House Republicans propose extra $2 billion for embassy security, finally

[Billo_Really]

Too bad Dems don't control the WH or the Senate

The only thing a pussy can control, is a man!

 

[Sallow]

Why are Republicans doing this:

House Republicans propose extra $2 billion for embassy security | Reuters

and this:

House appropriators pump $2 billion into US embassy security - The Hill

After doing this:

GOP, Paul Ryan cut half a billion dollars from embassy security

and this:

GOP Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) : I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security

and finally:

Republicans have no shame

Conservative women didn't like "legitimate rape". They didn't like "binders full of women".

They didn't like this:

And I suspect many don't like their men smearing a woman after she warned them what would happen:

Hillary Clinton warned Republicans in the House and the Senate of the negative effects of cuts to Embassy security

So now they are scrambling to fund what they cut? Why? Why not leave it the way you left it. Isn't that other reason still valid?

Gotta love it.

1. Cut the budget for embassy security.
2. Ignore warnings and/or requests.
3. Wait until someone dies.
4. Blame the other guys.
5. Raise the budget.



Fucking conservatives.

 

[Billo_Really]

LOL, I love liberal hypocrits that are for the little guy, but make the little guys' life much rougher with expensive light bulbs, electricity and food...

How does something that lasts 10x as long and uses less energy, make a persons electricity usage more "expensive"?

 

[SFC Ollie]

We spend 700 billion a year on defense and we couldn't defend our embassy in a war zone? Obama should of known better.

True, but i also have to wonder why the hell the Ambassador was in such a lightly guarded place on 9-11?????????

The truth is, many ambassadors are in lightly guarded places. You can't just go station a battalion of marines in a foreign country. Try to figure out why.

Just kidding. I'll tell you why. If you are trying to set an example and influence another country, you have to do it through deeds and actions, not just words. You can't do it hiding behind a line of rifles facing the backs of Marines. It's why many ambassadors eschew security. See, an organization like al Qaeda isn't a country. They don't have ambassadors. You wouldn't hurt the Chinese ambassador because they have ours. al Qaeda doesn't give a fuck.

I'm thinking this is why Republicans are such massive failures at foreign affairs. To be an effective ambassador, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the people in the country where you are stationed. To build a bridge, you have to effectively understand them. Republican bully. They don't want to understand anyone. You know it's true. Please be honest and admit it.

Ever been to an Embassy? I've been to about 2 dozen of them. Back in the 70's early 80's the guards were US Marines........

 

[Rozman]

So is the left now admitting that they didn't have enough security at the consulate?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I love how republican's try to treat the symptom and not the disease.

The problem is our foreign policy and military aggression in the ME.

That is what is radicalizing normal, law-abiding citizens, into jihadists.

The number of jihadists are directly proportional to the amount of bombs we drop on ME country's.

The less bombs we deliver, the less bombs we get in return.

Really? So that's why we were attacked on 9-11-01? Because we went into a country and beat their ass to save another (Muslim) country?

Really?

 

[Sallow]

So is the left now admitting that they didn't have enough security at the consulate?

Was it a mistake to open up a consulate in Benghazi?

Is it a mistake to have the CIA operating either within it or close by?

 

[Sallow]

I love how partisan hacks are always partisan hacks. Or had you forgotten that it's been President Obama's foreign policy for half a decade and Libya in particular was an Obama choice.

Obama's foreign policy is the neocon agenda and I challenge anyone to state the difference between that and the "mission statement" of the PNAC.

He hasn't invaded Iran..yet.

So..um..there.

 

[Sallow]

I love how republican's try to treat the symptom and not the disease.

The problem is our foreign policy and military aggression in the ME.

That is what is radicalizing normal, law-abiding citizens, into jihadists.

The number of jihadists are directly proportional to the amount of bombs we drop on ME country's.

The less bombs we deliver, the less bombs we get in return.

Really? So that's why we were attacked on 9-11-01? Because we went into a country and beat their ass to save another (Muslim) country?

Really?

In a nutshell?

That was the immediate reason.

Bin Laden was pissed that the Saudis asked the US to help out with Kuwait.

 

[boedicca]

Obama and the Dems increased federal spending by 25% as a ratio of GDP, and they couldn't figure out how to protect an embassy.

Go figure.

 

[Yurt]

this thread is so full of fail

dems didn't propose the money, now or back then, yet, rdean still WHINES when pubs want to fund the embassies after bengazi. shit, when they don't fund them "enough" rdean whines, when they want to give them 2 billion, rdean whines.

conclusion:

when a republican does anything, breathes for example, they are wrong

 

[buckeye45_73]

You're just stupid. You really are.

Republicans are such dumb fucks, they ruin the economy of farmers in state after state. Worse, many of those whose lives that are being destroyed are Republicans. Hilarious, a whirlwind of 'unintended consequences'. My new phrase for the GOP. Everything they touch ends up being a fail because of "unintended consequences". This comes from stupid people doing stupid things.

Why Republicans are doing an about-face on tough Alabama immigration law -a whirlwind of 'unintended consequences' - CSMonitor.com

Elected officials in Georgia are ruining their economy

Immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama come at a great economic cost | TIME.com

Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business

Farmers Oppose G.O.P. Bill on Immigration

Sorry dumbass, I have a bunch of family that are farmers in Kansas, some left because of Carter....most people in Kansas HATE Carter....so do some research and get over it

Uh poor folks would rather have coal, it's cheaper

they would rather have low gas prices, and not the intended high ones the left want to force us into public transportation

They would rather not waste money on ethanol, which has killed fuel prices

They would rather have jobs instead of spending $11million to create a single green job...11 million dollars....how inefficient and stupid do yo have to be?

BGE says energy prices on the rise for electricity customers - Baltimore Sun

"We fully understand that cost increases are never welcomed," said Robert L. Gould, a BGE spokesman. "But we really encourage our customers to help offset the increase."

LOL that means use less.....

The price of natural gas, one of the fuels used to create electricity, plunged in recent years but is on the rise. It cost electric utilities about 16 percent more for natural gas in February than it did the previous year, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The industry's cost for coal and petroleum dropped modestly during that period.


I bet they'd like cheap coal.....


Study: Ethanol Mandates Causing Spiraling U.S. Food Prices | Heartlander Magazine

I think the title says it all

Report: Energy Dept. Spent More Than $11M Per Green Job Created « CBS DC

Damn 11 million per job...only liberals and big government can be that stupid

As the astronomical cost of the DOE’s loan guarantee program indicates, subsidizing renewable energy is not a good deal for taxpayers,” the report stated

no shit!!!!!!!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VquNu30hDe8"]Obama says he wants high gas prices - YouTube[/ame]


Why would you want HIGHER gas prices???????


FactCheck.org : Obama Wanted Higher Gasoline Prices?

And while fact check tries to cover lets look at these gems

Gingrich, March 20: Of course… you know that. He has said it himself. Chu, his secretary of energy, said in 2008 he wanted gasoline prices in America to get to the European level, which is $9 or $10 a gallon.
​

Did Chu really say that? Yes, but he said it before he became energy secretary and before Obama won the 2008 presidential election. Shortly after becoming energy secretary, Chu said it would be “completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline.”


Now he backs down, haha, see I love liberals when noone's looking, they're actually honest

I'm the dumbass? I post reputable links concerning how GOP policies have hurt farmers in state after state and you talked about something else. You didn't address a single issue I brought up. Instead, you repeated something you imagined you heard about Carter from decades ago and then went on a rant about another industry you know nothing about.

Hay, that's a good name for you, "Know Nothing". Perhaps adopt it? And do you think Obama raises gas prices? Perhaps you really do "Know Nothing".

Fuck you, I said how liberals hate the little guy and posted how they do it.
As for immigration, WHY do liberals like illegal immigrants taken advantage of? The reason these people like them is they work for LESS than the minimum wage....which hurts americans, and then you bitch about it, saying we need to increase the min wage. But if they arent paid it, WHY would raising it solve the issue?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Do we still have security in the Paris embassay, France is such a dangerous country. We should keep it there and not in north african or middle east countries.....that's the actual logic of liberals....

 

[tinydancer]

*sigh* rdean at it again with this false narrative aka liberal lying scumbucket talking points.

The budget cuts had no effect on the Security situation in Benghazi.

They had enough money to hire a Libyan milita didn't they now? Talk about a "worse ever idea" for a foreign embassy in a war torn region.

And the militia even warned the State Department that they would not protect Ambassador on his planned 5 day trip to Benghazi.

They were on a "mini strike" for more money and they told the State Department "no security" would be available for the Ambassador.

 

[TemplarKormac]

this thread is so full of fail

dems didn't propose the money, now or back then, yet, rdean still WHINES when pubs want to fund the embassies after bengazi. shit, when they don't fund them "enough" rdean whines, when they want to give them 2 billion, rdean whines.

conclusion:

when a republican does anything, breathes for example, they are wrong

What rdean fails to recognize, is that Lamb and the ARB said that resources weren't an issue. So what he means by "finally" is anyone's guess.

 

[Yurt]

this thread is so full of fail

dems didn't propose the money, now or back then, yet, rdean still WHINES when pubs want to fund the embassies after bengazi. shit, when they don't fund them "enough" rdean whines, when they want to give them 2 billion, rdean whines.

conclusion:

when a republican does anything, breathes for example, they are wrong

What rdean fails to recognize, is that Lamb and the ARB said that resources weren't an issue. So what he means by "finally" is anyone's guess.

rdean is to facts as oil is to water

 

[Londoner]

Why are Republicans doing this:

According to Richard Clarke - the terrorism advisor first hired by Ronald Reagan - the Clinton team had Bin Laden cornered. However, they could not get the CIA to certify "basing rights", which meant they would have to land in the middle of the night and do the whole thing without an operational headquarters. This meant a high possibility for failure. Meanwhile the Republicans were crying "Wag the Dog" every time Clinton acted militarily. The Republicans, according to Clarke, had no interest in Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. They were obsessed with destroying Clinton over Lewinsky.

According to chief terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, the House Republicans had absolutely no interest in Terrorist briefings because it distracted them from Lewinsky. They accused Clinton of using the threat of Terrorism to distract the American People from the real business of the American People: Monica Lewinsky.

Benghazi and Lewinsky are the same thing: weapons to be used against Republican enemies.

 

[Billo_Really]

Really? So that's why we were attacked on 9-11-01? Because we went into a country and beat their ass to save another (Muslim) country?

Really?

We weren't attacked because of Kuwait.

Got any arguments that work?

 

[Billo_Really]

He hasn't invaded Iran..yet.

So..um..there.

With all the military hardware we're dumping into that area, it sure likes were getting ready for something.

 

[tinydancer]

Why are Republicans doing this:

According to Richard Clarke - the terrorism advisor first hired by Ronald Reagan - the Clinton team had Bin Laden cornered. However, they could not get the CIA to certify "basing rights", which meant they would have to land in the middle of the night and do the whole thing without an operational headquarters. This meant a high possibility for failure. Meanwhile the Republicans were crying "Wag the Dog" every time Clinton acted militarily. The Republicans, according to Clarke, had no interest in Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. They were obsessed with destroying Clinton over Lewinsky.

According to chief terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, the House Republicans had absolutely no interest in Terrorist briefings because it distracted them from Lewinsky. They accused Clinton of using the threat of Terrorism to distract the American People from the real business of the American People: Monica Lewinsky.

Benghazi and Lewinsky are the same thing: weapons to be used against Republican enemies.

Clinton at least didn't get Monica killed as compared to Obama and Clinton at best being guilty of negligent homicide.