To Democrats, its always about money, not because it was ever true but because they have nothing else, and thats true no matter what the issue.
They just can never get enough money....their creed is money solves everything.
Church explodes in NYC...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
To Democrats, its always about money, not because it was ever true but because they have nothing else, and thats true no matter what the issue.
They just can never get enough money....their creed is money solves everything.
It had NOTHING to do with funding you boring dunce; it was about the stupidity, arrogance and incompetence of ignoring the risks and leaving personnel in a situation that they could not be protected. It is about how ALL of our allies had pulled out KNOWING the danger EXCEPT for us. It was about how this adminstration lied about the events during an election year and claimed it was nothing more than a spontaneous protest among many other excuses so they didn't get egg in their face claiming Al Qaeda was on the run.
But alas, you're a retard stuck on a special brand of stupid; not to mention a fat tub of lying lard.
LMAO; you just might be lying retard when you quote Al Jazeera. What a fucking lowlife dumbass.
Easy, liberal. I think you can rest assured that Hussein will never call it a terrorist attack.
We know you don't get paid for your retarded bullshit; you do this for free to remove any doubt what a hate filled lie spewing dunce you are.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Last edited:
Belieber
Banned
Another Rune lie. I don't think anyone should be surprised. That guy is a walking liar with his pants on fire.
Embassy funding increases each and every year......each and every year.
Now try on some hard nosed FACTS......
The final budget bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.
Still a substantial increase from the previous year...
and....
REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. [Diplomatic Security], who also said that resources were not an issue.
http://tinyurl.com/ahcz8zc
and....
QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.
QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?
LAMB: it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.
So fuck you and Al Jazeera
Obviously assets were not moved by the State Dept.
They were too busy buying art to hang on the walls, new dinnerware, and electric cars....
Now try on some hard nosed FACTS......
The final budget bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.
Still a substantial increase from the previous year...
and....
REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. [Diplomatic Security], who also said that resources were not an issue.
http://tinyurl.com/ahcz8zc
and....
QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.
QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?
LAMB: it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.
So fuck you and Al Jazeera
Obviously assets were not moved by the State Dept.
They were too busy buying art to hang on the walls, new dinnerware, and electric cars....
Amid the politicking, there’s an overlooked cause of the Benghazi tragedy
For conservatives, the Benghazi scandal is a Watergate-like presidential cover-up. For liberals, it a fabricated Republican witch-hunt. For me, Benghazi is a call to act on an enduring problem that both parties ignore.
One major overlooked cause of the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans is we have underfunded the State Department and other civilian agencies that play a vital role in our national security. Instead of building up cadres of skilled diplomatic security guards, we have bought them from the lowest bidder, trying to acquire capacity and expertise on the cheap. Benghazi showed how vulnerable that makes us.
Now, I’m not arguing that this use of contractors was the sole cause of the Benghazi tragedy, but I believe it was a primary one. Let me explain.
The slapdash security that killed Stevens, technician Sean Smith and CIA guards Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty started with a seemingly inconsequential decision by Libya’s new government. After the fall of Muammar Qaddafi, Libya’s interim government barred armed private security firms – foreign and domestic – from operating anywhere in the country.
Memories of the abuses by foreign mercenaries, acting for the brutal Qaddafi regime, prompted the decision, according to State Department officials.
Once the Libyans took away the private security guard option, it put enormous strain on a little-known State Department arm, the Diplomatic Security Service. This obscure agency has been responsible for protecting American diplomatic posts around the world since 1916.
Though embassies have contingents of Marines, consulates and other offices do not. And the missions of Marines, in fact, are to destroy documents and protect American government secrets. It is the Diplomatic Security agents who are charged with safeguarding the lives of American diplomats.
Today, roughly 900 Diplomatic Security agents guard 275 American embassies and consulates around the globe. That works out to a whopping four agents per facility.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the State Department relied on hundreds of security contractors to guard American diplomats. At times, they even hired private security guards to protect foreign leaders.
After Afghan President Hamid Karzai narrowly survived a 2002 assassination attempt, the State Department hired security guards from DynCorp, a military contractor, to guard him. Their aggressiveness in and around the presidential palace, however, angered Afghan, American and European officials. As soon as Afghan guards were trained to protect Karzai, DynCorp was let go.
But the State Department’s dependence on contractors for security remained. And Benghazi epitomized this Achilles’ heel.
Unable to hire contractors, the Diplomatic Security Service rotated small numbers of agents through Benghazi to provide security, on what government officials call temporary duty assignments, or “TDY.” Eric Nordstrom, the Diplomatic Security agent who oversaw security in Libya until two months before the attack, recently told members of Congress that though he twice requested 12 agents he was rejected – and told he was asking for “the sun the moon and the stars.”
He testified that he replied bluntly to his superiors in Washington. “It’s not the hardships,” Nordstrom testified he had said. “It’s not the gunfire. It’s not the threats. It’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me. And I added it by saying, ‘For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.’ ”
Other State Department officials also say that the reliance on contracting created a weakened Diplomatic Security Service. They said department officials, short on staff and eager to reduce costs, nickeled-and-dimed DS security requests.
“That is not a DS-centric issue,” said a State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “That is a Department of State issue.”
Democrats have blamed Republicans for the lack of funding. They point out that House Republicans rejected $450 million in administration requests for increased Diplomatic Security spending since 2010. They say Senate Democrats were able to restore a small part of the funding.
But these partisan charges and counter-charges ignore a basic truth. Resource shortages and a reliance on contractors caused bitter divisions between field officers in Benghazi and State Department managers in Washington.
One agent who served on the ground in Benghazi felt the compound needed five times as many Diplomatic Security agents, according to a State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official singled out Charlene Lamb, the Diplomatic Security Service official who oversees security in Washington, for criticism — saying she rejected repeated requests for additional improvements in Benghazi.
These officials confirmed complaints from Lieutenant Colonel Andy Wood, the former head of a U.S. Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Tripoli, that Lamb urged them to reduce the numbers of American security personnel on the ground even as security worsened across Libya. Wood and his team left the country the month before the attack.
In equivocating, evasive and shameful testimony before Congress in October, Lamb at first said she received no formal requests for additional security from Libya. She then absurdly claimed, “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11.”
Lamb’s superior, David Kennedy, has defended her. He argued that a handful of additional Diplomatic Security guards in Benghazi – or the Special Forces team in Tripoli – would not have made a difference.
To date, no evidence has emerged that officials higher than Lamb or Kennedy were involved in the decision to reject the requests from Libya. Both are career civil servants, not Obama administration appointees.
There is a broader issue beyond the political blame game. Benghazi is a symptom of a brittle, over-stretched and under-funded State Department. Without being able to hire private contractors, the department provided too few guards and hoped a nearby CIA base or friendly Libyan militia would help them. An excellent recent report in the New York Times found that the U.S. military’s Africa Command was under-resourced as well as unable to help.
The investigation by the Senate and House intelligence committees into whether or not the Obama administration misled Americans after the attack or altered intelligence should continue. But the core issue before the attack was a lack of resources and skilled management, not shadowy conspiracies.
Many factors caused the death of Stevens and the three other Americans. But in the partisan free-for-all now unfolding, this key factor must not be ignored.
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/2012/11/16/a-hidden-cause-of-benghazi-tragedy/
StormX
Banned
I know I am late to the party, but what kind of idiot terrorist would even think to target Spanish Harlem, plus who would really give a shit if it was wiped off the map???
evince
Truthmatters
christiefan915
Catalyst
Yes meathead, he was the president who invaded A'stan and Iraq. And if you're quibbling over the number, the only reason I can think you'd do that is because you're not counting the dead Iraqis and Afghans. That pesky term "collateral damage".
christiefan915
Catalyst
It was mass murder and the reason you want it to be terrorism is because the shooter is a Muslim.
Dear repugnant asshole; it's not quibbling by pointing out such glaring lies used for partisan purposes. There weren't a million casualties no matter how many lefttard ways you try to fabricate and inflate the number for purely stupid partisan purposes.
Secondly; those deaths can be directly attributed to the terrorists determined efforts to dupe brain dead assholes like you into blaming our President for those casualties and forcing our Government to run with its tail stuck between our legs leaving those nations vulnerable, once again, to dictatorships. You dunces really are THAT stupid, THAT gullible and THAT repugnant.
Only a repugnant moron stuck on a special brand of stupid can blame Bush for those deaths. But then, being repugnant brain dead assholes is what leftists dunces like you do best.
I am constantly amazed by such repugnantly stupid arguments and claims that ignore the efforts of terrorists and despots to prevent Democracy and promote a culture of death where suicide attacks against fellow Muslims is considered an honorable death.
But alas; leftists are repugnant morons wallowing in their special brand of stupid, why should we expect morons
Like you to comprehend mundane things like facts, reality and the truth?
Nothing is more repugnant than blaming the acts of terrorists and murdering Islamic thugs on our President. But alas, you're Liberal lefttards stuck on stupid.
How many of you Conservatives were outraged when the Bush Administration lied about how Pat Tillman was killed? How many Congressional hearings were held on the matter?
Pat Tillman died, they lied, Conservatives did not care.
That's how I know its selective false outrage.
Pat Tillman died, they lied, Conservatives did not care.
That's how I know its selective false outrage.
LMAO; this is why you're a repugnant dunce stuck on that special brand of stupid.
It was an act of terrorism because he was an admitted jihadist and wanted to kill as many Americans as he could in support of the Islamic culture of death.
christiefan915
Catalyst
You're a barking madman and a liar to boot. Now twist yourself into a knot trying to explain that an act of terror isn't the same thing as a terrorist act.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Las Vegas, NV
christiefan915
Catalyst
So, so true. The bush lies over Iraq were countless whether or not they involved death.