E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-10-2012, 04:02 PM   #81
flashmeow
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,220
My Ride: E30-E46-E90-E90M-F30
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdyaman View Post
I think there is a little more to it than that. In my opinion, this is a Dept of State issue. Threats were passed up the chain from the RSO at the Consulate to the Dept of State HQ. Dept of State didn't provide the proper security resources. I don't see how this is a Obama issue. If anything, someone at the Dept of State will have to answer, which is why Sec State Clinton is speaking at the congressional hearing.

Additionally, in regards to intelligence, here are quotes from the Director of National Intelligence in regards to this issue:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...nough-already/







Basically, there is an unrealistic public perception of the government to have a crystal ball to predict such attacks. The government is not the all-seeing eye of Mordor from the Lord of the Rings.

And lets not forget that it took time to figure out who did the attacks, and the intimidate idea was that it was due to a video. It wasn't until later on that pieces of the puzzle started to fit together as to who, what, and why. That can account for a change in stories as the picture comes clear.
the libyan president said that his adminstration warned the Obama adminstration on a possible attack. The libyan president said that the attack was a terrorist attack but then the obama admistration disagree and said it was "spotanous."
flashmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 04:05 PM   #82
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashtwosix View Post
the libyan president said that his adminstration warned the Obama adminstration on a possible attack. The libyan president said that the attack was a terrorist attack but then the obama admistration disagree and said it was "spotanous."
source?

serious, not bashing

I've seen nothing that states Libyan president spoke to Obama or his administration.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 10-10-2012 at 04:13 PM.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 04:08 PM   #83
flashmeow
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,220
My Ride: E30-E46-E90-E90M-F30
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdyaman View Post
source?

serious, not bashing

I've seen nothing that states Libyan president spoke to Obama.

really? I thought this was known. let see if I can dig up the news.

after the libyan president interview, the obama admistration threw the libyan president underneath the bus by saying that he was lying (no prior warning, not a terrorist attack, etc)
flashmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 04:12 PM   #84
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashtwosix View Post
really? I thought this was known. let see if I can dig up the news.

after the libyan president interview, the obama admistration threw the libyan president underneath the bus by saying that he was lying (no prior warning, not a terrorist attack, etc)
I found this:

Libyan Government warned U.S. Diplomats. But Diplomats does not equal Obama and/or his administration. Diplomats usually means State Dept.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-attacks.html
Quote:
A Libyan security officer has claimed that he warned American diplomats about the possibility of violent unrest three days before the attack on the U.S. consulate which left the ambassador dead along with three others.

The country's president also says that the deadly raid in Benghazi was 'pre-planned' by Al Qaeda and other 'foreigners'.

However, the U.S. has hit back at that suggestion, with a top diplomat insisting the attack was 'a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response' to violence elsewhere

Last edited by MDydinanM; 10-10-2012 at 04:13 PM.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 04:28 PM   #85
flashmeow
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,220
My Ride: E30-E46-E90-E90M-F30
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdyaman View Post
source?

serious, not bashing

I've seen nothing that states Libyan president spoke to Obama or his administration.

I did find this, where the Libyan Government warned U.S. Diplomats which =/= Obama and/or his administration

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-attacks.html

source 1: MSNBC
title: Libyan president to NBC: Anti-Islam film had 'nothing to do with' US Consulate attack
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...te-attack?lite

cliff: In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Ann Curry, President Mohamed Magarief discounted claims that the attack was in response to a movie produced in California and available on YouTube

The Obama administration initially maintained that the attacks were directly linked to protests over the film. Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said: “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”

souce2: the independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...k-8145242.html
title: Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack

cliff: The Independent has reported diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place. The alert was issued by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but not made public

A senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack

source3: the daily best
title: Exclusive: Libya Cable Detailed Threats
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...d-threats.html
flashmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 04:29 PM   #86
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
/\

right, warned US Diplomats, but not Obama himself/or his administration. By administration I'm assuming we mean his White house staff, Cabinet members, and political appointees. Diplomats, in large, are employees of the Dept of State. There are few exceptions, and there are some senior Diplomats that have the ear of the White House.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashtwosix
the libyan president said that his adminstration warned the Obama adminstration on a possible attack.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 10-10-2012 at 07:51 PM.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 05:56 PM   #87
Swish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 285
My Ride: 2004 M3 Vert
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashtwosix View Post
u r right. I do have a bias. I love Bush and his father. the father for liberating Kuwait (the Kuwait this day still adore him) and the son for bring freedom to milions of afghan and iraqi women and children.
:lol:
Before I get back to banging my Officer wife, I have a serious question for you Flash. Have you ever really spent any time in the Middle East post 1992? Trying to figure out how you come up with the stuff you post.
__________________

"If you want to move past racism, you have to STOP LABELING EVERYTHING BY RACE / 2000_328CI"

Last edited by Swish; 10-10-2012 at 06:07 PM.
Swish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 06:28 PM   #88
cowmoo32
drunken science
 
cowmoo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,532
My Ride: Trek 1.5
Thread of the year right here crazy cat lady and gents.
__________________

flickher

What's this about a brownie in motion?
cowmoo32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 06:35 PM   #89
flashmeow
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,220
My Ride: E30-E46-E90-E90M-F30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swish View Post
:lol:
Before I get back to banging my Officer wife, I have a serious question for you Flash. Have you ever really spent any time in the Middle East post 1992? Trying to figure out how you come up with the stuff you post.

swish...i have no beef with you son. i just treat others how they treat me. since you are being nice and not ugly, I in return will extend the same courtesy to you.

yes, I do travel to the middle east after 1992 as part of my job and have a lot of middle eastern friends that I have met. however, me traveling is irrevelant to your question because HISTORY can back up my opinion.

gulf war: Bush Senior liberated Kuwait and defended Saudi Arabia. Kuwait to this day is very pro-US and plenty of Kuwaitis (sp) are very fond of Americans and Bush senior. For example, US Service members stationed in Kuwait are allowed to travel and visit Kuwait City and other parts of the country with pretty much unlimited freedom of movement. of course there are a few catches (have to travel in buddy team, submit travel itinerary, etc). Kuwait have donated tons of $$$ to the US military DFAC and MWR. In support of OIF, they sell their gasolines to us for penny on the dollars. There are no anti-us protest in Kuwait and the people there are just friendly. Before Bdfast & Maydman and those other "combat" vets chime in and say that large groups must be armed escorted by the Kuwaiti National Guard. true...but this is not to defend against domestic threats (kuwaiti) but to prevent external threats. We trust the Kuwaitis so much that we put them in charge of our security escorts when moving our Soldiers from the APOD/SPOD to their final stagging areas in Camp Virginia or to those other airbase like ali al salem.

There have been zero attacks on our service members in transiting in and out of Kuwait.


OIF/OEF....again History.
Saddam was a tyrant. Bush junior liberated the people. Iraq is an independent country now. Their people for the first time are able to vote and elect their own public officials

Afghanistan... Taliban. now no more Tailiban running the government (beside shadow governments). Little girls are allowed to go to school. Women are elected to the provincial governance. Need I say more?

Therefore, this is why I think Bush Senior and Bush Junior two of the greatest modern president of all times.

Hmm...lets see what Obama have done....nothoing....wait...he did get a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE though. hmm...but what did he get his peace price for you asked? He got the peace prize for promises that he will do when elected to President (end Gitmo....lied...gitmo is still here. Anti-nuclear proliferation promises. lied. Iran and N Korea is still developed nukes. there are no major changes to our SALT/START or its equivalent treaties with Russia since obama is in office).

They oughta take back Obama Nobel Peace prize and give it to Bush for allowing little girls to go to school and giving women the rights to vote in Iraq/Afghanistan

Last edited by flashmeow; 10-10-2012 at 06:41 PM.
flashmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 06:48 PM   #90
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,891
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3


She called you son Kevin. This keeps getting better and better.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicBoom
Europeans are stoopid. They keep splitting countries, while being jealous of our powa. Of course the EU is good for them, but does that have any real power?

Not even mentioning the efficiencies of larger countries.

As divided as this country is, at least we are one.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 07:09 PM   #91
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashtwosix View Post
OIF/OEF....again History.
Saddam was a tyrant. Bush junior liberated the people. Iraq is an independent country now. Their people for the first time are able to vote and elect their own public officials

Afghanistan... Taliban. now no more Tailiban running the government (beside shadow governments). Little girls are allowed to go to school. Women are elected to the provincial governance. Need I say more?
Correct in that Saddam is no longer ruling Iraq, but the removal of Saddam has destabilized the region. Iraq (under Saddam) was a counter-balance to Iran and kept Iran and check. Remember, the U.S. and Iraq were allies once, and after the fall of the Shah in Iran, we supplied Iraq with munitions in the Iran and Iraq war. It wasn't until Iraq invaded Kuwait that led to Saddam disapproval in the U.S., compounded by his WMD program, which he later gave up.

Here is Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

While it is true that Iraq is free of Saddam's tyranny, the country is struggling with sectarian violence, power grabs, and the influence of Iran trying to subvert Sunnis and use proxies in Iraq to serve their own interests. Iraq needs a strong ruler to unify its people.

So the ultimate question is whether or not we should have a) gone to war with Iraq (and there was no WMD) and b) is/was Saddam a necessary evil to keep in place to keep Iran in check.

In regards to the Taliban, they will always be around. They also have very strong influence in Afghanistan affairs, as well as Pakistan's. The Soviets never defeated the Taliban, and neither will the U.S. With this realization, the U.S. must find a suitable exit strategy, part of that includes, as blasphemous as it sounds, is dealing and accommodating the Taliban. As soon as we leave, and eventually we will, they will come back. The question is will they come back under amicable terms, or not.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 10-10-2012 at 07:15 PM.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 07:12 PM   #92
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 11,898
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post


She called you son Kevin. This keeps getting better and better.
That was a classic moment.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 07:15 PM   #93
Swish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 285
My Ride: 2004 M3 Vert
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashtwosix View Post
swish...i have no beef with you son. i just treat others how they treat me. since you are being nice and not ugly, I in return will extend the same courtesy to you.

yes, I do travel to the middle east after 1992 as part of my job and have a lot of middle eastern friends that I have met. however, me traveling is irrevelant to your question because HISTORY can back up my opinion.

gulf war: Bush Senior liberated Kuwait and defended Saudi Arabia. Kuwait to this day is very pro-US and plenty of Kuwaitis (sp) are very fond of Americans and Bush senior. For example, US Service members stationed in Kuwait are allowed to travel and visit Kuwait City and other parts of the country with pretty much unlimited freedom of movement. of course there are a few catches (have to travel in buddy team, submit travel itinerary, etc). Kuwait have donated tons of $$$ to the US military DFAC and MWR. In support of OIF, they sell their gasolines to us for penny on the dollars. There are no anti-us protest in Kuwait and the people there are just friendly. Before Bdfast & Maydman and those other "combat" vets chime in and say that large groups must be armed escorted by the Kuwaiti National Guard. true...but this is not to defend against domestic threats (kuwaiti) but to prevent external threats. We trust the Kuwaitis so much that we put them in charge of our security escorts when moving our Soldiers from the APOD/SPOD to their final stagging areas in Camp Virginia or to those other airbase like ali al salem.

There have been zero attacks on our service members in transiting in and out of Kuwait.


OIF/OEF....again History.
Saddam was a tyrant. Bush junior liberated the people. Iraq is an independent country now. Their people for the first time are able to vote and elect their own public officials

Afghanistan... Taliban. now no more Tailiban running the government (beside shadow governments). Little girls are allowed to go to school. Women are elected to the provincial governance. Need I say more?

Therefore, this is why I think Bush Senior and Bush Junior two of the greatest modern president of all times.

Hmm...lets see what Obama have done....nothoing....wait...he did get a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE though. hmm...but what did he get his peace price for you asked? He got the peace prize for promises that he will do when elected to President (end Gitmo....lied...gitmo is still here. Anti-nuclear proliferation promises. lied. Iran and N Korea is still developed nukes. there are no major changes to our SALT/START or its equivalent treaties with Russia since obama is in office).

They oughta take back Obama Nobel Peace prize and give it to Bush for allowing little girls to go to school and giving women the rights to vote in Iraq/Afghanistan
Thanks for the reply... My question is totally relevant to your travels in the ME. Its easy for the media to portray solidarity in the ME to the American public because of ignorance. Last few times I've been over there (even in peaceful ME), I get the impression its 50/50 love/hate for Americans and our presence (I was there in 2010). Again, thanks for the reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post


She called you son Kevin. This keeps getting better and better.
Yeah, isnt it cute
__________________

"If you want to move past racism, you have to STOP LABELING EVERYTHING BY RACE / 2000_328CI"
Swish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 07:18 PM   #94
330iPilot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 579
My Ride: Titanium Silver 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by 217Bimmer View Post
tried using the search function, but couldn't find any reaction from you two in response to the TWELVE embassy attacks under bush. i know you don't like bringing up the past, but i just wanted to confirm that you had the same outrage under our former leader and were not holding our current president to a different standard due to your obvious bias.
Did any of the embassies have intel prior to the attack where they had asked the White House for additional security and the request was ignored? Were any of those attacks successful enough where they were able to overrun the compound and kill the ambassador?

If you are in a consulate in a hostile area there is an expected level of hostility at any given time. And with good intel you can increase and decrease your security at any given time to be able to react to threats as they arise. I don't ever recall hearing about any of the attacks that you are referring to that the consulate had plenty of warning prior to the attack and that no measures were taken to deal with the threat.
330iPilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 07:27 PM   #95
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by 330iPilot View Post
Did any of the embassies have intel prior to the attack where they had asked the White House for additional security and the request was ignored? Were any of those attacks successful enough where they were able to overrun the compound and kill the ambassador?

If you are in a consulate in a hostile area there is an expected level of hostility at any given time. And with good intel you can increase and decrease your security at any given time to be able to react to threats as they arise. I don't ever recall hearing about any of the attacks that you are referring to that the consulate had plenty of warning prior to the attack and that no measures were taken to deal with the threat.
I'd like to point out that I don't believe Embassies ask the White House directly for additional support. That's not how the chain of command works. Embassies, through their security officers, notify State Dept HQ.

I'm not saying that Embassies can't contact the WH directly, especially if it's a political or highly sensitive issue, but more often than not, resources are allocated from State Dept HQ.

All we know, based off the media, is that the Libyan Government warned US Diplomats three days prior to the incident. However, as DNI has stated in this article: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...nough-already/

threats are the new norm that occur on an everyday basis. Being a diplomat overseas is putting yourself at risk where some warnings you heed, others you don't. As far as we know - from what the media has reported - is that yes, the consulate asked for additional security twice. However, that decision somehow didn't get addressed within the State Dept.

Quote:
coincided with a request by the State Department's top security official in Libya asking for extra security for the consulate in Benghazi.

The official received no response from superiors
Quote:
Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer in Libya until July, had conveyed concerns about the Libyan government's ability overall to protect American diplomatic facilities.

Moreover, he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and again in July requesting additional security agents for the Benghazi post, but did not receive any response


http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...-libya-attack/

Last edited by MDydinanM; 10-10-2012 at 07:33 PM.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 07:33 PM   #96
330iPilot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 579
My Ride: Titanium Silver 330i
As I understand it, while the request has to go through channels, the White House is the final approval authority when it comes to approving extra security.
330iPilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 07:37 PM   #97
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by 330iPilot View Post
As I understand it, while the request has to go through channels, the White House is the final approval authority when it comes to approving extra security.
I think that depends on the country, context, situation, threat, etc. Normally the decision resides within the State Dept, especially if it's just adding DSS agents. One of the Deputy/Under Secretaries for State deals with that.

Now if you want to add external resources like more Marines or troops, then more coordination is needed, like with the Dept of Defense, and higher authority.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 10-10-2012 at 07:41 PM.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 07:38 PM   #98
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 537
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by 330iPilot View Post
As I understand it, while the request has to go through channels, the White House is the final approval authority when it comes to approving extra security.
Extra security requests don't make it that far. They typically stay within the state dept as mdyaman has stated. The Deputy Assistance Secretary disapproved the request.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 07:11 AM   #99
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,024
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
This REALLY upsets me. I heard a pundit on MSNBC this morning claim that Obama can't be held responsible for the reckless manner in which the embassy was not granted additional security support (after requesting it multiple times).... do you know why?

The liberals claim was that Obama CAN'T be held responsible because he's missed more than HALF of his Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs). In these meetings, the president is debriefed on the most critical issues facing our nation (top of the list is national security issues). The pundit claimed (and did so smiling) that Obama wasn't aware because he hasn't been able to attend these meetings..

I hardly believed what I was hearing. (A) The pundit is giving Obama a pass essentially because he's not doing the most critical portion of his job and (B) I couldn't believe that the President would actually be missing such a large percentage of critical meetings... So I did a little looking into it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...4e1_story.html

Quote:
President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting.

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama's schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) - the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times - or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent - falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.
So the liberal moron basically said Obama is not to be blamed because he's not doing his job.. and he was FINE with that... Unreal
__________________

Everything you need to know on muffler deletes : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=745244
Wrapping an E46 in Vinyl : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthr...ghlight=bronze
2000_328CI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 07:14 AM   #100
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 520
My Ride: 2000 323i
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...usaolp00000009

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we're talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things."

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.

"It seems to be a coordinated effort between the White House and the State Department, from Secretary [Hillary] Clinton to President Obama's White House," Chaffetz told Fox and Friends on Tuesday.

Chaffetz and Issa co-signed a letter to the State Department, demanding answers on to the Benghazi security detail. State Department officials and other witnesses will testify before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations on Wednesday.

Ahead of the hearing, some Democrats claim that partisanship and campaigning are corrupting the Libyan investigation, The New York Times reports. The charges come as some GOP members attempt to frame the incident as a failure of the Obama's foreign policy and to call criticize the administration for engaging in a "cover-up" of what really occurred.

That pretty much ends this thread.
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.

Last edited by joeski3d; 10-11-2012 at 07:18 AM.
joeski3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use