And when Obama requested more funding for the State Department for embassy security from the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, what did they do? From CNN:
According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).
A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.
However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final 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.
Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.
But it was STILL $270M less than what the administration had requested. When there's not enough funding to provide security at all embassies, the State Department is FORCED to not have enough security. "We're not going to give you enough money to provide more security, but if anything happens, it's still your fault!"
In other words, the GOP didn't want to sufficiently fund the security of the embassies, but sure as hell wanted to point the finger when it turned out that the security was insufficient.
So, why didn't the State Dept., under Secretary Clinton's "leadership," close the Embassy and bring our people home. Other countries did.
Probably for the same reason Reagan didn't close our embassies in Moscow, Beijing, and several other despotic regimes around the world. State Department employees know full well that they might be in dangerous situations - that comes with the job.
So, why didn't the State Dept., under Secretary Clinton's "leadership," close the Embassy and bring our people home. Other countries did.
I'm confused. All this time, I thought we were talking about the Embassy in Benghazi. Historical and moral relativism don't work here. Please stay on task.
There never was a U.S. embassy in Benghazi only an "outpost" which was in reality a cover for the CIA.
So, Obama was live presenting the Medal of Honor To ret. Lt. Col. Kettles a few minutes ago. As he described his heroic service in Vietnam Nam rescuing downed pilots, he talked about the military tradition of leaving no one behind. And how this remarkably brave man epitomized that tradition.
No one left behind. Can you say Benghazi?
An embassy is a permanent diplomatic mission led by an ambassador. The Embassy at Benghazi, Libya met the criteria.
JERUSALEM – The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, actually served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials.
Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
The distinction may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a “consulate.” Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.
Since the mission was attacked last month, countless news media reports around the world have referred to the obscure post as a U.S. consulate. That theme continues to permeate the media, with articles daily referencing a “consulate” in Benghazi.
U.S. officials have been more careful in their rhetoric while not contradicting the media narrative that a consulate was attacked.
I'm confused. All this time, I thought we were talking about the Embassy in Benghazi. Historical and moral relativism don't work here. Please stay on task.
Maggie,
He was only talking about other military people leaving no one behind.
He, on the other hand, would put footprints up your back to unass the area....then wave as the helo pulls away.
An embassy is a permanent diplomatic mission led by an ambassador. The Embassy at Benghazi, Libya met the criteria.
And your speculation about President Obama is based on ...?
There was no embassy in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens was stationed in Tripoli, not Benghazi.
Try not to get basic facts wrong.
based on his complete cowardice in the face of the enemy, and his ability to make excuses for all the evil they do. He cannot even say the word Islamic Terrorism, and additionally makes excuses for them, like saying the Crusades were much worse, and implying we brought all this upon ourselves because of what happened in the 1300's or so.
History will prove he has been a closet Muslim all the time. He proves it each and every day.
When Islamic terrorists kill people on American soil, he calls for disarming Americans each and every time.
Obama..." if someone is shooting at you, then you should surrender your guns".
Benghazi is not the only attack that has ever happened on a US compound. If other presidents can present awards to soldiers why can't Obama?
Does not mean left behind alive, means we take the bodies with us, we got their bodies, no one could have reacted in time to save them and they should not have been there to begin with.
And when Obama requested more funding for the State Department for embassy security from the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, what did they do? From CNN:
According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).
A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.
However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final 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.
Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.
But it was STILL $270M less than what the administration had requested. When there's not enough funding to provide security at all embassies, the State Department is FORCED to not have enough security. "We're not going to give you enough money to provide more security, but if anything happens, it's still your fault!"
In other words, the GOP didn't want to sufficiently fund the security of the embassies, but sure as hell wanted to point the finger when it turned out that the security was insufficient.
So, Obama was live presenting the Medal of Honor To ret. Lt. Col. Kettles a few minutes ago. As he described his heroic service in Vietnam Nam rescuing downed pilots, he talked about the military tradition of leaving no one behind. And how this remarkably brave man epitomized that tradition.
No one left behind. Can you say Benghazi?
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066113955 said:So its the republican's fault?
Priceless...
The GOP wouldn't give the State Department the funding they required to keep the embassies and their staffs safe...and the the GOP blows a gasket when an ambassador gets attacked and killed.
If you want someone to get a job done, you can't take the person's tools away and still tell the person, "make sure it's done right." It's like nearly everything else in life: "You get what you pay for." And if a department's not going to get the funding it needs for security, it's going to be more vulnerable to attack.
I'm not sure exactly how this is so difficult for y'all to understand. Oh, wait - yeah, I DO understand! It was Hillary, and so it didn't matter how crappy the funding was, it didn't matter how far away the military was...she is and must always be the villain, no matter what! And no matter how many times she's investigated and found innocent of ANY wrongdoing (like the seven or eight investigations on Benghazi, most of which were led by the GOP House), she MUST be guilty. No need for evidence or facts or common sense - if her name is in any way involved, she MUST be guilty!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?