Speakeasy forum

Praise

Just a quick High Five for all the Benghazi Conspiracy folks

by Ziks511 / October 23, 2013 9:25 AM PDT

who did such a stellar job of covering up the Republican reduction of a 5 Billion dollar upgrade to Embassy Security to 4.5 Billion, and then stonewalling its implementation in dangerous locations around the world. The legislation has been around for more than two years, but has been blocked and tabled and ignored that entire time by you know who, and Embassy Security has again emerged as a significant problem, this time at the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. You all remember Beirut don't you? Where Ronnie Raygun got 220 Marines killed because he didn't believe in adequate security either.

<div><span id="INSERTION_MARKER">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/republicans-have-no-shame.html

I always wondered why months after the shootings in Benghazi the Republicans suddenly went on a witch hunt trying to pin blame on any Democrat they could.

<div> "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." NYT, Republicans have no shame. above.
</div><span id="INSERTION_MARKER">So the Democrats led by the President wanted to upgrade security in 2011 and again in 2012, but the Republicans in the House have been playing budget games for more than 4 years, and Darrell Issa has been on the case since 2009 cutting 300 diplomatic security positions via an Amendment. And yet it was the Republicans accusing the Democrats of being lax. If you want a scapegoat, if you want someone who materially weakened the US Embassy Security everywhere, but particularly in Libya resulting in the Benghazi attack, just thank Darrel Issa, British Petroleum's greatest friend in Congress. (Judging by his performance at the Gulf Oil Spill hearings)

So, on the principle that a loud offence is a good defence, all that sound and fury was just cover for their own failure to permit the legislation mandating upgrades to Embassies to proceed..

It does however show you just how sincere those Republicans were about fixing the problems. They blocked the legislation and then pointed fingers at the Democrats for not doing it earlier, even though the Republicans were refusing to allow any Democratic legislation to pass. It's been that way since 2010. When did Benghazi occur again? Oh, yeah, just 13 months ago. Sept 11, 2012. More than a year after Obama asked for increased Embassy Security.

Nice cover up Toni, James, Steven and everyone else who just typed out the scripts given you by the RNC. Your're acting just the way I'd expect sock puppets to act. Great job..

Rob
</div>

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Just a quick High Five for all the Benghazi Conspiracy folks
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Just a quick High Five for all the Benghazi Conspiracy folks
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
that's nothing
by James Denison / October 23, 2013 9:30 AM PDT

govt departments always overask and always know they will get less than what they asked for. This is a big nothing. In fact, if 300 less people were there as "diplomats" it lowers the overall risk since the assigned military personnel wouldn't be under that.

Collapse -
Conspiracy? Or Coverup??
by James Denison / October 23, 2013 9:33 AM PDT

I don't remember a conspiracy about Benghazi being involved in the attack on the embassy, but do remember a coverup going on at the highest levels in the executive branch. Is it the coverup you reference?

Collapse -
Steven who?. I'f you mean me, give me proof
by Steven Haninger / October 23, 2013 9:45 AM PDT

Since you're such an avid reader, please either tell me or point to where I took any sort of active part in that blame game. And enough of your name calling and personal insults already. They do nothing to aid whatever cause you want to further. Lousy job!

Collapse -
If you didn't weigh in on the Benghazi issue, I apologize
by Ziks511 / October 24, 2013 10:23 AM PDT

for thinking you had. You have weighed in firmly against Obama and the ACA, in language which surprised me coming from you whom I think of as a moderate Republican.

Sometimes it is hard to tell from which direction the shots are coming.

Rob

Collapse -
the further left you go
by James Denison / October 24, 2013 2:27 PM PDT

the more extreme anyone to the right seems to you.

Collapse -
My objection to Obama being elected due to his
by Steven Haninger / October 24, 2013 6:50 PM PDT

background as and activist has been clearly stated. My objections lately have been to his pre-election statements of decrying the spending and debt accumulation of his predecessor as something he wouldn't impose on the nation's children and promising to cut that debt. You can't tell me that he's shown much interest in focusing on his fiscal policies during his tenure in office. He's done quite the opposite. My guess is that you'd rather forgive him for that and/or blame the opposition party for it. BTW, I've also shown some praise for the man at times but I'll admit that I've never trusted the man from the beginning. That doesn't mean I'm pro Republican and anti-Democrat. As best I can, I look at individual issues rather than follow a herd. If it so happens my thinking seems to line up more often on one side or the other, go right ahead and pigeon hole me and hate me like you do anything and anybody with an "R" tagged to their name. As for which way shots are coming, I'd hope there were no shots any more dangerous than a Nerf ball but I'd also say that lack of definite direction is evidence of the lack of being one sided.

You are obviously passionate about some things and one of them is politics. Such passion, I'd think, could be constructive or destructive. You have a right to think and feel as you do but I'll also say that so does anyone else. If you want to advance a cause, it wouldn't be bad idea to invite open conversation and be able to remain calm and respectful throughout the discussion...regardless of how you are treated in return, BTW. There is a difference between being listened to and just being heard. There was at least one person capable of being that type of conversationalist. Though he was killed by a few who refused to listen, he is still remembered and oft quoted today as being a standard by which we should live. He's also quoted by his enemies when they attack his followers for not living up to those standards. Wink

Collapse -
A couple of flaws in your post
by TONI H / October 23, 2013 10:58 PM PDT

The Republicans have not been the ones playing 'budget games' for the last four years.....the Senate by Constitutional Law are required to submit a budget every year and from the day BO took office, Reid has refused to submit a budget (2013 is the first year he did), and demanded CR's every year instead.

As for the cut in embassy security...... BO is the one who kept saying that AQ was on the run, and began the pull out of our troops in Iraq. The money 'saved' from those pullouts could have easily been used to up the security if he was so concerned about it. As it is, he got nearly all of what he was asking for (you never get everything in negotiations.....isn't that what Dems say all the time).

Also do you remember a little thing called "sequester" that BO demanded and got and tried to blame for all sorts of things that it didn't have anything to do with? If BO and HC believed that security was an issue in Libya (and they DID believe it because demands were being made for months to increase it), then why was that security not only DENIED but CUT by her department? The funds WERE there to increase security (testimony by one of her 'second in commands') and they ignored it. Evidently the sequester wasn't a problem for that so the funds WERE available and they REFUSED the demand and got people killed that didn't have to die.

The ONLY coverup that is going on is STILL coming from this administration.........nice try though, Rob

Collapse -
Saying Al Qaeda is on the run is not the same as saying that
by Ziks511 / October 24, 2013 10:36 AM PDT

there is no danger, and the record clearly shows as I posted it, that Obama has been trying to get money from Congress to beef up Embassy Security since 2009.

I don't believe your statements that Harry Reid has been the problem or that the Democratic Party has been the problem, and neither do the American People. It has been clear from the day after the Inauguration that the Republicans were not going to play ball in any way shape or form. Those of us who supported Obama were deeply disappointed in the lengths he went to to get Republican support, and it eroded Obama's support, though people voted for him because the other guy was such a phony.

Why you don't recognize any of that seems to be a widely shouted delusion among the Conservative Extremists who claim that they have been willing to compromise on everything, even though the record shows exactly the opposite. The second I find a decent clear record of the travesty which has been the last 2 Congresses, I will post it.

There is no coverup, but it's a clever bit of chicanery to say there was, and then force your opponents to prove a negative. It is widely accepted that proving a negative is a logical impossibility, because every investigation which turns up nothing is just treated as more proof that there was a really good cover up.

Rob

Collapse -
What was clear from the inauguration
by TONI H / October 24, 2013 10:56 AM PDT

was that NO compromise or cooperation with Republicans was ever going to come from BO OR the House and Senate that were BOTH controlled by Dems.........

Collapse -
Rob is playing a disingenuous game
by James Denison / October 24, 2013 11:34 PM PDT

Republicans introduce legislation to be voted on and Democrats beat it down. Democrats introduce legislation and Republicans reject it. Maybe some is compromised and a bill passed later.

How does Rob interpret that? Well of course he gives Democrats all credit for anything passed he agrees with, blames Republicans for anything he disagrees with, and anything that never resulted in compromise legislation, then he blames Republicans for "blocking" it. Yet, one could look at the same in exactly the reverse manner and blame the Democrats for blocking minority legislative efforts and then failing to pass their own. That's the half-passed way of looking at things.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

Big stars on small screens

Smosh tells CNET what it took to make it big online

Internet sensations Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla discuss how YouTube has changed and why among all their goals, "real TV" isn't an ambition.