BO`s Benghazi BS and Cover Up Far Worse Than Watergate
- Thread starter TeddyBallgame
- Start date
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'
Considering the testimony in Congress I'm surprised that any of the State Department Security staff even has a job left. But then... look at Fast and Furious too. Why does Holder still occupy his seat? Truth is an elusive word in politics these days. This whole scenario tells me our Foreign Service system is in a serious decline too. Maybe we should hire an Al Queada backed firm to plan the security system? They seem to know it better than our folks do.
Could someone give me the name or number of that bill.....Just to make sure it's not one of them omnibus bills, where, to get rid of the pork, the whole bill gets to be turned down....
I like to read the thing before passing judgement...:smile:
I might just end up agreeing with you...
on this one point;-)
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.
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding | Drudge Retort
Committee Reports - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - Senate Report 112-085
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
That's the problem with budget cutting: it sounds great when you're thumping tubs on the campaign trail in front of adoring tea party crowds, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.
Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money | Mother Jones
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding | Drudge Retort
Committee Reports - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - Senate Report 112-085
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
That's the problem with budget cutting: it sounds great when you're thumping tubs on the campaign trail in front of adoring tea party crowds, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.
Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money | Mother Jones
lol More TeddySPAM.
Um, Teddy, did it ever occur to you that most posters here are Canadian, so you can rant and babble all you want, we have no say in American politics and can't vote in it. And IMO, anyone who thinks their respective party is a bunch of saints and the other is a buncha devils is just a mindless partisan hack .... a robot that simply regurgitates the propaganda they are fed.
Um, Teddy, did it ever occur to you that most posters here are Canadian, so you can rant and babble all you want, we have no say in American politics and can't vote in it. And IMO, anyone who thinks their respective party is a bunch of saints and the other is a buncha devils is just a mindless partisan hack .... a robot that simply regurgitates the propaganda they are fed.
- This column by the brilliant black US college professor and writer Thomas Sowell utterly eviscerates BO's malodorous and duplicitous attempt to cover up and explain away and divert attention from the disgraceful Benghazi scandal that would have the media and congress rightfully clamouring for impeachment hearings had Obama been a Republican:
Obama’s ‘transparent’ government’s record of deceit
By Thomas Sowell
First posted: Saturday, October 27, 2012 06:28 PM EDT
It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was “offended” by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?
Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States — followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.
Remember his pledge to have a “transparent” government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an ObamaCare bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.
Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations — and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?
As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an “investigation” under way. An “on-going investigation” sounds so much better than “stonewalling” to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this “investigation” will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.
The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of September 11 were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, “in real time,” as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming “investigation” to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.
The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.
The administration’s initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barack Obama’s much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.
To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating President Obama’s supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that Al Qaeda was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.
Osama bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.
Nobody tried to depict President Franklin D. Roosevelt as some kind of hero for having simply authorized the killing of Yamamoto. In that case, the only hero who was publicized was the man who shot down the plane Yamamoto was in.
Yet the killing of Osama bin Laden has been depicted as some kind of act of courage by President Obama. After bin Laden was located, why would any President not give the go-ahead to get him?
That took no courage at all. It would have been far more dangerous politically for Obama not to have given the go-ahead. Moreover, Obama hedged his bets by authorizing the admiral in charge of the operation to proceed only under various conditions.
This meant that success would be credited to Obama and failure could be blamed on the admiral — who would join George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and other scapegoats for Obama’s failures.
— Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Obama’s ‘transparent’ government’s record of deceit
By Thomas Sowell
First posted: Saturday, October 27, 2012 06:28 PM EDT
It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was “offended” by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?
Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States — followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.
Remember his pledge to have a “transparent” government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an ObamaCare bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.
Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations — and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?
As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an “investigation” under way. An “on-going investigation” sounds so much better than “stonewalling” to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this “investigation” will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.
The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of September 11 were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, “in real time,” as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming “investigation” to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.
The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.
The administration’s initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barack Obama’s much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.
To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating President Obama’s supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that Al Qaeda was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.
Osama bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.
Nobody tried to depict President Franklin D. Roosevelt as some kind of hero for having simply authorized the killing of Yamamoto. In that case, the only hero who was publicized was the man who shot down the plane Yamamoto was in.
Yet the killing of Osama bin Laden has been depicted as some kind of act of courage by President Obama. After bin Laden was located, why would any President not give the go-ahead to get him?
That took no courage at all. It would have been far more dangerous politically for Obama not to have given the go-ahead. Moreover, Obama hedged his bets by authorizing the admiral in charge of the operation to proceed only under various conditions.
This meant that success would be credited to Obama and failure could be blamed on the admiral — who would join George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and other scapegoats for Obama’s failures.
— Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Last edited:
If Reelected, Obama Should Be Impeached over Benghazi
"The scandal thus far has at least tarnished and quite possibly implicated everyone from the CIA director, to the secretaries of State and Defense, to the UN ambassador and, of course, the president himself — with no end in sight, because Obama, normally loath to expose himself and even less so in an election season, refuses to answer questions on the subject."
Blazing Cat Fur: If Reelected, Obama Should Be Impeached over Benghazi
"The scandal thus far has at least tarnished and quite possibly implicated everyone from the CIA director, to the secretaries of State and Defense, to the UN ambassador and, of course, the president himself — with no end in sight, because Obama, normally loath to expose himself and even less so in an election season, refuses to answer questions on the subject."
Blazing Cat Fur: If Reelected, Obama Should Be Impeached over Benghazi
Not that it will slow down the RW noise machine, but it's good to hear some pubshback on this.
Contrary to what Fox 'News' reported on Friday:
Contrary to what Fox 'News' reported on Friday:
Fox News Channel reported Friday that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups.
After Leon Panetta's joint question and answer session with the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General where he made the following statement:
After Leon Panetta's joint question and answer session with the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General where he made the following statement:
The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey."As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said. General Carter Ham commands the U.S. Africa Command.
Bill Kristol speculated that such a decision could only have been on the Presidential level.
But Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, in a post published Friday, doubted Panetta's explanation and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. "Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No," Kristol wrote. "It would have been a presidential decision."
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor flatly called Kristol "wrong", and issued the following statement:
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor flatly called Kristol "wrong", and issued the following statement:
"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi: Aide | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi: Aide | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Retired Lt. Col.: My Sources Say Obama Was in the Room Watching Benghazi Attack Happen
Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.
Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”
more
Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: My Sources Say Obama Was in the Room Watching Benghazi Attack Happen | Video | TheBlaze.com
Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.
Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”
more
Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: My Sources Say Obama Was in the Room Watching Benghazi Attack Happen | Video | TheBlaze.com
Jimmy Carter's pollster disgusted with WH and media.
Pat Caddell: These People Have No Honor | The American Catholic
Pat Caddell: These People Have No Honor | The American Catholic
This is what you get when you replace a bloody thirsty regime that cares little about human
life with a weak regime that behind closed doors cares little about human life. We as the West
went in to help the civilians, ya right, we went in to influence the westward flow of oil in the
future. The place is still run by savages the way savages ran it before the new group came to
power. They demonstrated that when the killed Gaddafi. The courts and rule of law meant
nothing, mob rule prevailed
life with a weak regime that behind closed doors cares little about human life. We as the West
went in to help the civilians, ya right, we went in to influence the westward flow of oil in the
future. The place is still run by savages the way savages ran it before the new group came to
power. They demonstrated that when the killed Gaddafi. The courts and rule of law meant
nothing, mob rule prevailed
‘The Stories Keep Changing’: President Stonewalls Morning Joe’s Libya Questions
President Obama Won’t Say if the Intel Community Gave Him Bad Information in Benghazi | Video | TheBlaze.com
President Obama Won’t Say if the Intel Community Gave Him Bad Information in Benghazi | Video | TheBlaze.com