Getty Images
A fire burns at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last month.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has scheduled a fairly high-profile hearing today on security lapses at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. There's one nagging problem, however, that might cause Republicans some trouble.
For example, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a member of Issa's committee, told Soledad O'Brien this morning that he expects to hear testimony about security that "didn't meet the basic, minimum standards required for a facility such as the one we had in Benghazi." Chaffetz added that policymakers have to "make sure it doesn't happen in other places around the world."
Asked if he'd voted to cut federal funding for security at U.S. embassies and consulates, Chaffetz responded, "Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country.... When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things."
Hmm. Those "priorities" apparently don't include security at U.S. diplomatic outposts abroad.
Dana Milbank picked up on the same problem: inadequate diplomatic security is the direct result of Republican budget cuts.
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) 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.
A little something to keep in mind during Issa's pre-election p.r. stunt on Capitol Hill today -- and when Romney/Ryan tries to use this to their advantage.
Leave a Comment:
Here's something interesting I found this morning on PolicyMic - by a respectable Republican analyst: http://www.policymic.com/articles/16199/todd-akin-and-paul-broun-if-elected-president-the-biggest-threat-romney-will-have-will-come-from-his-own-party
With all due respect king lady, David Gray (author of linked article above) is not a "respectable Republican analyst." He describes himself as an independent analyst with a "Millennial’s point of view." Unless you have information otherwise? Here's how he is described on Amazon advertising his ebook.
Their shamelessness is bottomless. I doubt they even know the meaning of the word "hypocrite." (see just about any story about any of them for proof)
Aww come on, you bunch of killjoys, they're just trying to make up some support!! What's wrong with that?
RobDon: I spend more time than I ought to on PolicyMic in my realworld persona, and I interact with David frequently. He's nicer than his self-description.
All these games with what the Republicans have been doing with trying to rig this election. That in itself makes this election not even legitimate, regardless if it is fought in court to stop these outright crimes against our Democracy. And in that I can never accept Romney as a President and as just as corrupt as the rest of those Republicans with their power craving, corruption, arrogance, greed, being hypocrites, and deceiving. At this point, it wouldn’t even matter if they reran the election, since it has been so rigged and corrupt already. It is my right to civil protest Romney as non-Presidential and will never be a President in my eyes. Romney, Ryan or any Republican will never be acceptable as a President or a Dictator in which these Republicans really like to be.
Deb, I think an airline is offering free airfare out of the country if your candidate doesn't win. Oh, here it is,
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/05/jetblue-will-fly-you-out-of-the-country-if-your-presidential-candidate-loses/
Ya me despido.
RobDon - your party did bot accept President Obama as legitimate President and no one told you to leave the Country. More importantly, Deb has the right to exercise her First Amendment Right and so do you which you have. Contrary to what Republicans think the Constitution is not just for Republicans, it is for "we the people" and I agree after the voter suppression, employers threatening their employees it is hard to consider this a legitimate election. oh by-the-way that free flight works for you too......
Lorr, I agree with some of your post.
1. It is definately her first amendment right to express her view, as it is mine.
2. I have accepted President Obama as "legitimate," can't speak for others.
3. As to "threatening employees," do you not think that happens (unethically) on both sides?
4. Lastly, you do not get the option of "accepting the President," you still have to abide by any laws he or she signs, etc. If you can't do that, seems it would be best to leave the country...just sayin'.
....your article doesn't prove that employees were threatened (it does prove that employees felt that way, so I'll meet you half way). A boss saying it's better for us if Democrats win than if Republicans win is certainly putting pressure on his/her employees, but he/she isn't threatening those employees. Threatening them is when you say either vote for this person or you're fired/or you'll face some other unwanted punishment (reduced breaks, no overtime, etc). So far I only know of 1 company who has done that during this election cycle and that was urging Republicans to do the same. At the most you'd consider that to be an anomaly that doesn't say anything about either side.
Sorry, but you need to knock off the false equivalency bull@!$%#.
And seriously you can't see how flippant and condescending your response was to Deb with the whole airline thing? Is there no decency from Republicans these days? Geeze
RobDon why would I want to leave the country, I have to civil protest this election for Democracy.
3. Answer: No I do not think that happens on both sides and was surprised that it was happening on any side.
4. Answer: Not accepting someone as President or not respecting that person as President has happened for the last for years by your party. Also just because I would not consider him the legitimate President - I will abide by the Law that Congress passes and fight to have the law changed if it is wrong.
You don't understand HR laws if you think just because he didn't directly say, "vote Obama or lose your job" means he did not threaten their jobs.
"And seriously you can't see how flippant and condescending your response was to Deb with the whole airline thing?"
Hey, we're dealing with Robbywobby here, one of the biggest phonies on this blog. There can be no legitimate doubt that he did it deliberately.
Well you can add 2 to your list of companies influencing elections, when I worked at a company that did just that even after I said it was wrong to do and I did get pressured to vote for Republicans. This is a fact it happens.
Why would any of us want to leave, RobDon, when kicking your worthless ass is such a preferable alternative?
The False Equivalency Card is almost invariably played by the worse actor or side. The reason? Only they benefit. It lessens the severity of their punishment, first. Second, it causes punishment to be disproportionately doled out to their opponent.
To put it plainly, if somebody says, "well, both sides do it" you can pretty much count on a little investigation proving that their side is far worse.
....the article you linked to never says this. It says that the manager made a comment about if they voted for Democrats they'd get more money and if they voted for Republicans they would likely face budget cuts. A. this is probably true and B. he never gave a consequence out if they failed to vote for Democrats. I met you half way and conceded that it gave the impression to employees that they were being told what to do, but the article you linked to doesn't assert the argument you're making. No one was threatened either do what I say or you're fired. As far as i know that only happened ONE time so far this election cycle and it was to vote for Republicans. Like I said your complaint on that issue could easily be that there isn't enough evidence to say that Republicans are maliciously targeting unions to make them vote for Republican candidates. If THAT had been your argument I would've agreed. Instead you're taking a quote that admittedly wasn't said with the most hindsight and then extrapolating from that, that he threatened his employees. This is WILDLY different from BUSING your employees to a Republican rally and telling them if they DON'T attend they will be fired and then telling them if they DON'T vote Republican they will be fired.
As I said before: knock it off with the false equivalency bull@!$%#. It's beneath you and weakens your what otherwise might be legitimate arguments.
@Entropy- well what pisses me off is that he then has the audacity to accuse Maddow et all of being the ones who are getting more and more partisan over time.
I think it was you or DWIA who made the comment that self awareness isn't their strong suit- it's just about ideological purity and purging anything that isn't seen as part of that. Not sure who it was- but I'm starting to agree.
Yes and no. The principal virtue is loyalty; the ideology is second to the Party and changes frequently. At which time the loyal members of the Party will declare their lifelong fealty to the new dogma.
I have got to admit you have got to have some humor in all this stuff, otherwise it would be just too depressing.
I used to laugh at republicans who said they were moving to Costa Rica if Obamacare was passed. I would remind them that Costa Rica has one of the best nationalized health care systems. And no I wouldn't move, I would just have to fight harder next time.
The idea that a successful, smart business owner would claim that higher taxes will sink the business, or cause them to downsize, is ludicrous. Only a poor business owner would see lower revenue due to higher taxes as an opportunity to make the business even smaller, and earn even less revenue in the end.
Higher taxes being used as a reason to not expand a business is about as bad a business decision as there could ever be. Any business owner that would take the opinion most likely shouldn't be in business in the first place.
The ability to expand is generated by demand, which is created by customers with spending power. Lowering the taxes for the wealthy and businesses does not create spending power for the majority of Americans.
The owner will never expand the business unless he injects capital into the business, which, if it comes from his own pocket, is still a reduction in his personal earnings, more so than higher taxes would cause. Or they could finance the expansion through credit, but without the majority of Americans having strong spending abilities, the banks aren't willing to lend for expansion, once again tying the expansion to the spending ability of Americans, and not the tax rate of the owner.
I can't imagine any bank saying, "Sure, we will approve this expansion loan, because your tax rate was just lowered." That doesn't make a lot of sense.
This is an excellent point. According to Milton Friedman, hardly a liberal economist, the main cause of the Great Depression was that most of the money ended up in bank vaults in the accounts of a few very rich people. Our main problem now is that a few people have way too much money and the rest of us are just getting by.
And don't businesses get to deduct expenses for labor and equipment from their taxes?
Rest assured, that any Republican "cuts" will be blamed on Obama.
-Just as Romney has repeatedly blamed the congressional sequestration defense cuts on Obama.
Any talk of cuts will be quashed.
When should the families of the fallen ambassador's expect an apology from the Republicans who inadvertantly caused this to happen? Issa probably shouldn't have been so quick to falsely accuse Eric Holder. Instant Kharma's gonna get you, knock you right off your feet.
I'm sure Mitt's plan is to protect the Benghazi Consulate with those 3 new submarines he wants.
Issa will never allow facts to get in the way of his grandstanding.
What facts?
RobDon, if you're going to keep peeing on the fire hydrants, we're going to have to notify Animal Control that you're a public nuisance.
No, this time RobDon is precisely correct: Facts have no place in Issa's world. "What facts?" indeed.
If you doubt that, have a look at some of his prior emissions on evolution, reproduction, climate change, et cetera ad nauseum.
This is real easy,
1. Ask Ambassador Rice who told her the attack in Libya wasn't a terrorist attack and that it was linked to the video.
2. Continue asking the next person until someone says "No one, I made that conclusion."
3. Ask that person what they based their conclusion on.
See, 1, 2, 3 and we are at the bottom of it. You see, generally an administration would be very cautious making public statements about the cause of such an incident unless they had solid evidence. But this administration immediately said it was NOT an organized attack but was linked to the video. The question is based on what evidence by whom.
Um, no.
The inference may have been that the administration attributed the attack to protests over the video. But the actual language stated that they had "no evidence to show" it was a coordinated attack. Phrases like "the reports we've seen suggest..." are non-answers that merely sound like answers.
The FBI team wasn't even allowed in to the Benghazi site until last week, so it was easy for the admin to hide behind "ongoing investigations." There was a lot of reporting in the media, and a lot of assumptions made, but the administration did not say "that was a protest" or "that was not a terrorist attack."
Yes, I believe the administration hid a little too long behind "ongoing investigation". But no one in authority ever stated categorically that it was not a coordinated attack.
Why did Issa not comply with the rules of the Committee? Rep. John Lewis has said that a memo was issued which states: "Contrary to House Rules, the Chairman and his staff refused to provide copies of documents obtained by the Committee during this investigation and concealed witnesses, preventing the minority from questioning these witnesses directly in order to gain a more complete understanding of their views and to vet the accuracy of claims made by Chairman Issa,"
Why am I not surprised - Republicans do not think the rules apply to them. Republican party philosophy - Rules get in the way of your agenda - just ignore them. Democrats you MUST comply with the rules failure to do so will be immediate disciplinary action. Republicans just do not respect Democracy - they want to govern as a Regime.
Rob: Life is not a CSI or Law and Order episode. People are dead, Americans and Libyans. You wingnuts ought to try to make hay about a different issue. You will not win Republican votes being complete jerks and trying to curry favor standing over dead bodies. When you vote for budgets that cut Embassy security and cry over every dime spent by the government, there are sometimes tragic consequences.
Sure they did, Ambassador Rice and others, this from 5 days after the attack:
Granted, there is the qualifer (based on info we have at present) but what was that info and what info changed their opinioned? The embassy had been attacked before, why jump to the conclusion enough to state that it was not "premeditated?" Why not say, we don't know yet?
Lorr, if Rep. Lewis claims are true and relevant, then they should be addressed. They distract from the issue at hand, they do not mitigate it.
Rob is confused. The statement about Benghazi was in reference to not being sure if it was due to attacks or if it was due to protests, because at the time Rice spoke they didn't know for certain. As I recall Rice put a great deal of ambiguity into her answer (unless, ya know, you aren't listening for context and instead are trying to jump all over whatever you can so you can justify your already rabid hatred of Obama). The protests that took place world wide may have happened in Libya and those who co-ordinated the attack may very well have used them as cover. There were other reports, though, that no protests had taken place and that it was just an attack. In either case there was no denial that it was likely an attack, but there was ambiguity as to what exactly happened. Was it an attack that took place after rioters got out of control? Or was this a planned Al'Qaeda incident? After investigations took place we were able to confirm that it was the latter. At the time Rice spoke, however, we didn't know.
You can't use intelligence you have now to judge statements a person is making back then like that. You have to understand the context of the situation before you can get on your high horse and thumb your nose at people. For the record you were concluding that it was a terrorist attack long before there was any evidence that it was a terrorist attack. Am I to presume that had it been rioters in the street you'd be apologizing? Well since you've never apologized for anything before when you're wrong, I'm going to guess no. Seems to me you're holding other people to a higher standard than yourself. Genius
Concealing witnesses, not allowing all Committee members access to witnesses to make inquiries or denying all Committee members access to all documents shows that this is a Partisian attempt to gain Political Points just before the Presidential Election. This Committe is supposed to be bi-partisian, something dictator Issa can not comprehend.
Robbywobby is not confused, he is as mendacious as the steaming sack of Mi tt.
Robbywobby is not confused, he is aggresively mendacious.
Folks, the site is getting p!ssy about the phrase "stea ming sa ck of Mi tt".
"...we have to make priorities..." so says Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)? Congressional security allocations is not a shell game. The Republicans cut the security budget for U.S. embassies and consulates and the rest is history - Republican history. As for prioritizing, if you pull security staff from one embassy to beef up security at another YOU WEAKEN THE STAFF AT THE OTHER EMBASSY! Terrorists can play the wack-a-mole game too when requested funding is not met.
So now the true story come's to light,republican cut's in the security budget.More proof of their obstructionism.But this time, live's and an embassy were lost.This should raise some eyebrow's at the hearing's if pressed hard by the Democrat's on the commitee.
At this point, I'm just waiting for Tao to jump up and say "De plane! De plane!", because a lot of these elected GOP officials, have to be living on Fantasy Island.
I mean seriously who in their right minds, holds a hearing on trying to find out. Why our Consulates and Embassies are not adequately secured. When you have people on the Committee whose holding the Hearing. Out right saying, yes we cut funding that decreased said security funding, for those Embassies and Consulates.
That's like a Jewel Thief, hiring an Insurance Company to investigate the theft of the Jewels, the thief stole in the first place. We have a Committee holding a Hearing to investigate a problem, that members of the Committee helped create. So I wonder who gets the blame for this one? hmmmmmm
That's like a Jewel Thief, hiring an Insurance Company to investigate the theft of the Jewels, the thief stole in the first place.
Perfect!
Duh! Obama, of course. Otherwise, why go through the motions?
When Reagan was shot, did the Democrats hold hearings or even question the Secret Service? Of course not! When we should be coming together as a country, the Republicans are trying to make hay. Truly craven...
What will it take for the admin (Obama) to admit that it was blown. To send reps out spinning a video sparked the protests appears to smell of a cover up. The State Dept seems to be throwing the WH under the bus. Facts so far seem to indicate the admin knew shortly after the attack there were no protests against the video.
Blaming budget cuts on this is rediculous. NYC, which is somewhat familiar with 9/11 always bolsters security around that date. It seems common sense for the admin, in a burning Middle East, to take steps to secure people and property around that date. Blaming a video is even more rediculous.
A video DID spark the protests.
Dear lord OK people there were TWO count them TWO separate issues at hand here. There were protests WORLD WIDE over the video that had been released on EGYPTIAN TELEVISION. What happened in Libya was a SEPARATE issue that we did not know INITIALLY if it was related to the protests (protest gone wrong) OR if it was a planned and co-ordinated attack. We now know that in the case of Libya it was a planned attack, but that doesn't negate that the protests that took place in the rest of the world were over the video. Have some common freakin' sense people.
There was ambiguity as to whether or not the protests were used as cover, it was a protest gone wrong, or if there were no protests and the attacks were planned. No information that we've had at this point in time has told us that ambiguity wasn't real. The information we have now is that we're finding no protest had taken place and that it was just a co-ordinated attack and that it was timed around the releasing of that video so people weren't sure. You can't really be surprised when the REST of the Middle East is protesting a video and then an attack happens that there's going to be confusion. Again common sense.
If you cut someone's budget to the point that they cannot bolster extra security then they can't provide extra security now can they? Great job making a paradox there Tom.
The Middle East wasn't "burning" prior to the protests. Again you people need to recognize that you can't use post-hoc reasoning to invalidate someone's statement at the time. This is so hypocritical coming from right wingers since this is the defense the Bush Administration has been using for why they invaded Iraq (sigh). When the protests took place you could then say that the Middle East was burning, but since the attack took place within a few hours of the protests that then means you'd have to recognize them and recognize the confusion of the situation. And since you won't do that...
Of course they can. And do. Not only that, they're quite good at it.
The State Department yesterday came out yesterday and walked back the video as the cause of the spontaneous protest and now says it never said the attack was linked to to youtube video. They now say it was a planned terrorist attack with explosives and automatic weapons (not the tools of spontaneous protests which are rocks and bottles). Obviously if the Libya head of diplomatic security sent two unheeded cables to Washington for more security, it was the State Department (Hiliary) who was asleep at the switch. The Admin was out of touch or worse yet didn't care about a boiling situation going on in Benghazi. To have our Ambassador in Libya write in his journal that he feared for his life and for the Clinton State Department not heed his warnings is a dereliction in duty and the Obama Admin has the blood of four patriots on its hands which should not have happened if they were not so trusting and naive about the how could Libyans attack their liberator. Time for change.
Hank
By your reckoning Bush should have been a one term president or impeached because he had the blood of over 3,00 Americans on his hands. Really get a grip man
Issa is responsible for leading the charge for the deregulation of the power industry that led to California basically going bankrupt and then used it as the lever to get Gray Davis recalled as Governor which is how he got to be such a player on the right. This isn't anything new from his bag of tricks. The funny thing is that if the voters who actually compose the right wing of American politics actually looked at the way these people vote and their actions as opposed to what their rhetoric they would realize how badly they are being used. But the sad truth is that most of them don't ever check voting records beyond positions on Gun Control, School Prayer and Abortion.
"Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!"
I'd like to know why Democrats are playing defense on this at all. Shouldn't they be the ones shouting from the rooftops, "Told ya so"?
What they "told" us was that this was a protest "gone too far", it was never such a thing. Romney was condemned for his first response, but turns out he was right. You can show your apology by voting for him.
Eric - The handling of this incident is no different than from other administrations. Please give me an example of how the Bush administration was straight with the American people, starting with incidents such as 9/11, WMDs, Tora Bora, Abu Ghraib, Pat Tillman, etc.
A vote for Mitt Romey is a vote for more needless wars. He's got the same neocon war criminals that Bush did. His election will guarantee at LEAST two more wars. I hope your young enough to enlist.
"A vote for Mitt Romey is a vote for more needless wars."
Unfortunately, there is still a constituency in the US for needless wars.
Whew, glad that guy's not running, he wouldn't win with that record....and neither should Obama.
Just more petulant bagger bullpucky. Isn't it about time for you to lick RawMoney's boot's?
The issue isn't funding. Even if there was double the number of guards this would not have prevented this terrorist attack/assassination. No the issue is the naïveté of this administration that the Muslim world now loves the US because of BO's Cairo speech. How could the citizens of Libya attack the consulate of its liberator? So the knee jerk reaction is to blame this awfully made youtube video that know one had seen. The BO administration sends out Susan Rice to say that this attack was due to the YouTube video.
Now the State Department says that they said there never was a protest outside the consulate and that this was a planned terrorist attack. The head of the diplomatic security had sent two cables in March and July asking for additional security which went unneeded. No funding was not the cause of these unnecessary American deaths, it was the arrogance, ignorance and naïveté of this current administration.
The citizens of Libya didn't attack the consulate. The attackers were not Libyan and the Libyan people helped to defend the consulate.
FOR THE LAST DAMN TIME PEOPLE you are confusing the fact that YOU didn't see the video and that the video was only released on YouTube here in America with what happened in the Middle East. The video was released on Egyptian television on a network much like Fox in which there was a roundtable discussing the video and whether or not this was evidence of the US' holy war against Islam. THAT SPARKED A PROTEST IN CAIRO and then within a few hours there were protests ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST citing the video as the reason why. The attack on Libya took place DURING these protests which is why people were confused. The two are SEPARATE issues. The only knee jerk reaction here is apparently coming from conservatives who REFUSE to recognize the complexities of what went on and instead live in a fantasy world where the attack happened and everyone had pre-emptive knowledge of it.
For the record if beefing up security wouldn't have protected our consulate then you're immediately admitting that nothing could've been done. And if nothing could've been done then no one can be held accountable. Genius!
So let me get this straight. The attack was due to lack of security, but even if we had doubled the security the attack would've not been prevented and it wouldn't have helped. Hank just created a logical paradox. Congratulations- both you and Tom are filled with such vitriol and fact-free foaming at the mouth that the two of you can't even go an entire post without directly invalidating the claims you're making within that post.
"...video that no one had seen."
Weren't Egyptians already in the streets protesting this "unseen" video?
Hank: Very few Americans tried to make political hay over the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Now in 2012 the vast majority of the right wing is trying to do just that. Shame on all of you folks. You wingnuts like to pretend every State Department or Federal employee is a political appointment. They are not.
Cartoon
You make the point far better than me!! Why should Tom and others let facts get in the way of their seething, irrational rage at all things Obama???
We should really be thanking Hank and Tom for their tireless efforts to educate us about how moronically stupid The Real Enemy is. They're the Republican Al Qaeda (arabic for "the base") in action, defending the American Hezbollah (arabic for "party of God"), and demonstrating to us every day just how ignorant ignorance has to be to be one of them. They and the people they defend are the perfect examples of what Richard Hofstadter was writing about 50 years ago:
"It can most accurately be called pseudo-conservative -- I borrow the term from the study of The Authoritarian Personality published five years ago by Theodore W. Adorno and his associates -- because its exponents, although they believe themselves to be conservatives and usually employ the rhetoric of conservatism, show signs of a serious and restless dissatisfaction with American life, traditions and institutions"
"Their political reactions express rather a profound and largely unconscious hatred of our society and its ways -- a hatred which one would hesitate to impute to them if one did not have suggestive clinical evidence ... The pseudo-conservative, Adorno writes, shows 'conventionality and authoritarian submissiveness' in his conscious thinking and 'violence, anarchic impulses, and chaotic destructiveness in the unconscious sphere…… The pseudo conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition.'"
This shouldn't be a political issue. I have no problem with congress investigating to make sure we did everything we could. But in order for me to get angry at the Obama Administration and their handling of the situation I have to wait until I have evidence that suggests they knew attacks were going to happen and yet they didn't respond with tighter security or by pulling ambassadors back. Remember we haven't had embassies attacked routinely on 9/11 so the idea that people could have or should have known is just completely bullcrap reasoning.
If it is found out that Obama deliberately put people's lives at risk then I will be outraged, but I have to WAIT until I have information that PROVES this happened. What I see here is that conservatives are so DESPERATE to make up for their horrific decisions during the Bush years that they are attempting to make false equivalencies with anything even REMOTELY associated with what happened during Bush. I guess with the desperation being that if they can muddy the waters somehow that will redeem Bush's presidency??? I have no idea.
Here we have people trying desperately to make the argument that Obama was told "Al'Qaeda determined to attack" and that Obama didn't act. Here we have people trying to argue that well all the intelligence said an attack was about to happen and Obama didn't act! Therefore he's just like Bush and allowed a terrorist attack to happen! But the problem here is that the only way you can make this argument is if you ignore current information that's available and selectively piece together an Obama-is-guilty-worse-than-Bush-was narrative while simultaneously making HUGE assumptions on behalf of the intelligence community on what was known or not known about the attacks.
Sorry but this isn't the equivalency of 9/11 people. This isn't Obama's "Bush's Moment"- just like the oil spill in the gulf wasn't Obama's Katrina, just like the previous stopped attempted terrorist attacks weren't evidence that the US has been attacked multiple times under Obama and therefore Bush shouldn't be blamed for 9/11, just like the Fast and Furious 'scandal' wasn't remotely similar to publicly announcing that a person who was proving your intelligence was wrong about Iraq was a CIA agent and a spy for the US, just like the Solyndra 'scandal' wasn't the same as giving billions of dollars in contracts to companies like Exxon and Haliburton. They aren't the same. There is no equivalency so stop trying to pretend like there secretly really is one.
"There is no equivalency so stop trying to pretend like there secretly really is one."
Sad to say, there is little or no likelihood that they will stop. They enjoy spreading such lies too much to stop.
We also need to realize that there is a national security need for the suppression of top secret information. International diplomacy is a tricky animal, and the quickest solution is not always the best solution. Many factors need to be weighed in, and different cultures must be scrutinized, understood and respected. When a diplomat is killed in a foreign country, we have to be very careful with our assessment and blame. The investigation must be meticulous and patient, because resorting to an angry knee-jerk machismo conclusion is dangerous. Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. Leave the shock and awe tactics behind with the former president. Patience, Grasshopper, patience.
Amen Eileen.
We have a naive and incompetent president who is way over his head. His performance in the debate demonstrated his incompetence. I am Hoping for Change in 4 weeks!
Hank
You get lamer by the minute. You're backing a man who can't even remember he's met someone even though he introduced himself to that person four times!
I believe Ambassador Stevens was a patriot, and died a hero alongside the others killed in Benghazi.
However, of all the people in the State Department, it was Ambassador Stevens who should have had the best grasp on how safe or unsafe the Benghazi Consulate was, particularly on the anniversary of 9/11.
He chose to be in Benghazi that day, instead of the more-secure Embassy in Tripoli. He was doing his job as he saw fit. He was a smart and brave and dedicated man, who chose to be in that consulate that day.
In 20/20 hindsight, it is easy to say that President Obama should have protected him better, or that Secretary Clinton should have ordered all personnel to the Embassy. But let's not forget that Stevens was doing his job to the best of his ability, with eyes wide open.
Thank you! After weeks of Republicans attacking Pres. Obama's administration over what was first said about the attacks the whole while ignoring what was first said by Mitt Romney after the attacks, now they've moved on to attacking a lack of security while ignoring the fact that they cut the funds for that security. Main street media won't, so Democrats should be far more aggressive on both counts because if Republicans are elected to office you can count on all whole lot more of cut first and ask questions later. All to protect tax cuts for the rich that don't create jobs, instead of protecting our people whose lives our actually on the line.
In Pres. Obama's first statement from the Rose Garden after the attack he called it an “act of terror”. It's fair to say that politics played into other administration officials statements of uncertainty about the attack but it is also fair to point out this was the best information they had at the time. Besides, you would think Republicans would support not giving terrorists the satisfaction of acknowledging an attack on September 11 before we have to. Finally and most importantly part of it was they didn't want to let the terrorists know we were onto them. Either way, politicians who criticized these statements did so for political reasons alone, because they ignored all of the more important aspects to only go after the political considerations of the first statements. This is once again another desperate attempt at politicization just like Mitt Romney’s first statement after the tragedy. What's worse?
MikeinMichigan , exactly
They interviewed the Libya militia commander who was in charge of local security , on CBS news , and he informed the ambassador that they should leave , that is was not safe there , he chose to stay , which was a brave move , and his choice
These are basically cia opporations , you never get clear information from them , because there is always 2 or 3 more things happening behind the scenes , for the gop political hacks to exploit this just shows once again they have no problem stabbing america in the back , for their own messed up agenda
How many hearings did the gop have for the lack of security in iraq when 4000+ troops were being killed ?
I hope Biden has this info for the debate
I hope Biden asks Ryan how he voted on spending cuts to the State Department's security budget.
I get it now. Insufficient security in Libya is Republican budget cuts fault. You mean Hillary our esteemed Secretary of State didn't know how to re-allocate Department resources to Embassies and Consulates with Greater need? How could anyone expect a former First Lady/New York State Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate to know anything about manpower allocation, budgets and priorities. Oh please! You have a country at war with itself and you have 3 guys guarding the consulate? We have more people directing traffic when I leave church on Sunday. You people can't be serious.
Now we know exactly why Mitt Romney publicly announces he wants to increase military spending even though the military haven't asked for it. He rightly suspects that most Americans have no idea that the lack of security is due to Republican budget cuts.
All Americans will hear is that there was a lack of security (of course Obama's fault) and that wonderful Republicans will increase military spending to be sure this won't happen on their watch. What a spin machine they are.
This should be the lead story on TRMS tonight. Someone needs to put a stop to D. "step away from the car" Issa, and expose him for the phony that he is.........
I think a bigger story on Capitol Hill is the State Department DENYING the initial conclusion that the attack on the consulate and embassy was because of the anti-Muslim film. Didn’t Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN, go on 5 major political
shows on that following Sunday saying our embassies were attacked was due to a protests getting out of hand because of reaction from the film. Didn’t Carney, Obama, Clinton all apologize for the film too? If the WH/State Department didn’t conclude it was spontaneous over a film in the beginning, why was everyone apologizing? It just seems off. If not spontaneous, then it had to be pre-planned. I think it has to be either one or the other. So, I don’t think I’m splitting the atom here…but it sounds like with this State Department denial…then the government found out it was pre-planned attack…probably that day or very soon after. Why wouldn’t they come out and
say it…”Hey, it looks like it was a pre-planned attack on US soil.” I know it has been a month…but it would be nice somebody would say something to that effect. I guess the problem is if everyone knew it was pre-planned…which Libya has been saying since day one…and we have gushing apologies over a film…it will not make the President look good before the election. Issa, federal funding, etc is important…but the WH/State Department, claiming the film as the culprit for the attack, apologies, then saying it wasn’t the film, nobody giving answers what people knew when, is a good story too….but I don’t think anyone is covering that. I think if I was the white house press…I’d ask Jay Carney… “if the State Department denies the conclusion that it was the film that started this all, what was it, does the WH believe it was a pre-planned attack if not spontaneous?” And if I was lucky enough to have a follow up question, I’d ask, “who sent out Susan Rice to all those shows saying that the film was the culprit 6 days later and why?” ….I think that would be good journalism. Somebody will ask him. I think the WH is in a box now...if not the film...what was it?
Sigh no. Let's try this one more time:
Protests broke out world wide starting in Cairo after an Egyptian television show aired the YouTube video and had a discussion panel talking about the film and how it was evidence of the West's hatred of Islam.
Roughly 16 hours or so later an attack took place in Benghazi, Libya. This after more protests had burst out than just the one in Cairo.
The State Department was not sure what causes the attack in Benghazi. There was ambiguity as to whether it was a planned attack, it was a protest that had gone out of control, or if there were both protests taking place in Benghazi as well as a planned attack (the attack using the protests as cover). The statement given by Rice was that at the time their best evidence was that last element: that there had been both protests and an attack in Libya.
2 weeks later we were able to deploy FBI and other investigators to the scene who then concluded that in fact no protest had taken place and that it was simply a planned attack. Up until that point no one had known for certain what was going on.
No one attempted to cover anything up: people are accusing them of this because people have a 6 second memory and cannot remember the chronology of events. No one knew, at the time the statements in question were issued, what was going on for certain. Their statements reflected the best knowledge they had at the time and those statements turned out to be wrong.
The apologies for the film were in relation to the protests. That had nothing to do with the attack. No one claimed that the film was the reason for the attack. no one apologized for the attack. Libya did not conclude right away that the attack was pre-planned: what they concluded right away was the same as our country- that the attack took place under the guise of the protests. Later on Libya then changed their statement as more information came out saying that in Benghazi no protest had taken place. Rice never claimed that the film caused the attack. She said the film caused the protests and that the attack took place and that we did not know which one was which.
Seriously are people just incapable of taking in complexity? It's not black and white. There were TWO separate issues going on SIMULTANEOUSLY. Get it through your head. I've explained this now THREE times on the thread.
"I've explained this now THREE times on the thread."
They have to know that, but being the mendacious people that they are, they will repeat their favorite lies time after time after time...
Cartoon and Entropy,
An old post of mine may provide a little more information.
Of course we now know now that they were not just a spontaneous gathering of angry movie buffs - I'm just curious if Libya’s deputy interior minister knew at the time that it was an organized attack.
Adam_Selene
So, it's either profligate spending or we own everything that goes wrong, including all the mistakes made by idiots on your side?
Hm. I know where I'm going to be on this issue.
What about these embassy attacks or have they forgotten them because they were during the Bush years?
2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.
2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan.
2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia.
2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria.
2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens.
2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia.
2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen.