THIS should be the headline: REPUBLICANS CUT FUNDING FOR BENGHAZI CONSULATE....

[spanone]

Last edited Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

instead we get........dana rohrabacher "This administration has lied to the American people about this tragedy"

fuck these fucking fucks.


EDITED TO ADD LINK:

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.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/breaking-protecting-our-embassies-costs-money

[valerief]

1. That kind of headline can only be seen in a country with a free press.

We have a plutocracy press in America. Freedom of Speech for the 1%.

[Segami]

2. Smash-mouth Header!! Message is Clear, Concise, Direct and TRUTHFUL!

[Shuhered]

3. Democrats With Machismo!

I appreciated that gentleman yesterday during the hearings who placed the blame with the GOP who did approve of the spending increase for Consulate security. We see where the blame lies, so lets fixit and move on gentlemen. There's other issues that are pressing, or had you not noticed?

[malaise]

4. And every single Democrat should respond to every question about Benghazi with that

as her/his introduction on the subject. Meanwhile they have money for all sorts of hearings ala witch hunts.

The second sentence from Democrats should be isn't it strange that everyone involved in the Petraeus scandal is a ReTHUG.

[still_one]

5. media working overtime to not report the full story. Most people do not realize that closed door

meeting even took place

MSM fails again

[leveymg]

6. 1 Problem: The Bill was for funding Embassy security, not missions in provincial hinderlands.

The Benghazi installation was basically diplomatic cover for a CIA station. The Agency have their own budget, which has been steadily expanded.

The measure you're referring to would not have provided one dime more for security at Benghazi.

This whole blame game is a distraction from the real issue raised by the attack: what were the Ambassador and CIA doing in the wilds of tribal East Libya, that's crawling with Jihadi militants and looted anti-aircraft missiles, many of which are headed into Syria?

[Grantuspeace]

9. I have been trying to point out that the capitol of Libya is Tripoli.

And that the embassy is in Tripoli. It would be nice if the entire country of Libya would be safe for Americans.

[heaven05]

11. that's

a reasonable query. Hey rethugs if the question is raised here, it will be raised elsewhere. I think all of thinking America should be ashamed at the shambles this country is in, and for one big reason among a few, the skin color of our POTUS. How fucking disgusting!

[riderinthestorm]

15. Agreed and a kick for your post leveymg. There seems to be as much disconnect on DU

as at Faux on some of these points.

Hopefully some of this info breaks through the noise....

[spanone]

37. disconnect this....GOP Rep. Chaffetz admits voting against more security for Libyan consulate

Last edited Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Hearings are currently underway by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), to investigate the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya last month. The attack killed four Americans; U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three security officers.

Republicans on the committee, which includes Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), want to know if politics were driving the decisions rather than security.

Congressman Chaffetz appeared on CNN this morning with Soledad O’Brien where she asked the Congressman about his vote in the U.S. House of Representatives when he voted against more security.

“So when there are complaints that, in fact, that there was not enough security, you’ve just said ‘absolutely’ that you cut that you were the one to vote against, to increase security for the State Department, which would lead directly to Benghazi,” O’Brien told Chaffetz. “It seems like you are saying you have a hand in the responsibility for this? Right? The funding of the security, you’re happy to cut it.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-rep-chaffetz-admits-voting-against-more-security-for-libyan-consulate

[WinkyDink]

20. The SECOND REAL issue is: WHY were at least SIX Top Brass fired and/or made to resign? Just sex? HA!

[SoapBox]

7. Kick

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. The Republicans have lied to the American people about this tragedy. nt

[Liberal1975]

10. It's obvious to me at least

That the whole Benghazi things reeks of the CIA. Of course, are the Republicans asking the questions that might actually be pertinent here? Mainly why is the CIA there who are they training? What are they scheming and how is our Diplomatic Corps being used as cover for these potential operations? Of course not! That would put them in the position of being anti-defense. So instead, as usual they concoct a carnival of bullshit to keep the media occupied on what essentially amount to side stories that have no real relevance to any American outside of Washington and the Beltway media.
As one poster indicated our corporate media has long ago abandoned any pretense of objectivity or real journalism. They are there to do the bidding of their masters, the one percent. It's all a con inside a con wrapped in a con. Sorry Someone must have put an extra dose of cynicism in my morning coffee, so I apologize in advance. But seriously, does anyone honestly think the media would have ever uncovered Watergate as presently constituted? Since the deregulation of our airwaves we have seen a concentration and consolidation of the media and their message. The difference in coverage of Vietnam and the Gulf Wars are a clear case in point. In Vietnam the media through itself out there to find the real stories in Irak and Kuwait they were either embedded with the military itself or lounging in air conditioned hotels and attending press conferences conducted by the military. Of course there are honest and great reporters out there still but in a culture of information overload where every truth has four or five opposing lies that are allowed to stand in an effort to achieve some false equivalence only the people who really, really want answers are going to get them. Alright I'm done, again I apologize for being so freaking cynical, it's hard not to be sometimes.

[Old and In the Way]

14. Which begs the question..are Republicans playing politics -again - with our national security?

Like they did with Valarie Plame?

I'm all for a serious discussion about the role of CIA in domestic and foreign policy. But the current bunch of Congressional Republicans have no interest in pursuing an honest discussion on this issue. Benghazi is political theater for the chumps who watch Faux News and vote for these clowns.

[freshwest]

21. +1

[Liberal1975]

24. Of course they are

What else can they do? They are a one issue party. Give as much $$$ as possible to the one percent. So when that is your entire platform what else do have left but to obstruct and obfuscate the political process? It's the political equivalent of drowning the baby in the bath water. Since the 90s Republican politicians have turned our entire political process into some sorry of freak show which includes everything, except truth. Benghazi, birth certificates, college transcripts, Whitewater, Vince Foster, blowjobs. The irony is that there might actually be some information there the American people should know, unfortunately unless McCain can wrap himself in that information and jerk off with it on camera we will never know. I have a sneaking feeling that what really "happened" involves some sort of shady CIA shit that McCain and his sidekicks in the senate won't be too eager to trumpet on the airwaves.

[WinkyDink]

23. There are dots, but not yet all the connections: the CIA and Benghazi; Rove's computers and shock

on 11/06;
Obama's first debate mien;
Romney's press conference smirk and HIS later utter shock on 11/06;
increased Security detail called by Obama for BOTH candidates;
mysterious shootings outside the White House on 11/09, the same day Petraus was summoned to resign;
the firings of more Top Brass;
the distracting and possibly false cover-story of "infidelity";
the real roles of Jill Kelly, her very tolerant husband, and Paula Broadwell (Espionage? Sex-for-sale? Money-laundering? Or mere social climbing, as with that now-divorced couple who crashed the White House dinner?);

A failed military coup connects more dots than does a "sex scandal."

[Liberal1975]

33. Agreed...

Something happened in Benghazi. What the extent of it is or how far or narrow it goes I'm sure we will never know.

The broader story should be how the Republicans have repeatedly politicized national security for petty political points.

I honestly think the Petraus thing is what was reported. FBI was asked to investigate by Kelly through her shirtless advocate. The FBI discovered the affair tried to keep it secret since it did not involve national security. Crazy shirtless FBI agent assumes the FBI is covering something up for Obama, he brings in congress, Peteaus has to resign because the investigation can no longer remain secret, and now the nation has to smell the General's dirty laundry. Someone will make a movie, bank on it.

As far as Benghazi it is certainly possible there is a lot more there. In an effort to use the attack to embarrass the President it's possible the Republicans are flirting with opening the lid on something that our intelligence agencies want to keep secret.

They are coming off as a party that has gone completely insane. There is no lengths they won't go to muddy the political landscape and try to embarrass the President. National Security, our credit rating our whole fucking economy are Not even considerations in their single minded pursuit for political leverage. I keep going back to the 90s because I think this is where it all started. Without really governing or offering any real solutions they were able to hamstring the Clinton administration with a series of bullshit scandals that eventually led to a "real" scandal. So now here we go again. It's all they have. Difference is I think (hope?) people are at last waking up to their bullshit.

[John2]

30. You

are correct and this sums it all up. Many pundits in the media are trying to influence Public opinion through their own political bias instead of just reporting facts. They are spinning and have cross the bounds of non bias reporting. The clear example of this is FOX NEWS. They are not a news organization period but a propaganda tool comparable to what Joseph Goebbels did for the Nazi Party. And any Politician appearing on that program are just validating FOX NEWS as a legitimate venue for information. And we do have certain POliticians that love to appear on FOX, even on the Democratic side.

[Mc Mike]

12. + 1000. nt.

[JDPriestly]

13. I am appalled at the Republicans on this.

On the one hand they support the prosecution of Bradley Manning (which provided he is not tortured and gets a fair trial may be OK depending on facts which I do not know) and put out a lot of rhetoric about how Julian Assange should be prosecuted. On the other hand, they want to know all the details about whatever transpired in Benghazi while the families of the deceased are still grieving and before a reasonable investigation has been completed. If those who did the killings are to be apprehended and punished, they have to be found through a somewhat discrete process I should imagine. If they find out how much the CIA and president know about them, they will get away.

As for the events in Benghazi. It appears that our ambassador and the ambassador from Turkey met in Benghazi that night and that they were quite concerned about their security.

Now the real question is why would two ambassadors have met in Benghazi when Tripoli is the capital of Libya and the embassies of both countries (if Turkey has one in Libya) would both be located in Tripoli.

It is my suspicion that something was being negotiated or carried out in Benghazi that our government does not want the world to know about.

The president and the administration are entitled to and can legally carry out all sorts of top secret, classified activities. There may be times when matters are so sensitive that not even members of Congress should know. Not declarations of war, but how about, say an exchange of prisoners for third parties (other countries)?

As an example, what if Israel and Palestine or Israel and Syria wanted to exchange prisoners (just examples, please. I have no information on this but I understand that Paula Broadwell said something about prisoners in Benghazi)? Wouldn't Benghazi a good place to do it? And wouldn't the American and Turkish ambassadors be trusted to do it? And why would Congress need to know that?

I am very much in favor of full disclosure to Congress but let's remember that the Republicans use every possible excuse to try to embarrass our president.

Assuming there was an attack on the Benghazi consulate, it may have been performed by third parties -- by some third country -- and that may be the subject of a huge investigation. These sorts of things have happened.

Further, in the recent past, some members of Congress, such as Issa have exposed classified information whether purposely or inadvertently.

Congress has to have more understanding of the necessity for secrecy with regard to some ongoing security and diplomatic matters.

In contrast, everyone is blood thirsty when it comes to the likes of Julian Assange who simply published diplomatic information that had been broadly disseminated within the armed forces. In discussions of the Assange matter, I have pointed out that the matters he exposed are not so important. They mostly happened in the past. While they have bearing on current matters, so do a lot of historical events that were once secret and are now common knowledge to us political junkies. Take, for instance, Kermit Roosevelt's toppling of a government in Iran.

If there is information about the events in Benghazi that have not been disclosed to Congress, then it is extremely sensitive. It no doubt concerns matters yet to be resolved. Congress should be patient and work quietly behind the scenes to gain understanding about what transpired in Benghazi. Their publicity about their concerns is harming our country and our intelligence and security agencies in my opinion.

Let's just wait on this one. Something happened in Benghazi, but we just have to wait to find out what it was. And in the end, it may be really none of our business.

[Old and In the Way]

16. Extremely interesting perspective.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply....I think you laid this out well.

[heaven05]

17. +1000

yet, the only reason this news is because of rethugs and their surrogates, faux noise ect, making a faux scandal, to make our REAL POTUS look bad. I am so ashamed of these grumpy old/young white men who are so pissed off at losing their entitlement to superiority only because of their skin color, and West too. How must this look to the world. There are people in other countries thinking, reasoning and laughing at the shoddiness of the Amerikkkan race relations. The reelection is a great thing, but the glow is gone and now I'm sad again. But I'll keep putting their stupidity and hate back in their faces and hopefully they will change one day.

[WinkyDink]

25. "These sorts of things have happened." and the U.S. has, more than once, been the third party.

"...attack on the Benghazi consulate, it may have been performed by third parties -- by some third country -- and that may be the subject of a huge investigation. These sorts of things have happened."

Chile---Allende.
Iran---Mosaddegh
Guatemala---Guzman.
And so on. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

Makes one really wonder about Petraeus and the CIA (let us not forget that GHWB was chief, once upon a time).

[mainer]

34. Absolutely agree with you on this. Ambassador was there for sensitive business.

And we forget that Benghazi is not even a consulate (no visas issued there), but a mere compound where meetings are conducted. Tripoli is hundreds of miles away.

There has been speculation that he was there to talk quietly about arms shipments and Syria. And the attack was really aimed at the large CIA presence in Benghazi, not at the Ambassador himself.

[berni_mccoy]

18. K&R

[FreeBC]

19. Source please?

I think I saw a republican on Bill Maher (or maybe it was another show?) a few weeks back say it was a bi-partisan vote. I'd like to clear this up, at least in my own mind. Does anyone have a link to this vote?

[spanone]

35. GOP Rep. Chaffetz admits voting against more security for Libyan consulate

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-rep-chaffetz-admits-voting-against-more-security-for-libyan-consulate

The GOP's embassy security problem
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/10/14342096-the-gops-embassy-security-problem?lite

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/breaking-protecting-our-embassies-costs-money

[FreeBC]

38. Thank you

[HopeHoops]

22. It has been - but don't expect to see it on FOX.

[NoMoreWarNow]

26. A-fucking-men!

[hrmjustin]

27. I agree 100%

[David Zephyr]

29. K&R for Spanone's OP

It should the the screaming title followed by "why does the GOP hate America so?"

[LibertyBell7]

31. Easy to frame

...since this is a point raised by Pres. Obama in response to Mittens following the infamous Benghazi Moment in the 2nd debate.

[AikidoSoul]

32. It would help if you would provide some links to this

for those of us who are inundated with work and have little time to do the research ourselves.

This is a friendly suggestion Spanone....as I do appreciate the information. I want to pass it on later on today if possible, but need corroboration from a good news source.



Thank you for posting this. It really is quite stunning information and worth passing on.

Recommended....even without the link!

[spanone]

36. see post 35

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.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/breaking-protecting-our-embassies-costs-money

[BlancheSplanchnik]

39. like I just said elsewhere--

I hate them. fucking REPUKES. HATE THEM. HATE THEM. HATE THEM. HATE THEM. HATE THEM. HATE THEM.

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.