Debunking the "Republicans Cut Embassy Security Funding in Libya" Myth

[thanatos144]

These things are what happens when you use a Paul like strategy in foreign policy....If you show weakness to killers they seize on it.

Please tell us how this Democrat fuck-up is "Paul-like", or are you just throwing shit out there because Libertarians make you look so fucking ignorant all the time?

By being a apologist pussy like Paul who blames the USA first and terrorists last.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberal participation in this thread continues at 0%, a sure sigh it's an awesome thread

 

[Lakhota]

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

 

[koshergrl]

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

What a lying crap weasel you are.

"State Dep’t rep: “We had the correct number of [security] assets in Benghazi”

"Exit question: Are House Democrats right that reduced congressional funding for embassy security contributed to Stevens’s fate? Exit answer: No. But even if they were, more Democrats voted for that reduction than Republicans did."

State Dep’t rep: “We had the correct number of [security] assets in Benghazi” « Hot Air

 

[Publius1787]

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

The State Department tells us that budget issues had nothing to do with the denial of the request for more security in Benghazi and you give us this?

 

[hazlnut]

Is there a word for a debunking fail?

Publiaso?

 

[Publius1787]

Is there a word for a debunking fail?

Publiaso?

Just amazing. Tell someone they failed but don't explain why. I guess that makes it true?

 

[Stephanie]

just ran across this
lots of links in article at site

SNIP:

posted at 5:21 pm on October 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen


Does anybody else find it kind of fazing that House Democrats really tried to blame Republican budget cuts for the inadequate security situation in Libya? Because, as Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) pointed out in the Washington Times yesterday, it doesn’t look like the State Department is exactly down to bare bones on their budget allocations — they just have particular priorities about where to spend their money.

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country. …

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”
While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it.

Ahhh, yes — it is of the utmost importance that every department stay eco-hip and have their own special “green-ifying” trophy initiatives. Climate change, you know.

As Rep. Kelly argues, this raises some serious questions about the State Department’s spending priorities. Maybe it seems like a small expenditure, but should the “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” program really be receiving funding when other security threats aren’t receiving full attention?

ALL of it here, it gets worse
Rep. Kelly: Libya got security cuts; Vienna got Chevy Volts « Hot Air

 

[Publius1787]

just ran across this
lots of links in article at site

SNIP:

posted at 5:21 pm on October 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen


Does anybody else find it kind of fazing that House Democrats really tried to blame Republican budget cuts for the inadequate security situation in Libya? Because, as Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) pointed out in the Washington Times yesterday, it doesn’t look like the State Department is exactly down to bare bones on their budget allocations — they just have particular priorities about where to spend their money.

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country. …

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”
While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it.

Ahhh, yes — it is of the utmost importance that every department stay eco-hip and have their own special “green-ifying” trophy initiatives. Climate change, you know.

As Rep. Kelly argues, this raises some serious questions about the State Department’s spending priorities. Maybe it seems like a small expenditure, but should the “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” program really be receiving funding when other security threats aren’t receiving full attention?

ALL of it here, it gets worse
Rep. Kelly: Libya got security cuts; Vienna got Chevy Volts « Hot Air

We all know that security comes secondary to buying green cars, mandated by the government , made from government motors, and touted as a success with the government as their only customer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"U.S. Embassy in Libya Sought $13,000-Per-Year Bodyguards With ‘Limited’ English; But Gave Preference to Citizen ‘Same-Sex Domestic Partners’ of U.S. Gov’t Employees"

U.S. Embassy in Libya Sought $13,000-Per-Year Bodyguards With

I guess they wanted people who could shoot, but not a gun

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is there a word for a debunking fail?

Publiaso?

I don't think that word (debunking) means what you think it means

 

[Conservative]

Is there a word for a debunking fail?

Publiaso?

"Exit question: Are House Democrats right that reduced congressional funding for embassy security contributed to Stevens’s fate?

Exit answer: No. But even if they were, more Democrats voted for that reduction than Republicans did."

Dumbass.

 

[Publius1787]

Is there a word for a debunking fail?

Publiaso?

"Exit question: Are House Democrats right that reduced congressional funding for embassy security contributed to Stevens’s fate?

Exit answer: No. But even if they were, more Democrats voted for that reduction than Republicans did."

Dumbass.

None of that matters as the Department of State said that the budget was not an issue for Benghazi. Don't give any credit to those fallacious liberal talking points in this thread.

 

[rdean]

Debunking the "Republicans Cut Embassy Security Funding in Libya" Myth

Democrats, scrambling to excuse the inexcusable, are pointing the finger at Republicans. See what MSNBC is claiming here. They claim that Republicans cut the funding to embassy security in Benghazi, and thereby, are responsible for the deaths of the Ambassador and his security crew. This claim holds no water for four reasons.

Reason 1:

At point 3:35:35 on c-span video here >> Error | C-SPAN

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.): "Mrs Lamb, you made this decision personally [to reject the request for more security], was there any budget consideration, or lack of budget, that allowed you not to increase the people in the security force there"

Response: "No Sir."

Reason 2:

Not that it matters, as we have already seen that funding was not an issue, but the bill in question was bipartisan with more Democrats voting for the cuts than Republicans. Dems accuse GOP of cutting security funding in Libya despite majority Dem support for vote | The Daily Caller

Reason 3:

The State Department got all of their requested funding for FY 2012
Libya Security Lapse: The Budget for Embassy Security Is Not Responsible

Reason 4:

Obama invaded Libya without funding or permission from Congress. So how could funding for security in Libya be a problem?


.

Obama invaded Libya? How many troops did he send in?

How many?

Say that again, how many?

Well?

Thought so.

 

[Charles_Main]

Debunking the "Republicans Cut Embassy Security Funding in Libya" Myth

Democrats, scrambling to excuse the inexcusable, are pointing the finger at Republicans. See what MSNBC is claiming here. They claim that Republicans cut the funding to embassy security in Benghazi, and thereby, are responsible for the deaths of the Ambassador and his security crew. This claim holds no water for four reasons.

Reason 1:

At point 3:35:35 on c-span video here >> Error | C-SPAN

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.): "Mrs Lamb, you made this decision personally [to reject the request for more security], was there any budget consideration, or lack of budget, that allowed you not to increase the people in the security force there"

Response: "No Sir."

Reason 2:

Not that it matters, as we have already seen that funding was not an issue, but the bill in question was bipartisan with more Democrats voting for the cuts than Republicans. Dems accuse GOP of cutting security funding in Libya despite majority Dem support for vote | The Daily Caller

Reason 3:

The State Department got all of their requested funding for FY 2012
Libya Security Lapse: The Budget for Embassy Security Is Not Responsible

Reason 4:

Obama invaded Libya without funding or permission from Congress. So how could funding for security in Libya be a problem?


.

it's a Joke. The GOP has only controlled the house, and nothing else since 08. To suggest they are responsible is just silly.

Kinda like Reporting good UE numbers, But forgetting to tell us that the largest State Economy in the unions, Failed to report.

 

[Charles_Main]

Debunking the "Republicans Cut Embassy Security Funding in Libya" Myth

Democrats, scrambling to excuse the inexcusable, are pointing the finger at Republicans. See what MSNBC is claiming here. They claim that Republicans cut the funding to embassy security in Benghazi, and thereby, are responsible for the deaths of the Ambassador and his security crew. This claim holds no water for four reasons.

Reason 1:

At point 3:35:35 on c-span video here >> Error | C-SPAN

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.): "Mrs Lamb, you made this decision personally [to reject the request for more security], was there any budget consideration, or lack of budget, that allowed you not to increase the people in the security force there"

Response: "No Sir."

Reason 2:

Not that it matters, as we have already seen that funding was not an issue, but the bill in question was bipartisan with more Democrats voting for the cuts than Republicans. Dems accuse GOP of cutting security funding in Libya despite majority Dem support for vote | The Daily Caller

Reason 3:

The State Department got all of their requested funding for FY 2012
Libya Security Lapse: The Budget for Embassy Security Is Not Responsible

Reason 4:

Obama invaded Libya without funding or permission from Congress. So how could funding for security in Libya be a problem?


.

Obama invaded Libya? How many troops did he send in?

How many?

Say that again, how many?

Well?

Thought so.

ah so all those Libs railing against US planes Patrolling a No Fly Zone in Iraq before the war, we idiots as well then right?

lol

 

[Publius1787]

Debunking the "Republicans Cut Embassy Security Funding in Libya" Myth

Democrats, scrambling to excuse the inexcusable, are pointing the finger at Republicans. See what MSNBC is claiming here. They claim that Republicans cut the funding to embassy security in Benghazi, and thereby, are responsible for the deaths of the Ambassador and his security crew. This claim holds no water for four reasons.

Reason 1:

At point 3:35:35 on c-span video here >> Error | C-SPAN

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.): "Mrs Lamb, you made this decision personally [to reject the request for more security], was there any budget consideration, or lack of budget, that allowed you not to increase the people in the security force there"

Response: "No Sir."

Reason 2:

Not that it matters, as we have already seen that funding was not an issue, but the bill in question was bipartisan with more Democrats voting for the cuts than Republicans. Dems accuse GOP of cutting security funding in Libya despite majority Dem support for vote | The Daily Caller

Reason 3:

The State Department got all of their requested funding for FY 2012
Libya Security Lapse: The Budget for Embassy Security Is Not Responsible

Reason 4:

Obama invaded Libya without funding or permission from Congress. So how could funding for security in Libya be a problem?


.

Obama invaded Libya? How many troops did he send in?

How many?

Say that again, how many?

Well?

Thought so.

Oh, bombing the crap out of someone isn't invading them? Fine then. He Bombed the crap out of Libya. Now take out the word "invaded" and insert "Bomb the crap out of." Does my statement still ring true? Yes? So what was the point of your reply? To distract? To add semantics that have no validity on the over all point to be made? I thought so.

 

[Lakhota]

VIDEO: Right-Wing Media's Libya Consulate Security Mythology Falls Apart | Blog | Media Matters for America

 

[rdean]

Republicans say it's the Democrats "fault" we invaded Iraq because Democrats believed the Republican lies. The only thing Republicans want to take credit for is getting Bin Laden, even after letting him go and not even bothering to look for him.

 

[Publius1787]

VIDEO: Right-Wing Media's Libya Consulate Security Mythology Falls Apart | Blog | Media Matters for America

The Obama Administration disagrees with you.

At point 3:35:35 on c-span video here >> http://www.c-span.org/Events/Congre...n-US-Consulate-Attack-in-Libya/10737434835-1/

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.): "Mrs Lamb, you made this decision personally [to reject the request for more security], was there any budget consideration, or lack of budget, that allowed you not to increase the people in the security force there"

Response: "No Sir."