8/4/2014 7:52 PM
8/4/2014 8:11 PM
About the only merit conservatives have in their Benghazi hysteria is the notion that security was inadequate at our diplomatic mission in that city.

Unfortunately, it's an inadequacy Republicans have been trying to exacerbate over the last year.
 

[A]s part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion.
Utah teabagging Rep. Jason Chaffetz has been a leading proponent of Benghazi conspiracy theories, yet even he isn't shy to proclaim his votes against diplomatic security:
O’BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country.

Their priorities have consequences. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton (among others) had long warned Republicans that they were weakening national security by cutting, well, security. Back in February of 2011:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emerged from a meeting with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sharply critical of proposed Republican cuts to the State Department budget, warning they “will be detrimental to America’s national security."
Republicans shrugged off the criticism. They had just won control of the House, it was time make some changes. And those changes included cutting the sort of security that might've prevented the Benghazi disaster.

How about Republicans investigate that?

8/4/2014 8:12 PM
There are many unanswered questions about the vicious assault in Benghazi last month that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. And Congress has a responsibility to raise them. But Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response

It doesn’t take a partisan to draw that conclusion. The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.

At a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last Wednesday, Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California and the committee’s chairman, talked of “examining security failures that led to the Benghazi tragedy.” He said lawmakers had an obligation to protect federal workers overseas. On Sunday, he said more should be spent on diplomatic security.

But as part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion. In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016.

Since 9/11, the United States has spent millions of dollars building new embassies and consulates around the world and fortifying existing ones. But despite the investment, there is still a lot of work to do to bring all facilities into compliance with safety standards that were set in 1985 after the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut in 1983 and then updated after the attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Maybe now Congress will see fit to provide more money to do it.

Clearly, there is much we don’t know about what happened in Benghazi or what changes could have saved the four Americans. The former security chief at the embassy in Tripoli has been critical of the administration and said he had requested more security from State Department officials. However, he also said that a higher wall or a half-dozen more security guards would not have been enough to respond to the attack. (In the last debate, Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. said of the consulate in Benghazi, “we did not know they wanted more security.”)

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has appointed a panel of outside experts to investigate. More spending on security improvements will certainly help, but there will still be threats and risks. America’s diplomats must be protected, but they cannot do their jobs and interact with the world if they operate only behind fortress walls. There will always have to be a balance. Ambassador Stevens knew that.

8/4/2014 8:15 PM
Hmmm…………A lot of my posts have been reported.

I wonder what they are and why the liberals don't want you to see them.

It's just a few pictures.

Not like I'm debasing women or posting nudes.

What could possibly have the libs so upset?

Doesn't matter.

I'll simply repost them.  In my time.  At my convenience.  Sooner than later.

So much for a liberal free press!
8/4/2014 8:18 PM
8/4/2014 8:19 PM
8/4/2014 8:20 PM
8/4/2014 8:21 PM
8/4/2014 8:34 PM
8/4/2014 8:36 PM
There ya are, go back to what you know best....dumb cat pictures.
8/4/2014 8:45 PM
Posted by DougOut on 8/4/2014 8:15:00 PM (view original):
Hmmm…………A lot of my posts have been reported.

I wonder what they are and why the liberals don't want you to see them.

It's just a few pictures.

Not like I'm debasing women or posting nudes.

What could possibly have the libs so upset?

Doesn't matter.

I'll simply repost them.  In my time.  At my convenience.  Sooner than later.

So much for a liberal free press!
You posted pictures of a dead body. WIS isn't the government. Freedom of the press doesn't apply.
8/4/2014 9:04 PM
Doug, calm down and go find a new catchphrase.  This one's officially dead.
8/4/2014 9:12 PM
Posted by evil_twin on 8/4/2014 9:04:00 PM (view original):
Doug, calm down and go find a new catchphrase.  This one's officially dead.
I'm pretty sure you meant to say CATPHRASE.
8/5/2014 5:32 AM
B-B-B-B-B-B-UT BENGHAZI!
8/5/2014 10:30 AM

It's a clinical, point-by-point refutation of the Benghazi hoax Fox has pushed for nearly 2 years.

Yet Fox News made no mention of the report on Monday.* In sharp contrast to its current silence, when House Speaker John Boehner announced the formation of a select committee to investigate Benghazi in June, Fox devoted at least 225 segments to the topic over just two weeks, an estimated publicity value of more than $124 million.

Fox's sudden lack of interest in congressional investigations into Benghazi comes less then one week after Rep. Trey Gowdy, head of the select committee, announced - in what Fox News billed as an "exclusive" interview - that he would hold more public hearings on the attacks in September.

"The American people have not been given clear answers to things like Benghazi," Bill O'Reilly said Friday night on Fox. Monday night, O'Reilly's audience didn't learn the answers that the House Intelligence Committee declassified last week.

On July 31, the day the House Intelligence Committee adopted its report, Fox News signaled its intention to continue politicizing the Benghazi tragedy by immediately pivoting to Hillary Clinton.

"The Republican head of the powerful House Intelligence Committee told Fox News that there was no intelligence failure and that all roads lead to the State Department," Herridge said on America's Newsroom.

Hours later, the conclusion that there was no intelligence failure had evaporated from her reporting. "The chairman of the House Intelligence Committeee says, Hillary Clinton's State Department has more explaining to do," Herridge claimed on The Kelly Report that night.

That assessment was based on questions answered long ago about who signs diplomatic cables at the State Department
 

of 5

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.