Jump to content

Has Anyone Paid The Price For Benghazi, IRS, AP, Or The DoJ F-Ups?


Rayj
 Share

Recommended Posts

???

 

Just curious....

The only people responsible for Benghazi are the people who carried out the attack, and Republicans who voted to cut funding for embassy security.

 

The only people guilty of any wrongdoing for the IRS story are the tea party groups that violated their 503c status and should be prosecuted for tax fraud.

 

The only person guilty of any wrong doing in the AP story is the traitor who exposed an undercover agent who successfully managed to infiltrate Al Qaeda and prevented a terrorist attack. That AP journalist definitely should be sitting in federal prison right now. He's a total piece of shit and a traitor to the country. AP is now a discredited news organization.

 

The only DOJ f-ups is their failure to prosecute and send to federal prison thousands of bankers and corporate types who caused the worst recession since the great depression.

 

I whole heartedly agree. Terrorists in Benghazi, Derelict Republicans who have been failures in foreign policy since the 9-11 attacks, tea party tax frauds, irresponsible journalists who expose heroes that prevent terrorist attacks, and DOJ officials that have failed to hold bankers, and CEO's responsible for economic terrorism should definitely be punished to the full extent of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only people responsible for Benghazi are the people who carried out the attack, and Republicans who voted to cut funding for embassy security.

You know this claim is a lie, because I've shoved it up your ass repeatedly.

Republicans voted for a bill that would have cut security funding in some areas, but increased it in others, resulting in a net INCREASE in security spending. This bill was killed by Harry Reid in the Senate.

 

You sir, are a lying sack of shit.

 

 

Hillary will be held responsible for Benghazi when she runs for President.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know this claim is a lie, because I've shoved it up your ass repeatedly.

Republicans voted for a bill that would have cut security funding in some areas, but increased it in others, resulting in a net INCREASE in security spending. This bill was killed by Harry Reid in the Senate.

 

You sir, are a lying sack of shit.

 

 

Hillary will be held responsible for Benghazi when she runs for President.

 

 

This is a Golfboy quote from another thread:

 

Golfboy said,

 

"Once again, you can't debate the facts presented, so you insult.

:yawn:

 

I feel sorry for someone like you who is so ill equipped to engage in a battle of wits, yet unable to keep his mouth shut."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a Golfboy quote from another thread:

 

Golfboy said,

 

"Once again, you can't debate the facts presented, so you insult.

:yawn:

 

I feel sorry for someone like you who is so ill equipped to engage in a battle of wits, yet unable to keep his mouth shut."

He IS a lying sack of shit, just as I said.

What is there to debate when someone (like you) repeats lies ad nauseum, when they KNOW they are lies?

 

If you'd like to debate instead of doing nothing but attacking me, how about tackling my response to him, which you ignored:

Republicans voted for a bill that would have cut security funding in some areas, but increased it in others, resulting in a net INCREASE in security spending. This bill was killed by Harry Reid in the Senate.

 

Or are you simply too ill informed to debate?

 

Feel free to attempt to refute these facts:

 

 

 

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

special-libya-security-coll.jpg

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

 

Facts suck when you're a liberal.

Now run away, like you always do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He IS a lying sack of shit, just as I said.

What is there to debate when someone (like you) repeats lies ad nauseum, when they KNOW they are lies?

 

 

 

 

This is a Golfboy quote from another thread:

 

Golfboy said,

 

"Once again, you can't debate the facts presented, so you insult.

:yawn:

 

I feel sorry for someone like you who is so ill equipped to engage in a battle of wits, yet unable to keep his mouth shut."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong LoreD? Unable to debate the facts?

Gee, how surprising.

 

Not with insults!

 

 

You know this claim is a lie, because I've shoved it up your ass repeatedly.

Republicans voted for a bill that would have cut security funding in some areas, but increased it in others, resulting in a net INCREASE in security spending. This bill was killed by Harry Reid in the Senate.

 

You sir, are a lying sack of shit.

 

 

Hillary will be held responsible for Benghazi when she runs for President.

 

 

 

 

This is a Golfboy quote from another thread:

 

Golfboy said,

 

"Once again, you can't debate the facts presented, so you insult.

:yawn:

 

I feel sorry for someone like you who is so ill equipped to engage in a battle of wits, yet unable to keep his mouth shut."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???

 

Just curious....

Short answer...yes. Ambassador Stevens ...mostly a hero...made a fatal miscalculation.

 

I'd guess someone at NHS is in some trouble for "excess and Snowden...has to live in Russia. IRS...well...there the matter is that mid level folks had to try to make a VERY bad law ..sort of..work as written..then A-holes bitched and bitched about that. It's WRONG to pass a CORRUPT rule, then have contradictions...then blame the people who got STUCK with trying to do an honest job.

 

I guess some folks got some career setback...which was likely unfair. As for the DOJ failing to prosecute bankers-brokers etc...who ..no doubt earned some hassle, you need LAWS to cover crap in advance, and while in some cases, I'd prosecute on FRAUD...a trend is that FRAUD is not prosecuted much as a rather light and general charge. Probably ought to be.

 

NHS was always VERY secretive...but was not typically hiring TEMPS like Snowden. Add in the whole Homeland Security thing...no surprise they want to know who calls phone numbers of suspected terrorists. No BFD. The system has no ability to actually "tap" my phone...unless I'm Dialling Al Qaeda..in which case there's grounds for further steps. NSA is doing...basically...stuff they alays do. The TECH is a bit more fancy now.

 

None of this stuff...is of much merit as to prosecutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You know this claim is a lie, because I've shoved it up your ass repeatedly.

Republicans voted for a bill that would have cut security funding in some areas, but increased it in others, resulting in a net INCREASE in security spending. This bill was killed by Harry Reid in the Senate.

 

You sir, are a lying sack of shit.

 

 

Hillary will be held responsible for Benghazi when she runs for President.

 

 

Then debate without insults.

Why don't you defend Screws lie that Republicans cut embassy security, when they did not.

I can't WAIT to hear this.

 

 

You seem to be the one insulting everyone, but since you wanted some information:

 

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rep-chaffetz-says-he-absolutely-cut-funding-for-embassy-security/

 

Rep. Chaffetz says he "absolutely" voted to cut funding for embassy security

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) criticizes the handling of Libyan consulate security despite voting to cut embassy funding.

 

 

in the interview, CNN Anchor Soledad O’Brien asks, “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?”

 

Chaffetz answers, “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have… 15,0000 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 touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

 

Libya attack: Congressmen casting blame voted to cut diplomatic security budget http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2012/1005/Libya-attack-Congressmen-casting-blame-voted-to-cut-diplomatic-security-budget

Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Darrell Issa claim the Benghazi consulate sought more security before the deadly attack. They also both voted to cut the State Department's embassy security budget.

 

 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz ® of Utah (left) and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa ® of California, both claim the Benghazi consulate sought more security before the deadly Sept. 11 Libya attack, voted to cut the State Department's embassy security budget...

 

In 2011 they came in and passed a continuing resolution for the remainder of that fiscal year. The House proposed $70 million cut in the WSP and they proposed a $204 million cut in Embassy security," says Mr. Lilly. "Then the next year, fiscal 2012, they cut worldwide security by $145 million and embassy security by $376 million. This year's bill is the same thing all over again. The House has cut the worldwide security budget $149 million below the request."

 

Editorial

As part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion. In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016.

 

 

 

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny

 

 

By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/12 10:41 PM EDT

Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.

Democrats are scrutinizing the GOP proposals in the wake of attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates in the Middle East, one of which saw Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans murdered.

 

“This is a disturbing example of the Republicans’ meat-ax approach to cutting every aspect of the government, no matter how essential,” said Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) in a statement to The Hill.

 

Republicans hit back, saying the GOP-controlled House has voted for money to ensure the safety of diplomatic staff overseas, and accused Democrats of using last week’s violence to score cheap political points.

 

“It is extremely distasteful that some ill-informed Democrat staff are using the instability and violence abroad to score cheap political hits,” said Jennifer Hing, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee.

“For over a decade, the Congress has made strong and necessary investments to ensure the safety and security of our diplomatic facilities and staff overseas,” Hing said.

 

“These investments will continue to be a priority, and the committee will continue to make decisions that focus funding on programs that have the most benefit to the American people — both here and abroad.”

 

Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.

 

The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.

 

The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.

 

For fiscal 2013, the administration requested $2.15 billion in funding for the worldwide security protection program, a larger increase from the previous year. The House countered with a proposal to increase the program to $1.934 billion.

 

The House appropriations bills funding the State Department and foreign operations for fiscal 2013 and 2012 did not receive floor votes as standalone bills. Instead, they were used or intended as starting points for negotiations with the Senate and the administration.

A normally obscure disagreement over funding levels to improve embassy security has taken on new relevance in the wake of the attack in Libya and violent protests at U.S. embassies in Yemen, Tunisia and Indonesia.

 

Republicans argue last week’s attacks are the result of a weak foreign policy under President Obama, and a top adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign last week said they would not have happened under the GOP nominee’s watch.

 

“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Romney adviser Richard Williamson told The Washington Post. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

But Democrats argue the security cuts pushed by Republicans mean diplomats would be more vulnerable if the GOP controlled both the White House and legislative branch.

 

“When House Republicans protect budget-busting tax breaks for millionaires first, and slash embassy security, they reveal that their tough talk on national security is really just hollow words,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

A House Republican aide said the Appropriations Committee gave Obama all of the $689 million he requested for security upgrades under the embassy security, construction and maintenance portion of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies bill.

 

But House Republicans did not meet the president’s request for the department’s worldwide security protection program, which funds local guards and security enhancements such as bollards to restrict vehicle traffic, according to an aide familiar with the debate. Embassy security, construction and maintenance funding covers structural renovations, such as increasing a building’s distance from a public road and reducing vulnerability to car bombs.

 

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), who formerly headed the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the State Department, has worked to improve the security of diplomatic facilities since the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. That effort has resulted in the completion of 94 new diplomatic facilities and the transfer of 27,000 people to more secure places, according to a House GOP aide.

 

But the GOP aide acknowledged, “In these tight budget times, the committee has had to make some tough choices to prioritize funding.”

Embassy security funding will be reduced further if automatic spending cuts established by the 2011 Budget Control Act take place as scheduled. Under the so-called sequestration process, embassy security, construction and maintenance funding would shrink by $129 million, or 8.2 percent.

 

The State Department is constantly renovating its embassies and consulates to improve their security in the face of evolving threats.

“An embassy built 50 years ago is not going to have the same security capabilities,” said a Democratic aide familiar with the program.

Another aide with knowledge of the State Department’s efforts to improve security said the consulate in Benghazi, where Stevens and other Americans died, was considered a “temporary facility.” It was not on the administration’s request list for structural improvements for fiscal 2012 or 2013, according to the source.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, which is controlled by Democrats, sought lower funding levels compared to the administration’s request for State Department security programs and embassy security, construction and maintenance. But it proposed more generous allocations than did House Republicans.

 

The Senate versions of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies appropriations bills for fiscal 2012 and 2013 proposed $396 million more than House legislation for the department’s security programs, including for local guards.

 

The Senate bills for 2012 and 2013 called for $245 million more for embassy security, construction and maintenance, compared to the House bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dumbfuhk TEApublikicans are paying the price for Benghazi by politicizing the tragic deaths of Americans for poliitical points.

 

Keep doing so please.

I hope they keep bringing it up... Someone will pay dearly.....come 2014/16...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This is a Golfboy quote from another thread:

 

Golfboy said,

 

"Once again, you can't debate the facts presented, so you insult.

:yawn:

 

I feel sorry for someone like you who is so ill equipped to engage in a battle of wits, yet unable to keep his mouth shut."

So what? GB responds in kind like everybody else. Taking something from another thread means nothing.

Are you desperate to defend somebody? I suppose with Bammy in there it's an automatic reaction. Defend, defend, defend.

 

 

 

 

I couldn't help myself, GB. Target-rich environment :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to be the one insulting everyone, but since you wanted some information:

 

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rep-chaffetz-says-he-absolutely-cut-funding-for-embassy-security/

 

Rep. Chaffetz says he "absolutely" voted to cut funding for embassy security

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) criticizes the handling of Libyan consulate security despite voting to cut embassy funding.

 

 

in the interview, CNN Anchor Soledad O’Brien asks, “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?”

 

Chaffetz answers, “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have… 15,0000 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 touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

 

Libya attack: Congressmen casting blame voted to cut diplomatic security budget http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2012/1005/Libya-attack-Congressmen-casting-blame-voted-to-cut-diplomatic-security-budget

Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Darrell Issa claim the Benghazi consulate sought more security before the deadly attack. They also both voted to cut the State Department's embassy security budget.

 

 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz ® of Utah (left) and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa ® of California, both claim the Benghazi consulate sought more security before the deadly Sept. 11 Libya attack, voted to cut the State Department's embassy security budget...

 

In 2011 they came in and passed a continuing resolution for the remainder of that fiscal year. The House proposed $70 million cut in the WSP and they proposed a $204 million cut in Embassy security," says Mr. Lilly. "Then the next year, fiscal 2012, they cut worldwide security by $145 million and embassy security by $376 million. This year's bill is the same thing all over again. The House has cut the worldwide security budget $149 million below the request."

 

Editorial

As part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion. In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016.

 

 

 

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny

 

 

By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/12 10:41 PM EDT

Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.

Democrats are scrutinizing the GOP proposals in the wake of attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates in the Middle East, one of which saw Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans murdered.

 

“This is a disturbing example of the Republicans’ meat-ax approach to cutting every aspect of the government, no matter how essential,” said Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) in a statement to The Hill.

 

Republicans hit back, saying the GOP-controlled House has voted for money to ensure the safety of diplomatic staff overseas, and accused Democrats of using last week’s violence to score cheap political points.

 

“It is extremely distasteful that some ill-informed Democrat staff are using the instability and violence abroad to score cheap political hits,” said Jennifer Hing, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee.

“For over a decade, the Congress has made strong and necessary investments to ensure the safety and security of our diplomatic facilities and staff overseas,” Hing said.

 

“These investments will continue to be a priority, and the committee will continue to make decisions that focus funding on programs that have the most benefit to the American people — both here and abroad.”

 

Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.

 

The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.

 

The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.

 

For fiscal 2013, the administration requested $2.15 billion in funding for the worldwide security protection program, a larger increase from the previous year. The House countered with a proposal to increase the program to $1.934 billion.

 

The House appropriations bills funding the State Department and foreign operations for fiscal 2013 and 2012 did not receive floor votes as standalone bills. Instead, they were used or intended as starting points for negotiations with the Senate and the administration.

A normally obscure disagreement over funding levels to improve embassy security has taken on new relevance in the wake of the attack in Libya and violent protests at U.S. embassies in Yemen, Tunisia and Indonesia.

 

Republicans argue last week’s attacks are the result of a weak foreign policy under President Obama, and a top adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign last week said they would not have happened under the GOP nominee’s watch.

 

“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Romney adviser Richard Williamson told The Washington Post. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

But Democrats argue the security cuts pushed by Republicans mean diplomats would be more vulnerable if the GOP controlled both the White House and legislative branch.

 

“When House Republicans protect budget-busting tax breaks for millionaires first, and slash embassy security, they reveal that their tough talk on national security is really just hollow words,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

A House Republican aide said the Appropriations Committee gave Obama all of the $689 million he requested for security upgrades under the embassy security, construction and maintenance portion of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies bill.

 

But House Republicans did not meet the president’s request for the department’s worldwide security protection program, which funds local guards and security enhancements such as bollards to restrict vehicle traffic, according to an aide familiar with the debate. Embassy security, construction and maintenance funding covers structural renovations, such as increasing a building’s distance from a public road and reducing vulnerability to car bombs.

 

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), who formerly headed the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the State Department, has worked to improve the security of diplomatic facilities since the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. That effort has resulted in the completion of 94 new diplomatic facilities and the transfer of 27,000 people to more secure places, according to a House GOP aide.

 

But the GOP aide acknowledged, “In these tight budget times, the committee has had to make some tough choices to prioritize funding.”

Embassy security funding will be reduced further if automatic spending cuts established by the 2011 Budget Control Act take place as scheduled. Under the so-called sequestration process, embassy security, construction and maintenance funding would shrink by $129 million, or 8.2 percent.

 

The State Department is constantly renovating its embassies and consulates to improve their security in the face of evolving threats.

“An embassy built 50 years ago is not going to have the same security capabilities,” said a Democratic aide familiar with the program.

Another aide with knowledge of the State Department’s efforts to improve security said the consulate in Benghazi, where Stevens and other Americans died, was considered a “temporary facility.” It was not on the administration’s request list for structural improvements for fiscal 2012 or 2013, according to the source.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, which is controlled by Democrats, sought lower funding levels compared to the administration’s request for State Department security programs and embassy security, construction and maintenance. But it proposed more generous allocations than did House Republicans.

 

The Senate versions of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies appropriations bills for fiscal 2012 and 2013 proposed $396 million more than House legislation for the department’s security programs, including for local guards.

 

The Senate bills for 2012 and 2013 called for $245 million more for embassy security, construction and maintenance, compared to the House bills.

 

It's good of you to finally tackle the issue.

Now, why did you ignore the fact that when you say Republicans cut funding for embassy security, the amount of money went up?

 

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

special-libya-security-coll.jpg

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

 

 

You dumbfuhk TEApublikicans are paying the price for Benghazi by politicizing the tragic deaths of Americans for poliitical points.

 

Keep doing so please.

 

 

What price?

GOP erases 9-point deficit in generic congressional ballot

Republicans Regain Lead on Generic Congressional Ballot

FOX News 11/10 - 11/12 1006 RV 40 43 Republicans +3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the far right wing Washinton Times;

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/27/benghazi-attack-followed-deep-cuts-in-state-depart/?page=all



Benghazi attack followed deep cuts in State Department security budget

 

 

Investigators looking for lessons from the fatal terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might want to start on Capitol Hill, where Congress slashed spending on diplomatic security and U.S. embassy construction over the past two years.

Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer.

 


http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/From CNN factcheck:

 

Statement:

Biden: "The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for."

The facts:

According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade"

 

You actually posted a table PROVING THAT DEMOCRATS HAD INCREASED THE SECURITY BUDGETS WHEN THEY CONTROLLED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES AND REPUBLICANS HAD CUT THE BUDGETS FOR EMBASSY SECURITY BEFORE BENGHAZI.

 

But decreased the funding for embassy security during 2011 and 2012 House budgets, WHICH WAS WHEN BENGHAZI HAPPENED.

 

special-libya-security-coll.jpg

 

Funding 2010 for Security decreased from 2010 levels and 2011 and decreased again in 2012 in all categories. THE DATA IN YOUR TABLE SHOWS THIS.

 

During the years Republicans controlled the House of Represenatives

 

2010- 1,586.2

 

2011- 1,497.1

 

2012- 1,355

 

 

During the years that the Democrats controlled the House of Represenatives:

 

2009- 1,3418

 

 

2010- 1,586.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...