OBAMA DODGES/DEFLECTS ON BENGHAZI...

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

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. We have — think about this — 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.
And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this

Got more than Romney asswipe.You are really jealous of Bill since when getting consensual pussy a crime? Except when you pay for it.You do pay for it don't you? Originally Posted by ekim008

Marginal, Ekim the Inbred, just like your cognitive skills. Odumbo won with a popular vote that was only 6/10ths of one percent more than 50% of the popular vote: 49.4% of the voters voted against Odumbo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2012.

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

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. We have — think about this — 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.
And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this

Originally Posted by CJ7

Is there a reason you didn't provide a citation, CBJ7? Could it be that you didn't want people to see where the Dims rejected the Republican cuts and negotitated a compromise budget which both parties AGREED TO, you lying SOB?

Marginal, Ekim the Inbred, just like your cognitive skills. Odumbo won with a popular vote that was only 6/10ths of one percent more than 50% of the popular vote: 49.4% of the voters voted against Odumbo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2012. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Laughing at a guy who got more votes than your guy is marginal at best Hank...

Laughing at a guy who got more votes than your guy is marginal at best Hank... Originally Posted by ekim008

It was a "marginal" win, Ekim the Inbred. There was no "mandate". It's laughable that you and the rest of the lefty-loonies in this forum think it was.

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

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. We have — think about this — 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.
And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this

Originally Posted by CJ7

This is what you ignored, CBJ7, where Chaffetz explains that budget cut you cited never got out of the House:


O'BRIEN: We just heard from one of the clip that's going to testify before you today that there was definitely this pressure, in his mind, to not staff the embassy fully security wise.

Wouldn't that pressure be coming from you directly, essentially, people and others who voted against funding for security? Keep it low because there's no funding for security.

CHAFFETZ: You're also talking about a vote that never came to fruition because we actually continued at the exact same funding levels moving forward. This is a vote that happened at the House.

Remember, the Senate never got to this point. So we did a resolution. It's a red herring. The reality is you have to prioritize things and when you're talking about such a small, small number of security personnel there in country, that's a problem.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../10/sp.01.html





According to a Democratic staff memo obtained by The Hill, the House cut the two State Department accounts for “Worldwide Security Protection” and “Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance” by a total of $459 million in 2011 and 2012 below the Obama administration's funding request. The Democrat-controlled Senate was able to reinstate $88.25 million — still $370.7 million lower than what the administration wanted.

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said more Democrats than Republicans — including Cummings — voted for those bills and called them a “bipartisan” effort. Republicans pointed to a July 2012 report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that found $200 million in waste to justify the cuts.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affa...par-over-libya





Libya Security Lapse: The Budget for Embassy Security Is Not Responsible
Brett SchaeferOctober 11, 2012 at 10:02 am(13)

There has been some back and forth between Republicans and Democrats over funding for security in Libya in the wake of Ambassador Chris Stevens’s death. Republicans have questioned whether the State Department had adequate security to protect the ambassador, and Democrats have countered that Republicans tried to cut funding for embassy security. What does the budget record show?
According to the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations (p. 11), overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. Despite reductions from budget peaks in FY 2009 and FY 2010, both budget lines are higher than in FY 2008.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/11/...t-responsible/




Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-embassy-gain/




.

notice how liberals always answer with "well so and so lied too" or "so and so did that too". This seems to make it OK for someone to lie regardless of what the lie is trying to cover up. Why can't they address the present issue and the one who lies now?

notice how liberals always answer with "well so and so lied too" or "so and so did that too". This seems to make it OK for someone to lie regardless of what the lie is trying to cover up. Why can't they address the present issue and the one who lies now? Originally Posted by satexasguy

Lie? Cover-Up?

Lie about what?

Cover-Up what?

What specifically is the accusation here?

No President is responsible for four dead Americans in Africa.

And it doesn't make any difference if they were killed in a planned attack or a spontaneous one.

Okay let's assume it was a planned attack and the Administration got it wrong.

So what?

What difference does it make that they were killed in a planned attack?

No President is responsible for that either.

you know damn well that if this happened when Bush was in office you'd be singing a different tune. In fact, I'm surprised Obama and the liberals haven't blamed Bush for this.

Looks like the Obama hater woke up from his morning nap.

You guys can hate on Obama and Clinton all you want, but they both won Re-election.

Originally Posted by markroxny

I don't hate Obama. I vehemently disagree with his policies as President.

But I'm the lucky one, I don't have to try to defend that corrupt, dishonest and incompetent man for the next four years. You have reason to be upset.

The thing that drives argument on the boards is the shallowness of many people who consider that there is always and only two opposing views on any topic.

If I criticize something Obama does then I'm a Republican/Bush advocate. If I defend something he's done then I'm a Republican-hating this or that.....

The same thing about international politics or war.

If I criticize something the US has done then I hate America and either support Facism or Communism or both.....

The idea that each "side" in politics or war is either good or bad, right or wrong, is SO DIVORCED FROM THE REALITY OF THE WORLD THAT ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT WAY CANNOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.....ANYTHING.

Life is not a football game.

There are no good sides or bad sides.

Each side has always done both terrible things and not so terrible things.

There are few if any heros in the real world.

ps.....

I accept that in the real world there's gonna be a lot of evil wherever there is power. But I only really object when one side is hypocritical, and claims a moral high ground when it's not really there.

It's only hypocracy that bothers me.

you know damn well that if this happened when Bush was in office you'd be singing a different tune. In fact, I'm surprised Obama and the liberals haven't blamed Bush for this. Originally Posted by satexasguy

nothing was said when 220 marines got killed in the Lebanon Embassy bombing ... from EITHER side ...


Reagans watch, and sluffing off a direct ACT OF WAR and the right says/does nothing ?? then makes Runnin Ronnie the party hero

that type of blame?

The thing that drives argument on the boards is the shallowness of many people who consider that there is always and only two opposing views on any topic.

If I criticize something Obama does then I'm a Republican/Bush advocate. If I defend something he's done then I'm a Republican-hating this or that.....

The same thing about international politics or war.

If I criticize something the US has done then I hate America and either support Facism or Communism or both.....

The idea that each "side" in politics or war is either good or bad, right or wrong, is SO DIVORCED FROM THE REALITY OF THE WORLD THAT ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT WAY CANNOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.....ANYTHING.

Life is not a football game.

There are no good sides or bad sides.

Each side has always done both terrible things and not so terrible things.

There are few if any heros in the real world.

ps.....

I accept that in the real world there's gonna be a lot of evil wherever there is power. But I only really object when one side is hypocritical, and claims a moral high ground when it's not really there.

It's only hypocracy that bothers me. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Great points, and i agree 100% > The issue for me is quite simple and that is what in the fuck was the Ambassador and his other staff doing there? Who sent him there? Did the village idiot who sent them there not know it was FN dangerous? If they couldn't send back up or support they shouldn't have made them go. These are legit questions i think every American should know the answer too.
The other part of the equation is the WH expects ME to believe all the shit was caused by a bunch of crazy motherfuckers sittin around in thier fuckin huts on their computers watchin youtube then working them selves into a frenzy, grabbing the mortars and AK47S and then deciding to go on the attack. If you guys believe that crock of shit then we got REALLY big problems in the good old USA. You should be insulted that we are being fed this bull shit, i don't give a fuck what party you vote for. For the record i didn't feel any different when the WH tried to make me believe that THERE WERE WMDs so they could start a war. Bull shit is bull shit !

nothing was said when 220 marines got killed in the Lebanon Embassy bombing ... from EITHER side ...


Reagans watch, and sluffing off a direct ACT OF WAR and the right says/does nothing ?? then makes Runnin Ronnie the party hero

that type of blame? Originally Posted by CJ7

I think you're lying. There was plenty of discussion about the Beirut bombing, and very critical of Reagan at the time.

I have a friend who survived the bombing there, he will never be the same. It haunts him to this day. I've no doubt he'd be in better shape if Reagan had responded with force.

This was not Reagan's finest hour.

But you get back to your old argument, that since Reagan was allowed a foreign policy fuck up, then we must allow Obama to have one, too.

Bullshit. Obama dropped the ball. It's time for a complete investigation. One without the "sex scandals" and focused on what really happened. We already know we can't trust the Administration. They have already been caught lying to cover their ass.

Marginal, Ekim the Inbred, just like your cognitive skills. Odumbo won with a popular vote that was only 6/10ths of one percent more than 50% of the popular vote: 49.4% of the voters voted against Odumbo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2012. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

you are a looser just like mittens.if Obie's turnout is less and he still wins it reflects poorly on the buffoon the repubs ran.

Here is the important exchange in which Obama dodges the question everyone wants to know.............

Ed Henry: “I wanted to ask about the families of these four Americans who were killed. Sean Smith’s father Ray said he believes his son basically called 911 for help and they didn’t get it. And I know you said you grieve for these four Americans, that it is being investigated, but the families have been waiting for more than two months. So I would like for you to address the families, if you can. On 9/11, as Commander-in-Chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?”

Obama: "Ed, I’ll address the families not through the press. I’ll address the families directly, as I already have,” Obama replied. “And we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day. That’s what the investigation is for.”

Without providing a yes or no answer, the president went after his critics who question whether the U.S. government did everything it could to save the Americans under attack in Benghazi.

“If people don’t think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there, and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don’t know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks,” Obama said. “Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives.”

(As Henry raised his hand to follow up, Obama interrupted him and continued with his answer.)

“I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe. And that’s the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger — whether they’re civilian or military — because that’s our number one priority.”

In Summary: Obama didn't answer the very simple question asked by Henry.

Obama doesn't need an "investigation" to let the public know what specific actions he ordered/or didn't.

Obama is hiding his Benghazi failures. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

On line shows your bias very clearly.

(As Henry raised his hand to follow up, Obama interrupted him and continued with his answer.)

Who interupted who?