more incoherent posts by misinformed conservatives challenging the facts of the matter, and avoiding addressing the pointed questions I present to you. Dealing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


You're obviously oblivious to the culpability of the Clinton administration, aren't you?
Or did you just choose to forget that?
Pathetic grasping now.

jw

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
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.

That's because Bush left office in 2009 and you joined this website in 2011.

Uh... the posts are still there. In fact all but banned/censored ATS post are still here. And as I said to you Obama-hating folks several times now: point me to your old posts criticizing Bush II for failing to protect against the 9/11 attacks and/or his incompetent job in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. I'm still waiting to see one poster who can prove me otherwise.

When I joined ATS matters not -- not to mention that I visited ATS long before becoming a member, and one doesn't have to be a member to read posts. But hey, conservatives, keep throwing these illogical arguments up against me and not addressing my questions directly. You're just making my case stronger with each and every post of yours. Keep 'em coming as it just shows your collective lack of intellectual rigor.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Holy mole', did you not read my post that cited news articles that explained that marines never guard consulates, but only embassies, and that their mission is to protect information, i.e. cryptography equipment, computers, files and such? And that the extra marines or other security detail requested by US diplomats in Libya were meant for the embassy in Tripoli, not the consulate in Benghazi, so it would not have made a difference in this case?

Then the title of this thread is meaningless, isn't it?

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

Did you not read your initial post?
Grasping at straws doesn't make you an authority.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

You're obviously oblivious to the culpability of the Clinton administration, aren't you?
Or did you just choose to forget that?
Pathetic grasping now.

jw

Culpability in what, exactly? The Clinton administration was behind the 9/11 attacks or the Benghazi attack? You do realize that when one constructs an argument that one should make his/her/its point clear? You're saying I am oblivious to the culpability of the Clinton administration in something, but you don't say what it is. You do realize, too, that Clinton has been out of office for some 11 1/2+ years, so what does his adminstration have to do with the Benghazi attack or the 9/11 attacks? Oh yeah, nothing.

Yeah pathetic grasping alright. Keep clutching at your straws, sparky.

State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Holy mole', did you not read my post that cited news articles that explained that marines never guard consulates, but only embassies, and that their mission is to protect information, i.e. cryptography equipment, computers, files and such? And that the extra marines or other security detail requested by US diplomats in Libya were meant for the embassy in Tripoli, not the consulate in Benghazi, so it would not have made a difference in this case?

Then the title of this thread is meaningless, isn't it?

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

Did you not read your initial post?
Grasping at straws doesn't make you an authority.

jw

Dude, you're digging your hole ever deeper. Let me know when you get to China.

Let. Me. Spell. It. Out. For. You. Clearly. And. Slowly.

The Obama detractors are claiming Obama did not protect the Benghazi consulate because it nixed some security detachment that was earmarked for Tripoli. I don't know if this security detail was marines or other security guards, but many of the righties are claiming it was marines; if so, they would not have been in Benghazi in any case. This is my reason for addressing the issue of marines in particular. I didn't bring up the marines; some Obama haters who don't know anything about US embassy and consulate security did, and I was just pointing out the fallacy of their argument on this matter.

That being said, State Department facilities overseas do, of course, have security. The Benghazi consulate, if I remember correctly, had three to five US security guards of some persuasion and some hired Libyan militants from some US-friendly rebel group. If the State Department security budget hadn't been cut by $200-300 million, this security contingent likely would have been bigger, and hence better equipped to deal with the attack. But even if this were the case, it still likely wouldn't have defeated the attack, which was fairly large and well concerted. If you bothered to check out the links to the NYT or Politico articles I posted, or the quote I provided in one of my more recent posts, you would have read the eyewitness testimony of one State Dept. security official who said that given the extent of this terrorist attack, another half-dozen guards and a foot-higher wall wouldn't have helped matters.

My main point in this thread is that it is ridiculous to blame Obama completely for this attack having occurred and that it is just cause to say he should be fired or not re-elected, when, in fact, the GOP-controlled House has culpability as well, but these Obama haters fail to acknowledge this. This attack likely couldn't have been stopped without a squad or two of soldiers or mercenaries, but to keep such large security details at all times at all consulates where there is a fairly high danger level just isn't feasible. Yet Obama haters want him crucified for this incident. This is a ridiculous and extremely biased viewpoint.

My reason for bringing up Bush II's failure to protect 750 times as many Us citizens during the 9/11 attack, but not be criticized by the political right at all -- let alone to the extent Obama is being criticized for the Benghazi raid -- is to point out this extreme double standard on the part of the political right, particularly here in the Obama-bashing threads at ATS.

But hey, keep it up with the inane, incoherent/non-sequitur one-liners and attempted zingers -- you'll get to China that much quicker.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
And as I said to you Obama-hating folks several times now: point me to your old posts criticizing Bush II for failing to protect against the 9/11 attacks and/or his incompetent job in dealing with Hurricane Katrina.

You must not have looked very hard or even know how to use the search function. You also don't even realize a huge amount of people on this website are libertarians and didn't like bush the same as they don't like obama. Clearly you're so used to one side verses the other logic that you probably couldn't even comprehend this.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Nice video clip. Why not let the witness finish her thought, instead of only giving her first two words in her answer to the question? Sorry, don't accept out-of-context one-or-two-word video clips as evidence of anything, and I am not impressed by anybody presenting such; it suggests trying to manipulate the facts. I went to Youtube to see if there is an extended clip, but couldn't find one. I did search for a while; it is rather odd -- if not telling -- that Lamb's full answer has not been put online. I did, however, find the opening statement of Ms. Lamb:

Lamb's opening statement in Benghazi hearing

Apparently besides the on-site security, there was an "annex" which likely held CIA assets, including 6 armed personnel. They came to the aid of the attack consulate in conjunction with 40 members of the February Brigade, some pro-US Libyan militia. However, the attack also involved at least several dozen militants who launched the attack by surprise.

Viewing/listening to some of the related video clips there, it does sound like some poor judgment calls were made, but this is all in hindsight. I imagine that many embassies and consulates get danger/terror warnings now and then, and only so much can be feasibly done to counter these possibilities. Yet congressman (R) Chaffetz was going about his questioning in a very aggressive, prosecutorial and partisan way, trying to make political points and make the State Department look as bad as possible. Should some people in the State Department be fired over this? Probably. Should the President be held personally accountable for this? No.

I didn't hear the same right-wingers call for Obama to be sacked because US soldiers were pissing on Afghan corpses and photographing it to boot. Sometimes government minions do bad or incompetent things and they should be punished, but that is not an excuse for the chief executive to be fired.

Sure, one can argue, well he is in charge and the buck stops at his desk. OK, fine. So where was the outcry against Bush by the same people criticizing Obama when 9/11 happened, when the war in Iraq was going poorly and all the other instances of egregious incompetence by the Bush II administration? There wasn't any. To hold Obama to such a high standard, but then to let your Republican presidents crash and burn and fail time and time again, and not hold them accountable is just a ridiculous double standard and smacks of extreme partisanship. And given the alternative to Obama -- Romney, who has shown himself over and over again to be a liar and to not know what he is talking about -- I can't see any sensible person who thinks this Benghazi incident is reason enough to throw Obama out of office just so we can then have Romney.

And believe me, I am no big defender of Obama. He's done a lot of things that I don't care for and which concern me, but he is better than the other big-party candidate.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

The Obama detractors are claiming Obama did not protect the Benghazi consulate because it nixed some security detachment that was earmarked for Tripoli.

No; the critics from the military, Left and Right agree that Obama refused to bolster security despite the explicit requests over several months to do so specifically for Benghazi, the "base" of our operations and support of the rebels. The Ambassador himself asked for more protection and was either ignored or denied it. Case closed.

If the State Department security budget hadn't been cut by $200-300 million, this security contingent likely would have been bigger, and hence better equipped to deal with the attack.

Pure idiocy and B.S! With a security budget of $1.6 billion, they "couldn't afford" a few additional Hands and arms? Even as they were shipping Volts to the European Embassies?

But even if this were the case, it still likely wouldn't have defeated the attack, which was fairly large and well concerted.

What? I thought it was a protest against a video that "got out of hand." Isn't that what our UN ambassador claimed? Isn't that what Obama himself insisted before the Geneeral Assembly? He mentioned "video" 6 times. He mentioned "well concerted" terrorists 0 times.

My main point in this thread is that it is ridiculous to blame Obama completely for this attack having occurred and that it is just cause to say he should be fired or not re-elected, when, in fact, the GOP-controlled House has culpability as well ...

,

Wait. The NYT, Politico and your State Dept. "witness" all agree a that few extra hands wouldn't have mattered.
But, somehow, the GOP's failure (not to mention the 164 House Dems and the Dem-controlled Senate) to provide another $300 million to the $1.6 billion did matter?

Again, your logical skill are truly astounding!

This attack likely couldn't have been stopped without a squad or two of soldiers or mercenaries, but to keep such large security details at all times at all consulates where there is a fairly high danger level just isn't feasible.

OK, now we're back to "this couldn't be stopped," again? Then how is the title and premise of this thread even close to accurate, true or in any way supportable?

By the way, the late Ambassador Christopher, and the local State Dept. staffers who pleaded for help weren't asking for "such large security details" to be placed in Tokyo, Moscow, Vienna or London; only just in one of the most volatile cities of the most volatile region where AlQaeda cells were present and had already threatened and attacked their compund and other diplomats in the preceding weeks and months.

Since you trust the NYT so much for support, here's what they are saying:

[T]he Obama administration was eager to reduce the American footprint there. After initially soliciting bids from major security companies for work in Libya, State Department officials never followed through.

“We went in to make a pitch, and nothing happened,” said the security firm official. He said the State Department could have found a way around the Libyans’ objections if it had wanted to.

Instead, the department relied on a small British company to provide several unarmed Libyan guards for security at the mission in Benghazi.

After Benghazi Attack, Private Security Hovers as an Issue

I didn't see any mention whatsoever of GOP recalcitrance or lack of funding as having any relation to the disaster.

Obama's fear of upsetting the muslim rebels with an American security/miltary presence was 100% responsible for State's refusal to use Amercians and instead rely on a minimal contingent of foreign contractors.

Think that's just "Righties'" thinking?
Take this, from the "battleground" State of Ohio's Columbus Dispatch:

President Barack Obama’s administration was more concerned about projecting the image of improving stability in Libya, to bolster his re-election chances, than it was about ensuring the security of Americans on the ground there.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb ... told security officials at the U.S. Embassy in the capital city of Tripoli not to bother asking for more security help after the assignment of a supplemental security team ended in August.

Security officer Eric A. Nordstrom told Congress members he took Lamb’s refusal to mean “there was going to be too much political cost.”
...
What is equally evident is that, despite repeated concerns by diplomats working in Libya, the administration shortchanged security. And when the worst happened, it wasn’t willing to tell the truth to the American people.

And as of Wednesday, administration officials continued to insist that the consulate had adequate security.

The tragedy is magnified by the fact that Stevens, by all accounts, was passionately devoted to restoring Libya as a U.S. ally. He wanted to help build a democratic nation. But he wasn’t blind to the danger still posed by militant Islamists and other anti-American groups.

The murder of Stevens and his colleagues raises serious questions about the administration’s priorities and competence.

Preventable tragedy:
Obama administration can’t spin its way out of blame for Benghazi

Deny ignorants.
jw

I liked reading this thread. Mostly butthurt from the left.
But the fact remains that for the past 4 years.. the GOP really has had 0 power, Even with holding the house.

It is the democraps that have the power within the senate, the whitecastle and the MSM.

Until then I wont debate with losers who pass off ignorance as facts.

ATS - Ignorance in denial.


btw - Doesnt Obama Tout that we are out of the middle east? Which would mean little to no man power for Benghazi.

Yes, Congress is responsible for setting the budget, but the White House and the State Department are still responsible for the actual distribution and usage of the funds provided. You're going to have a hard time selling the idea that, somewhere amongst that $1.6 billion, the State Department couldn't find a way to allocate adequate funding and security to a known hotspot.

And besides, what are the odds that the State Dept, like any other department under any administration, misappropriates a fair portion of its money? Once the media investigates...and they will...and finds that State probably squandered some of its funding, this looks even worse for them and the administration.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

My main point in this thread is that it is ridiculous to blame Obama completely for this attack having occurred and that it is just cause to say he should be fired or not re-elected … .This attack likely couldn't have been stopped without a squad or two of soldiers or mercenaries, but to keep such large security details at all times at all consulates where there is a fairly high danger level just isn't feasible.

So, the loss of $300 million out of the $1.6 billion budget justifies having only 2 unarmed Libyans “on duty?”

[S]tate Department outsourced security for the Benghazi consulate … to Blue Mountain, a Welsh firm. Unfortunately, the one-year contract for consulate security was only $387,413 … . Blue Mountain hired five members of the Benghazi branch of the February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade and equipped them with handcuffs and batons. … There were supposed to be four men heavily armed with handcuffs on duty that night, but, the date of September 11 having no particular significance in the Muslim world, only two guards were actually on shift.

Liberals are always going on about the evils of “outsourcing” and “offshoring” … So now the United States government is outsourcing embassy security to cheap Welshmen who in turn outsource it to cheaper Libyans. … So, on the first anniversary of 9/11 in a post-revolutionary city in which Western diplomats had been steadily targeted over the previous six months, the government of the supposedly most powerful nation on earth entrusted its security to Abdulaziz Majbari, 29, and his pal, who report to some bloke back in Carmarthen, Wales.

Who’s ‘Politicizing’ Benghazi?

What was the title of the thread again?

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

Oh, yeah. Right.

What a pathetic attempt to bolster a failed Obama administration.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by Nite_wing

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by campanionator

 

First they blamed the video.
-That didn't work.
Then they said it was under investigation.
-That stall didn't work
Then they blame the GOP.
-Now they look pathetic.

Who are they going to blame next?

Watch and see....it's going to be Hillary.

Don't say I didn't tell you so.
Blame it on Hillary

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

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.

I can read alright Dont get mad now Why dont you provide evidence to your claims as well? You're simply defending a failed policy based on your fondness of their policies and/or the POTUS. Below is a link (Ex CIA staff) and his website for your reading pleasure (hope you know how to read as well as I do ) I would believe him anyday then MSM
LINK