Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

For those that r interested......Benghazi special tonight.

Posted by   + Show Post


An investigative report on the  'video', FBI investigation, timeline etc.........

by on Jun. 28, 2013 at 9:14 PM
Replies (11-17):
grandmab125
by Platinum Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 8:29 PM

 That is a fallacy.  It never happened.

Quoting JanetMonroe1991:

 

Did it show the fact that when Obama asked a year before for more money to add security there the republicans in the house said no? 

Quoting pvtjokerus:

To sum it up.  It showed a good time-line.  What was sad is what the gov did during that time-line.  Hicks did everything he could while others didn't.....

 

 

 

grandma B

grandmab125
by Platinum Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 8:34 PM

 I watched this, and Bret Baier did an excellent job on it.

joey125
by Silver Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Fox news upsets my stomach lol  can't watch

survivorinohio
by Rene on Jun. 29, 2013 at 8:45 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting joey125:

Fox news upsets my stomach lol  can't watch

yep

How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong.  Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.  GeorgeWashingtonCarver


joey125
by Silver Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 8:58 PM

lol

JanetMonroe1991
by Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 10:00 PM

I beg to differ....


Quote:

Or, more plausibly, reason number two…

Could it have been the Republicans who consistently voted against funds for increased embassy security? Hmmm…that makes their current carping seem awfully political, doesn’t it? Again, sins of politics are not mortal. But one does wonder why the Republicans tend to fix on issues like this, which are defined by their absence of substance. (I haven’t noticed the Republicans clamoring to spend more on embassy security–which would be a matter of substance, happily embraced by the Administration.But that would require a budget deal, which would give the President a win.)


http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/benghazi-again/


Quoting grandmab125:

 That is a fallacy.  It never happened.

Quoting JanetMonroe1991:


Did it show the fact that when Obama asked a year before for more money to add security there the republicans in the house said no? 

Quoting pvtjokerus:

To sum it up.  It showed a good time-line.  What was sad is what the gov did during that time-line.  Hicks did everything he could while others didn't.....



 



grandmab125
by Platinum Member on Jun. 29, 2013 at 10:22 PM

 Beg all you want.  You are drinking the kool-aid again.  A budget decrease never happened.  In Ryan's budget proposal, there was a decrease, but that budget, along with every other one sits on Harry Reid's desk.  Obama never signed one.  They have been operating for the last three years on continued resolutions.  You do know what a continued resolution is, don't you?

 

Read and learn:

 

Libya Security Lapse: The Budget for Embassy Security Is Not Responsible

 

October 11, 2012 at 10:02 am

 

(29)

 

There has been some back and forth between Republicans and Democrats over funding for security in Libya in the wake of Ambassador Chris Stevens's death. Republicans have questioned whether the State Department had adequate security to protect the ambassador, and Democrats have countered that Republicans tried to cut funding for embassy security. What does the budget record show?

 

According to the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations (p. 11), overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. Despite reductions from budget peaks in FY 2009 and FY 2010, both budget lines are higher than in FY 2008. (continues below chart)

 

 

Comparing FY 2011 actual funding versus the FY 2012 estimate, there appears to be a reduction in Worldwide Security Protection and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance. But that reduction does not account for additional funding in FY 2012 from Overseas Contingency Operations funds amounting to $236 million for Worldwide Security Protection (p. 63) and $33 million for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (p. 467). As a result, total funds for Worldwide Security Protection for FY 2012 are estimated to be $94 million higher than in FY 2011, while Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance is estimated to be $61 million less than FY 2011. Together, there is a net increase.

 

In terms of people, the budget justification reported that Worldwide Security Protection had slightly fewer positions budgeted (1,777 in FY 2011 versus 1,707 in FY 2012) and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance had the same number of positions budgeted (1,014 for both years).

 

In its budget request for FY 2013, the Administration requested significantly more funding for embassy security-mostly through the Overseas Contingency Operations budget-but retained the same number of positions, apparently on the assumption that security staffing was adequate. Regardless, that budget, even if approved in its entirety, would have entered into effect after the events in Libya.

 

It is tempting to look for a scapegoat for the tragic events in Libya. However, if one exists, the overall budget for embassy security is not it. Funding for that purpose has risen sharply over the past decade. Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.

 

 

  

 

Quoting JanetMonroe1991:

I beg to differ....

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Or, more plausibly, reason number two...

 

Could it have been the Republicans who consistently voted against funds for increased embassy security? Hmmm...that makes their current carping seem awfully political, doesn't it? Again, sins of politics are not mortal. But one does wonder why the Republicans tend to fix on issues like this, which are defined by their absence of substance. (I haven't noticed the Republicans clamoring to spend more on embassy security-which would be a matter of substance, happily embraced by the Administration.But that would require a budget deal, which would give the President a win.)

 


http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/benghazi-again/

 

 

 

Quoting grandmab125:

 That is a fallacy.  It never happened.

 

Quoting JanetMonroe1991:

 

 

Did it show the fact that when Obama asked a year before for more money to add security there the republicans in the house said no? 

 

Quoting pvtjokerus:

To sum it up.  It showed a good time-line.  What was sad is what the gov did during that time-line.  Hicks did everything he could while others didn't.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

grandma B

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN