Perhaps the most outrageous of all of Obama's endless lies

[P@triot]

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money | Mother Jones

Same thing with ACA...Oppose it, say it doesnt work then fund campaigns to strip medicare

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/u...-focus-of-effort-to-foil-health-care-law.html

Ensuring Embassies and ACA wont work properly. Thats the problem with cutting budgets...it sounds good until something happens then everyone says "not it"

Sorry chief - you can't blame "cutting budgets". Obama is the man in charge. If the money wasn't there to properly fund security, then you don't run the black op. You pull out (just like every other nation in the world did).

That's what Dumbocrats can't comprehend (and is a major illustration of their limited mental capacity) - if you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it. Not rocket science!

That idea would have worked well during the American Revolutionary war now wouldn't it??

So an unnecessary (and illegal) operation which caused the brutal death of 4 important Americans is the same thing to you as your nation being attacked on your own land and having to defend it? Really?

Furthermore, even in your absurd and nonsensical analogy, the reality still holds true. Unless you're a Dumbocrat with no concept of cost, responsibility, or basic economics. If you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it.

 

[P@triot]

And the CIA said no to more security also......

And remind me again who the CIA answers to.....?

but, at the level that they were denied is not a presidential one, you are confusing how things operate, try joining the military and getting back to me when you have a clearer mind on the subject and a little life experience...

My friend, I'd be willing to bet oh - about $100,000,000 that I know what goes on in the defense department and have more "life experience" on this subject that you and your closest 100 friends ever will. Want to bet me?

 

[DriftingSand]

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money | Mother Jones

I see that Darrell Issa might have a wee problem on his hands when he holds his hearings today about inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate. Dana Milbank reports:

House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

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.

Same thing with ACA...Oppose it, say it doesnt work then fund campaigns to strip medicare

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/u...-focus-of-effort-to-foil-health-care-law.html

Ensuring Embassies and ACA wont work properly. Thats the problem with cutting budgets...it sounds good until something happens then everyone says "not it"

Sorry chief - you can't blame "cutting budgets". Obama is the man in charge. If the money wasn't there to properly fund security, then you don't run the black op. You pull out (just like every other nation in the world did).

That's what Dumbocrats can't comprehend (and is a major illustration of their limited mental capacity) - if you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it. Not rocket science!

The money used on Obama's private vacations could have hired an entire platoon to protect American lives.

 

[Jarhead]

And the CIA said no to more security also......

And remind me again who the CIA answers to.....?

but, at the level that they were denied is not a presidential one, you are confusing how things operate, try joining the military and getting back to me when you have a clearer mind on the subject and a little life experience...

you most certainly made an ass of yourself with that comment.

 

[g5000]

Sorry chief - you can't blame "cutting budgets". Obama is the man in charge. If the money wasn't there to properly fund security, then you don't run the black op. You pull out (just like every other nation in the world did).

That's what Dumbocrats can't comprehend (and is a major illustration of their limited mental capacity) - if you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it. Not rocket science!

That idea would have worked well during the American Revolutionary war now wouldn't it??

So an unnecessary (and illegal) operation which caused the brutal death of 4 important Americans is the same thing to you as your nation being attacked on your own land and having to defend it? Really?

Furthermore, even in your absurd and nonsensical analogy, the reality still holds true. Unless you're a Dumbocrat with no concept of cost, responsibility, or basic economics. If you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it.

49 deaths during attacks on several US diplomatic missions from 2001-2008. How many requests for extra security did those missions make?

 

[P@triot]

I bet most every overseas US diplomatic mission has made multiple requests for more security. Including the ten that were attacked on Bush's watch.

I seriously doubt a backwater consulate in Benghazi was the only one.

Ah, well that makes it ok then. Why didn't you just say so? I'm sure IT professional Sean Smith's wife and children are completely comfortable with his horrific murder because you deemed (ie randomly guessed for your own made up narrative) that "every" overseas facility requests more security.

It's ok family members of those brutally murdered and then lied to by Obama - G here says that other facilities needed more security as well. Nothing to see here. Go home now....

 

[Jarhead]

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money | Mother Jones



Same thing with ACA...Oppose it, say it doesnt work then fund campaigns to strip medicare

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/u...-focus-of-effort-to-foil-health-care-law.html

Ensuring Embassies and ACA wont work properly. Thats the problem with cutting budgets...it sounds good until something happens then everyone says "not it"

Sorry chief - you can't blame "cutting budgets". Obama is the man in charge. If the money wasn't there to properly fund security, then you don't run the black op. You pull out (just like every other nation in the world did).

That's what Dumbocrats can't comprehend (and is a major illustration of their limited mental capacity) - if you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it. Not rocket science!

Man in charge has nothing to do with money to protect it. Obama asked for more and republicans said no.

Think about it like this. Repubs dont object to a cake they object to the number of eggs Obama wants to use. Then when the cake (embassy) comes out bad they pretend the eggs dont matter. Obama should magically make the cake "work"

Are you referring to the man with a pen and a phone?

The man that can make an undocumented immigrant legal with a signature is unable to sign for more protection of an ambassador?

A man that can change a law over 30 times with 30 swipes of a pen is unable to sign for more protection of an ambassador?

 

[g5000]

Corollary question: Of all the attacks made on our diplomatic missions in the past 15 years, how many of the perpetrators have been caught?

 

[P@triot]

That idea would have worked well during the American Revolutionary war now wouldn't it??

So an unnecessary (and illegal) operation which caused the brutal death of 4 important Americans is the same thing to you as your nation being attacked on your own land and having to defend it? Really?

Furthermore, even in your absurd and nonsensical analogy, the reality still holds true. Unless you're a Dumbocrat with no concept of cost, responsibility, or basic economics. If you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it.

49 deaths during attacks on several US diplomatic missions from 2001-2008. How many requests for extra security did those missions make?

How many? You're inability to say speaks volumes...

 

[depotoo]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meIL1QaOt1s]Lack of Budget Not a Factor in Benghazi Security Decisions - YouTube[/ame]
breaking Charlene Lamb testimony for the hundredth time

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money | Mother Jones

I see that Darrell Issa might have a wee problem on his hands when he holds his hearings today about inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate. Dana Milbank reports:

House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

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.

Same thing with ACA...Oppose it, say it doesnt work then fund campaigns to strip medicare

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/u...-focus-of-effort-to-foil-health-care-law.html

Ensuring Embassies and ACA wont work properly. Thats the problem with cutting budgets...it sounds good until something happens then everyone says "not it"

 

[g5000]

I bet most every overseas US diplomatic mission has made multiple requests for more security. Including the ten that were attacked on Bush's watch.

I seriously doubt a backwater consulate in Benghazi was the only one.

Ah, well that makes it ok then. Why didn't you just say so? I'm sure IT professional Sean Smith's wife and children are completely comfortable with his horrific murder because you deemed (ie randomly guessed for your own made up narrative) that "every" overseas facility requests more security.

It's ok family members of those brutally murdered and then lied to by Obama - G here says that other facilities needed more security as well. Nothing to see here. Go home now....

So you obviously can't answer my question, which reveals you really don't give a shit about the attacks on our diplomatic missions unless there is a Democrat in the White House.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sorry chief - you can't blame "cutting budgets". Obama is the man in charge. If the money wasn't there to properly fund security, then you don't run the black op. You pull out (just like every other nation in the world did).

That's what Dumbocrats can't comprehend (and is a major illustration of their limited mental capacity) - if you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it. Not rocket science!

Man in charge has nothing to do with money to protect it. Obama asked for more and republicans said no.

Think about it like this. Repubs dont object to a cake they object to the number of eggs Obama wants to use. Then when the cake (embassy) comes out bad they pretend the eggs dont matter. Obama should magically make the cake "work"

Are you referring to the man with a pen and a phone?

The man that can make an undocumented immigrant legal with a signature is unable to sign for more protection of an ambassador?

A man that can change a law over 30 times with 30 swipes of a pen is unable to sign for more protection of an ambassador?

So you want Obama to override Congress is your idea?

 

[Sallow]

Show me a department of any organization that doesn't desperatley "need" more funding.

You gotta wonder why all these folks who were "begging and pleading" for more security were doing in a dangerous place like Benghazi.

Especially on September 11 just after a criminal made a film that shitted on the religion in the region and put it on youtube..

still going with the tired, debunked talking points huh?

YAWN
oh and there were there because obama wanted theme there genius; other countries recognized the deteriorating situation and pulled out. and it wasnt because of some vidoe


libs are losers who lie to themselves

Except they weren't "debunked".

And after more time and documentation spent on on this than the 9/11 inquiry..

You guys still come up with absolutely nothing.

And actually?

It's you folks that are shitting on the memories of the people that died that day.

And every American that's been killed as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry chief - you can't blame "cutting budgets". Obama is the man in charge. If the money wasn't there to properly fund security, then you don't run the black op. You pull out (just like every other nation in the world did).

That's what Dumbocrats can't comprehend (and is a major illustration of their limited mental capacity) - if you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it. Not rocket science!

Man in charge has nothing to do with money to protect it. Obama asked for more and republicans said no.

Think about it like this. Repubs dont object to a cake they object to the number of eggs Obama wants to use. Then when the cake (embassy) comes out bad they pretend the eggs dont matter. Obama should magically make the cake "work"

Are you referring to the man with a pen and a phone?

The man that can make an undocumented immigrant legal with a signature is unable to sign for more protection of an ambassador?

A man that can change a law over 30 times with 30 swipes of a pen is unable to sign for more protection of an ambassador?

Boom!!! And JH delivers a knockout blow! Down goes CC! Down goes CC!

 

[Moonglow]

Sorry chief - you can't blame "cutting budgets". Obama is the man in charge. If the money wasn't there to properly fund security, then you don't run the black op. You pull out (just like every other nation in the world did).

That's what Dumbocrats can't comprehend (and is a major illustration of their limited mental capacity) - if you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it. Not rocket science!

That idea would have worked well during the American Revolutionary war now wouldn't it??

So an unnecessary (and illegal) operation which caused the brutal death of 4 important Americans is the same thing to you as your nation being attacked on your own land and having to defend it? Really?

Furthermore, even in your absurd and nonsensical analogy, the reality still holds true. Unless you're a Dumbocrat with no concept of cost, responsibility, or basic economics. If you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it.

Illegal? Which one?? Gun running authorized in the Senate? Pushed by Mccain and Corkrer?

 

[g5000]

Rott, without looking it up, what is the name of the diplomat who was killed during an attack on one of our missions while Bush was President, and what attack was it?

You have absolutely no idea, do you Rottweiler.

That is because you don't give a fuck. Not really. All you care about is scoring political points.

No one is fooled.

 

[Jarhead]

That idea would have worked well during the American Revolutionary war now wouldn't it??

So an unnecessary (and illegal) operation which caused the brutal death of 4 important Americans is the same thing to you as your nation being attacked on your own land and having to defend it? Really?

Furthermore, even in your absurd and nonsensical analogy, the reality still holds true. Unless you're a Dumbocrat with no concept of cost, responsibility, or basic economics. If you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it.

49 deaths during attacks on several US diplomatic missions from 2001-2008. How many requests for extra security did those missions make?

So once again, you are approving the action of "a great president" because is it no different than the actions of what you deem as the worst president.

So when someone says to you..."that's crappy looking motorcycle you have"...a valid response will be "Ibet it is faster than your bicycle"

 

[Sallow]

Sorry chief - you can't blame "cutting budgets". Obama is the man in charge. If the money wasn't there to properly fund security, then you don't run the black op. You pull out (just like every other nation in the world did).

That's what Dumbocrats can't comprehend (and is a major illustration of their limited mental capacity) - if you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it. Not rocket science!

That idea would have worked well during the American Revolutionary war now wouldn't it??

So an unnecessary (and illegal) operation which caused the brutal death of 4 important Americans is the same thing to you as your nation being attacked on your own land and having to defend it? Really?

Furthermore, even in your absurd and nonsensical analogy, the reality still holds true. Unless you're a Dumbocrat with no concept of cost, responsibility, or basic economics. If you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it.

What unnecessary and illegal action?

 

[g5000]

So an unnecessary (and illegal) operation which caused the brutal death of 4 important Americans is the same thing to you as your nation being attacked on your own land and having to defend it? Really?

Furthermore, even in your absurd and nonsensical analogy, the reality still holds true. Unless you're a Dumbocrat with no concept of cost, responsibility, or basic economics. If you don't have the money to do something, then you don't do it.

49 deaths during attacks on several US diplomatic missions from 2001-2008. How many requests for extra security did those missions make?

So once again, you are approving the action of "a great president" because is it no different than the actions of what you deem as the worst president.

So when someone says to you..."that's crappy looking motorcycle you have"...a valid response will be "Ibet it is faster than your bicycle"

Again, you cannot answer my question. That's because you don't give a fuck. All you are really about is scoring political points, standing on the dead to do it. You are disgusting.

And I have never said Obama is "a great president", nor have I said Bush is the worst President. But making shit up out of thin air is the forte of rubes like yourself.

 

[P@triot]

I bet most every overseas US diplomatic mission has made multiple requests for more security. Including the ten that were attacked on Bush's watch.

I seriously doubt a backwater consulate in Benghazi was the only one.

Ah, well that makes it ok then. Why didn't you just say so? I'm sure IT professional Sean Smith's wife and children are completely comfortable with his horrific murder because you deemed (ie randomly guessed for your own made up narrative) that "every" overseas facility requests more security.

It's ok family members of those brutally murdered and then lied to by Obama - G here says that other facilities needed more security as well. Nothing to see here. Go home now....

So you obviously can't answer my question, which reveals you really don't give a shit about the attacks on our diplomatic missions unless there is a Democrat in the White House.

What? You're the one who told the families of these people the deaths of their loved one's is irrelevant because you "think" (and I use that term loosely) that possibly other facilities (which did not suffer attacks or deaths) might have requested more security.

As always, you're incapable of discussing from a place of facts. I posted documented facts from the lead Security Contractor on site at Benghazi. All you have are guesses to defend your ideology. If you have some facts, please post them for us. Otherwise, you're just babbling....