Bengazi

Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i have a good idea of where to start.

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. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_print.html
Click to expand...
Well, sure, that is quite an important point, but has nothing to do with spending. The Ambassodor had a Marine detachment in Tripoli. Stevens had requested the consulate be moved from a house to the more fortified annex.

And as it is said, these were proposed. But, there is not a budget and there hasn't been a budget for 4 years. These were all continuing resolutions and the compromise cuts both ways.

The Pubs can't cut a non-existent budget. Good try. And there is plenty of dough if this was so important. Besides there is no rolling heads in Congress but for the will of the voters.

Why was he there in the first place? That is the Razor.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Well, sure, that is quite an important point, but has nothing to do with spending. The Ambassodor had a Marine detachment in Tripoli. Stevens had requested the consulate be moved from a house to the more fortified annex.

And as it is said, these were proposed. But, there is not a budget and there hasn't been a budget for 4 years. These were all continuing resolutions and the compromise cuts both ways.

The Pubs can't cut a non-existent budget. Good try. And there is plenty of dough if this was so important. Besides there is no rolling heads in Congress but for the will of the voters.

Why was he there in the first place? That is the Razor.
Click to expand...
Doer said:
I'm quite sure it is above your pay grade. But, the Congress is for oversight. They will manage it, not you.
Click to expand...
And here you are trying to play armchair Intelligence director
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
I don't have to report forum stupidity, they pay attention.

IAC, I hope Uncle B, you aren't saying the denial of security was a way to highlight this non-budget battle. You are not saying that Stevens was there, unprotected, just to show the Republican how they are to blame, or are you?

So, it was a rub-out then? A sacrifice play? A few Americans killed, so what?

But, the Dems get the "I told you so?" That's is what you are proposing?
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I don't have to report forum stupidity, they pay attention.

IAC, I hope Uncle B, you aren't saying the denial of security was a way to highlight this non-budget battle. You are not saying that Stevens was there, unprotected, just to show the Republican how they are to blame, or are you?

So, it was a rub-out then? A sacrifice play? A few Americans killed, so what?

But, the Dems get the "I told you so?" That's is what you are proposing?
Click to expand...
How big was the sign at the US Consulate in Benghazi announcing it was a Consulate?

Me thinks things went on there that are again
Way beyond your pay grade
and we should stop calling it a consulate and call it what it was

A fucking house
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
An American Consulate has nothing to do with the building. It is a designation of sovereignty. It is called that because that is what it was.

The suggestion that no one knew about it is more sophistry.

Why was he there without protection?

These personal insults are meaningless, as I have said before. You are possibly not even an American or you simply do not know what Rights are. I don't have the right to know, perhaps, but I certainly have the right to ask.

You continue to try to shout me down. I don't care if you pop your gasket.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
An American Consulate has nothing to do with the building. It is a designation of sovereignty. It is called that because that is what it was.

The suggestion that no one knew about it is more sophistry.

Why was he there without protection?

These personal insults are meaningless, as I have said before. You are possible not an American or don't know what Rights are.

You continue to try to shout me down. I don't care if you pop your gasket.
Click to expand...
I am an american
Hope you dont mind my freedom of speech using this avatar
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Joe Liberman, no Republican, just said, on the Sunday shows, the Susan Rice question is a side show. He says the two main question are:

- Why in the rising tide of intelligence for months that the security situation was degraded, did we have him there, unprotected?

- Why did we not have assets in place to protect him, if something happened? He just stated, an armed drone, at the minimum was required. And why was he there without his Marine detachment?

Of course, he is just an armchair Senator, right?
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Joe Liberman, no Republican, just said, on the Sunday shows, the Susan Rice question is a side show. He says the two main question are:

- Why in the rising tide of intelligence for months that the security situation was degraded, did we have him there, unprotected?

- Why did we not have assets in place to protect him, if something happened? He just stated, an armed drone, at the minimum was required. And why was he there without his Marine detachment?

Of course, he is just an armchair Senator, right?
Click to expand...
Those are both valid points, & there should be more review of what happened & adjust out security plans accordingly. Obvously security was inadequate, but that's a far cry from some kind of cover-up. Leave the poor UN Ambassador out of it.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
There were no crying like what we hear now from repuglicans like Mccain or Grahm when:
2002 U.S. Embassy Karachi, Pakistan: 10 killed, 51 injured
2004 U. S. Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan: 2 killed, several injured.
2004 U.S. Consulate Saudi Arabia: 8 killed
2006 US. Embassy Syria: 1 killed, several injured
2007 U.S. Embassy -Athens: building bombed with an anti-tank grenade...fortunately no one was in the building at the time.
2008-U.S. Embassy – Serbia: 1 dead; Embassy set on fire
2008- U. S. Embassy- Yemen- bombed 10 killed
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
Those are both valid points, & there should be more review of what happened & adjust out security plans accordingly. Obvously security was inadequate, but that's a far cry from some kind of cover-up. Leave the poor UN Ambassador out of it.
Click to expand...
Right, leave Susan Rice to defend herself, if and when she is nominated. She, I'm sure, could make a fine SecState. She is very experienced for the job. Much more than Hillary, I'd say. http://www.biography.com/people/susan-e-rice-391616?page=1 But, she carried the torch for a very troubling concept. This video. She didn't go on Pakistan TV to be the apologist for it. She didn't cause riots in 31 places. She had nothing to do with those deaths. It is unfortunate. She was being give a very nice opportunity to be known more widely in the nation. She was perhaps rightfully shilling a little, but I saw her do a very credible job. She knew more than she told. What else is new. It's politics. If the video story was not flogged after that for unknown, and covered up reasons, she would be fine. But, she may have been another sacrifice play. It will possibly, now be John Carey. Another fine choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top