[tomder55]

The problem is not that there was a CIA operation ongoing . That was the worst kept secret ever . It is the operation they were doing that the Obots are trying to sweep under the rug. During the Bush years we fought wars against Sunni jihadists in places like Iraq and Afghanistan ;and covertly throughout the ummah . However ,since the Obama adm . We have been schizophrenic ;waging a drone war against them while at the same time supporting their efforts in Egypt ,the greater Maghreb ,and in the Syrian revolution. The CIA mission in Benghazi was recruiting, training ,and supporting the efforts in Syria . It is quite possible that CIA trained jihadists took part in the attack on Ambassador Stevens .

[talaniman]

Anything is possible, but given so many moving parts, and the complexity of the entire region. I sure don't depend on campaign spin to make a judgement no matter which side is spinning.

[excon]

Hello again,

The fact that we were attacked SHOULDN'T be a surprise to the right wing.. Apparently, they thought Obama SOLVED the Mid East Crisis.. When they find out he didn't, they're saying that his entire foreign policy is unraveling... Boy, oh boy, is THAT stupid, if only because what Obama is doing, is the BUSH doctrine on steroids?

Now, I agree, that with the BILLIONS and BILLIONS they spent on counter terror, we SHOULD be way ahead. Unfortunately, LOTS and LOTS of those BILLIONS were spent right HERE, SPYING on US. Maybe, if we spent those BILLIONS on defeating the enemy, we might actually have defeated them by now...

The problem with OUR government is, it thinks that WE'RE the terrorists. Boy, oh boy, oh boy, is THAT backwards.. They don't think Al Quaida will attack, but they think WE will.

excon

[tomder55]

Apparently, they thought Obama SOLVED the Mid East Crisis..

No ;in fact quite the opposite ;The President turned a winning hand into a wholesale chaotic retreat .

If only because what Obama is doing, is the BUSH doctrine on steroids.

That would be true if Bush pursued a policy of supporting extremist Sunni terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. But of course we know that isn't true . I had hoped he would continue the Bush Doctrine ;but alas ,he created his own in supporting Sunni extremism and his growing doctrine of R2P .

Maybe, if we spent those BILLIONS on defeating the enemy, we might actually have defeated them by now...

or perhaps if State Dept funding had been allocated properly like... ummm... beefing up security for our embassies in the days before 9-11-12 so that our Ambassador wasn't attacked ;and AQ flags flown from 4 different embassies. Perhaps maybe buying Prius and chargers for our embassies was money foolishly spent .

The problem with OUR government is, it thinks that WE'RE the terrorists. Boy, oh boy, oh boy, is THAT backwards.. They don't think Al Quaida will attack, but they think WE will.

This is true . DHS has a list of all these conservatives they have on their watch list . This adm has been extremely lucky .Twice the difference between a major jihadist attack at home was faulty trigger devices (the Christmas Detroit airline attack ;and the Time Square NYC attack) . The Adm also ignores the Fort Hood Massacre when they take credit for keeping us safe at home. They are obsessed with political correctness and that is how Major Hasan was able to commit his murders .
Meanwhile ,during my recent vacation ;I twice went through the x-ray zapping ,showing my naked body to a rent a voyer TSA agent . After both screenings I was subject to additional pat-downs . Why ? Because I was wearing hiker pants that had extra zippers.
So I agree our resources need to be directed against probable threats home and abroad . But also we need competent leadership at the State Dept who are more concerned about the security of their assets overseas ,instead of consciously putting them at risk to maintain a 'light footprint ' .

[excon]

or perhaps if State Dept funding had been allocated properly like... ummm... beefing up security for our embassies in the days before 9-11-12 so that our Ambassador wasn't attacked

Hello again, tom:

I thought we talked about YOUR party CUTTING the security budget from the State Department. If you were so concerned with their safety, you would have RAISED it, not cut it. Now, you want to pretend that they didn't do that, when they absolutely DID...

Wingers CUT, CUT, CUT, and when those cuts KILL, it's Obama's fault... Give me a break.

Excon

[tomder55]

Umm none of the cuts are in effect yet . The State Dept testified that the cuts were not a factor in their decision. Finally ,the cuts are part of overall cuts to the State Dept budget that passed on a bipartisan vote. It is your side that is singalling out security . But the State Dept can easily allocate it's funding accordingly .

[talaniman]

Our guy ain't perfect, but the shame is you think your guy is better. Heck he may NOT be as good as the guy YOU guys had before and he was a disaster. You guys said so!

I think the whole country needs more time to get over your last conservative before they get another one.

[paraclete]

Amen to that

[excon]

Hello again,

Republicans have no shame... The right wing thinks that budget line items are simply MONEY. They DON'T realize that cutting them makes a real difference in people's lives.. When it's pointed out to them that it DOES, they deny it.

Case in point... They CUT the budget for the State Department, and think they did GOOD.. But, it resulted in LESS security for our people overseas, and SOME of them got killed.. Now, they'll look you straight in the eye, and tell you it's Obama's fault - that SLASHING the security budget didn't make ANY difference in these killings.. But, of course, that's ludicrous.

Republican Darrel 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.

Excon

[tomder55]

Cutting the budget had nothing to do with the security failures.The Benghazi consulate was never on the docket to be brought up to security standards;and as I already pointed out ;there was PC political reasons for the security decisions the Adm made in the ummah ;and particularly in Libya.

Edit.. this is Issa's response on 'Face the Nation' yesterday :
"In the case of our committee, we're– we're recognizing that there was 2.2 billion dollars in a discretionary fund that could have been used for security, still could be used for security enhancements throughout the region. Plus, the DOD, the military, if we need these things to keep our diplomats safe in these countries, we need to start spending that money and not claim that we don't have enough money.”

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I don't know how you guy's miss stuff.. You'll complain about how STUPID we are, but you don't connect it to FIRING teachers...

I maintain, that SLASHING a security budget DOES put people in jeopardy. Deny it again, if you wish..

excon

[tomder55]

Yes I do deny it, and so did Charlene Lamb ,a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya

State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi - YouTube

[paraclete]

yes I do deny it, and so did Charlene Lamb ,a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya

State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi - YouTube

No wonder there is a war on women

[tomder55]

Yesterday Evita fell on her sword for the President. However ,her' take the responsibility ' statement will not end this.

[talaniman]

Its not supposed to end it, only a thorough investigation can do that and not the Issa witch hunt in the house, muddying the waters for political gain. Now you may say the house has a right to get answers, and I agree but does their also have to be a camera to expose very sensitive information?

I thought you guys had learned from the Plame affair about mixing politics with objective facts.

[tomder55]

Lol they were real time photos that the State Dept provided .

[talaniman]

I am sure they weren't supposed to be broadcasted were they?

[tomder55]

They were presented in open testimony . Republic members of the committee ;recognizing that there may be national security implications ,tried to move the meeting to closed session.

[paraclete]

What are they afraid of they, might tell Al Qaeda something they already know?

[talaniman]

That's the problem with these witch hunts to exploit tragedies in public in the name of investigations.

I guess discreet never crossed any ones minds?