Security dwindled before deadly Libyan consulate attack

[Kulindahr]

^^^

You can actually ignore the vote?

The point is that all the Republicans who voted for it should just shut their traps, because they bear the responsibility.

 

[T-Rexx]

^^^

Just for the record ... 149 democrats voted to reduce funding for embassy security --- two more than republicans.

Over 75% of democrats voted to reduce the spending. Only a little over 40% of republicans voted to reduce the spending.

You want to rephrase your accusation? or is the hate for anyone not a liberal too big?

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/941

Why are you linking us to H.R. 2055 (Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012) which was passed on Sept 30, 2012 - 19 days AFTER the Benghazi attack? Why are you trying to created the impression that Democrats supported cuts to spending for embassy security, when that is not true?

The complaint here is that the Republican congress cut spending for the diplomatic service BEFORE the attack, and those cuts may negatively have impacted embassy security. These cuts began in 2009, with the Ryan budget, which cut $1.2 billion from the Department of State, including funds for 300 diplomatic security positions.

Last February, Hillary Clinton met with John Boehner and other Republicans to try to convince them that the cuts they had implemented were dangerous to embassy security. After the meeting, Clinton warned:

"The scope of the proposed House cuts is massive. The truth is that cuts of that level will be detrimental to America's national security.

We would be forced to scale back significantly our mission in the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan where we work side-by-side with the American military. We would also be required to roll back critical health, food security, climate change, border security and trade promotion efforts abroad as well."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-republ.html

Boehner, however, rejected the security concerns:

A Boehner spokesperson reiterated House Republicans' commitment to reducing spending and expressed confidence that members of the military and civilians working abroad will have the resources necessary to do their jobs.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-republ.html

Your party keeps screwing up. And you guys keep trying to hide your screw-ups behind lies (like pretending Democrats supported your stupidity). We didn't.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-republ.html

 

[rareboy]

^ Nicely served there.

So at the end of the day, even after being warned by the State Department, the Republicans ignored the risk to security.

Well that doesn't look good does it?

 

[palbert]

If the President can mobilize troops to protect the border between Jordan and Syria he can certainly act to protect the sovereign territory and staff of the US. To say the host countrry is responsible for security is disingenuous: they have no right inside the Compound. That is our job. The Administration blew it. And people died for it. Further, positions could have been transferred from docile Embassys to Libya. If we ignore - I assume - Congress in sending troops to armed -to- the- hilt Jordan we can transfer staff to war torn Libya.

 

[Jack Springer]

The vote is from December 16, 2011.

Are you trying to rewrite history?

Why are you linking us to H.R. 2055 (Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012) which was passed on Sept 30, 2012 - 19 days AFTER the Benghazi attack? Why are you trying to created the impression that Democrats supported cuts to spending for embassy security, when that is not true?

The complaint here is that the Republican congress cut spending for the diplomatic service BEFORE the attack, and those cuts may negatively have impacted embassy security. These cuts began in 2009, with the Ryan budget, which cut $1.2 billion from the Department of State, including funds for 300 diplomatic security positions.

Last February, Hillary Clinton met with John Boehner and other Republicans to try to convince them that the cuts they had implemented were dangerous to embassy security. After the meeting, Clinton warned:




Boehner, however, rejected the security concerns:




Your party keeps screwing up. And you guys keep trying to hide your screw-ups behind lies (like pretending Democrats supported your stupidity). We didn't.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-republ.html

 

[Jack Springer]

The point is that all the Republicans who voted for it should just shut their traps, because they bear the responsibility.

Spin, spin, spin.

 

[Jack Springer]

Can you ignore the vote? Looks like you can. You just lost a lot of credibility.

With control of the house of reps, the GOP accepted responsibility for the purse strings. How many times has the PRESIDENT been rebuked by them?

The last obscenity they perpetrated on our men and women in uniform was with the senate fillibuster of the Vet education and jobs bill. It was actually written by four GOPpers and the very men that wrote it voted to filibuster it. It doesn't take a genius to see what has happened here.

Everyone has a hard on in the GOP for cutting spending instead of raising revenue, and now we got what we paid for. You want to reconsider all those foolhardy cuts? Own it. It's YOUR party. Cry if you want to.

 

[Jack Springer]

Quite frankly BP, your friends should be mad as hell at President Obama and Secretary Clinton for purposely lying to them while their son lay in a coffin behind them saying the reason he died was a stupid video when they knew otherwise.

I know more about what happened than you buddy, that's for sure. I am a friend of the family, I was not his friend, although I spent time with him at a function once, but only the breifest of hello's happened.

His family is offended by the republican attempts to politicize this. He knew what he was doing and he knew it was dangerous. They blame no one but the terrorists, and consider him a hero.

I want the truth, but I guarantee you, it won't come from Issa, that's for sure.

 

[jackoroe]

two years ago you told me something and I will now repeat it back to you

YOU DON'T get it. The HOUSE controls the purse strings. You guys cut spending? you live with the deaths that it created, and roll around in the mud as you do so.

Correct, the House has to initiate every spending bill. However, that does not relieve the executive branch from their obligation to provide adequate security to all of our embassies. The executive branch (headed by Obama) outsourced the security of our Libyan mission to a private company out of the UK. They in turn hired unarmed Libyan guards who happily provided the location of our Ambassador who was in what he thought was a secure location, to the terrorists (not protestors). The terrorists then went to that location, set fires outside of the building, raped tortured and murdered our Ambasador and three others.

Had the administration had adequate security, like maybe armed Marines who had bullets in their guns, instead of rent a guards, we wouldn't be where we are.

It's time for Obama to come clean and accept responsibility for his fuck up. All of his lying and obfuscation for political purposes is back firing quite badly. If he doesn't he's doomed. It's the cover up that always does you in.

 

[JayHawk]

“During both the latter years of the Bush presidency and throughout the Obama presidency, the administration has recommended boosting spending on foreign aid and [State Department] foreign operations, including security, and Congress has always cut it back,” said Philip J. Crowley, a former State Department spokesman.

Why doesnt congress made up primarily of republicans WHY they want to hold the Administration accountable for purse strings they held and money that the republican congress removed.

This is what we get when we obligate ourselves but have spineless politicians who are unwilling to pay for what they want. Kinda like Bush's two charge card wars and the prescription drug plan.... republicans want but don't really like paying for what they cry out over.

 

[palbert]

.....We are all accountable ...... Especially elected officials whose primary role is to protect the lives of American citizens

And above we hear many brutally cynical dodges......

That includes the Administration, the Senate, and the House. Appalling. And i don't care about your party affiliation.

 

[chance1]

Why doesnt congress made up primarily of republicans WHY they want to hold the Administration accountable for purse strings they held and money that the republican congress removed.

This is what we get when we obligate ourselves but have spineless politicians who are unwilling to pay for what they want. Kinda like Bush's two charge card wars and the prescription drug plan.... republicans want but don't really like paying for what they cry out over.

911
September 11
Anniversary of .......

There's funding implications for sure

Then there's common sense and management responsibility

Then there's the unwillingness to tell the TRUTH

Because of potential political fallout?

Shame on Obama ........ and Hillary

The fish stinks from the head down

The outright lies are outrageous and dishonor the dead and those who protected the embassy

Susan Rice is now officially dead woman walking - she was hung out to dry

And is Colin Powell w/o the accomplishments

 

[T-Rexx]

The vote is from December 16, 2011.

Are you trying to rewrite history?

H.R. 2055 has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, and you know it.

You owe this board an apology.

 

[Kulindahr]

Correct, the House has to initiate every spending bill. However, that does not relieve the executive branch from their obligation to provide adequate security to all of our embassies. The executive branch (headed by Obama) outsourced the security of our Libyan mission to a private company out of the UK. They in turn hired unarmed Libyan guards who happily provided the location of our Ambassador who was in what he thought was a secure location, to the terrorists (not protestors). The terrorists then went to that location, set fires outside of the building, raped tortured and murdered our Ambasador and three others.

This is a point that baffles me: would we hire Mexicans to guard our southern border? Why the heck can't we provide our own security? For example, why didn't they dispatch a company of Marines to every embassy and consulate in a Muslim country a week prior to the anniversary of the Twin Towers attack?

Of course, we're a bit short on Marines thanks to the Bush screw-up of Afghanistan and military adventure in Iraq, but surely there are enough in South Korea and Europe to redeploy for a couple of weeks?

 

[Kulindahr]

There are two sides to this: if we're going to talk about civilian security personnel, then the Republicans are to blame, because they cut the funds for it. But if we're going to talk about embassy/consulate security in general, then it's Obama's fail: as CIC, he could have sent Marines, who traditionally do that task, to beef up defenses anywhere he wanted.

The Republicans who are accusing the President of not providing enough civilian security are hypocrites, because they tied his hands. They're also lacking in intelligence, because there's a legitimate complaint on the level of security in general: Obama had the authority to send whatever seemed necessary wherever he felt it needed.


BTW, there's a legitimate reason to not draw down our military too much: we ought to have enough to be able to dispatch at least a squad of Marines to five dozen or more embassies/consulates at once, while dealing with a crisis somewhere.

 

[jackoroe]

There are two sides to this: if we're going to talk about civilian security personnel, then the Republicans are to blame, because they cut the funds for it. But if we're going to talk about embassy/consulate security in general, then it's Obama's fail: as CIC, he could have sent Marines, who traditionally do that task, to beef up defenses anywhere he wanted.

The Republicans who are accusing the President of not providing enough civilian security are hypocrites, because they tied his hands. They're also lacking in intelligence, because there's a legitimate complaint on the level of security in general: Obama had the authority to send whatever seemed necessary wherever he felt it needed.


BTW, there's a legitimate reason to not draw down our military too much: we ought to have enough to be able to dispatch at least a squad of Marines to five dozen or more embassies/consulates at once, while dealing with a crisis somewhere.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but nobody gets to unilaterally cut funding. The house starts the ball rolling, the senate passes something and it goes to conference if there are differences, then the president gets to either sign something or veto it.

So, everybody was in agreement as to the level of funding for security at the embassies. Or was there no bill passed?

 

[Jack Springer]

The hole keeps getting deeper. A $108,000 charging station for Chevy Volts -- no one could make this stuff up.

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”

Read more: KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-cut-while-vienna-embassy-gain/#ixzz291ddME5D
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[palbert]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but nobody gets to unilaterally cut funding. The house starts the ball rolling, the senate passes something and it goes to conference if there are differences, then the president gets to either sign something or veto it. ......

If the President wants to spend the money, he'll find it.

 

[Kulindahr]

If the President wants to spend the money, he'll find it.

From where? He only has the money the House proposes.

 

[chance1]

Joe Biden had a new theory last night

The "intelligence" was bad