Libya Coverup -- Who gets thrown under the bus? Hillary or Barack?

  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #46
Many agencies have FY13 budgets. Many others are operating on continuing resolution (CR).

Ruh roh, Quaggie....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/issa-state-dept-sitting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html?hp=r2_b3

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.
Issa made his comment during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation" to discuss the recent attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a highly partisan hearing on the incident last week.

Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn't want to the appearance of needing increased security.

"The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don't want the presence of security," Issa said. "That is not how you do security."

With Republicans turning the Libya into a political issue, Democrats have countered that House GOP leaders actually sought to cut funding for embassy security, which Issa tried to refute.

"You can't always look to [new] money when there's money sitting there," Issa said. "We're going through a 'Mission Accomplished' moment. Eleven years after Sept. 11 [2001], Americans were attacked by terrorists who pre-planned to kill Americans. That happened, and we can't be in denial."
 
The "story" can have many versions, but no matter the ending or conclusion Mrs. clinton is to blame.
 
I guess now we know why embassy security was lacking. Ryan's budget cut 300million from the embassy security budget.

That's what Joe said! Ryan did not deny it. So much for accountability.
"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
 
Back on security:

How many security forces/troops are enough at each consulate and embassy? If we had added 4 more people would that have been enough? What about the other hot spots?

What was the reason for the cover up and why was he there without protection?
Wouldn't have anything to do with US arms in the hands of AlQeida that would cause huge US embarrassment would it?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #51
Why the cover up?... Self preservation.

Why no protection? Maybe the current administration has an aversion to having US troops in Muslim countries...
 
Why the cover up?... Self preservation.

Why no protection? Maybe the current administration has an aversion to having US troops in Muslim countries...

Allah fast and furious.
We sent US arms to Libya via 3rd party courier.
Even the Seal admitted that.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #54
That's just an easy deflection on your part.

This is all about being a foreign policy amateur, not taking the time to show up for a security briefing (did he just scroll thru it on his iPad?), and thinking that world is safe again because he took out Osama, Mubarek, and Ghadaffi.

Oops.

It's still a dangerous place, he/she/they rolled the dice and didn't respond to what people in-country were saying about the threats, and now four Americans are dead as a result.
 
That's just an easy deflection on your part.

This is all about being a foreign policy amateur, not taking the time to show up for a security briefing (did he just scroll thru it on his iPad?), and thinking that world is safe again because he took out Osama, Mubarek, and Ghadaffi.

Oops.

It's still a dangerous place, he/she/they rolled the dice and didn't respond to what people in-country were saying about the threats, and now four Americans are dead as a result.
You could make the same case for every battle where someone lost their life in the Middle East. You just choose this one to politicize.
 
You could make the same case for every battle where someone lost their life in the Middle East. You just choose this one to politicize.
It is not unreasonable to conclude, given the facts known thus far, that political considerations were made in the decision to withhold security in Benghazi. An investigation is absolutely appropriate and republicans shouldn't be deterred by editorials that try to shift blame. This is a matter of security, not politics, and if politics made it's way into the decision-making process at State, that needs to be exposed. Wouldn't you agree?
 
It is not unreasonable to conclude, given the facts known thus far, that political considerations were made in the decision to withhold security in Benghazi. An investigation is absolutely appropriate and republicans shouldn't be deterred by editorials that try to shift blame. This is a matter of security, not politics, and if politics made it's way into the decision-making process at State, that needs to be exposed. Wouldn't you agree?

Dead Seals never lie.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top